Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Order (2003)
I've seen this subject matter treated only once before
30 December 2003
and the unsettling and lurid feeling it cast over me has never gone away. "Sin eating" was a ritual practiced during the late middle ages whereupon a professional sin eater would, for a purse of coins, consume a sumptuous meal virtually atop the body of someone who had already or was about to gasp their last breath, thereby "consuming" his sins and allowing him entrance into heaven. This was the subject matter of an entire 1 hour episode of Rod Serling's "Night Gallery" and starred Richard Thomas as the pitiable teenage son of a line of male sin eaters who is promised escape from his terrible heritage, only to be starved, beguiled and manipulated by his mother into "eating" the sins of his dying father after all. The episode was expertly crafted and succeeded completely in capturing both the psychological and economic depression of an impoverished family caught literally between the devil and the deep blue sea in a time of ignorance and oppression when a person's faith kept him in poverty via promise of purchase into paradise. The hollow look in the starving boy's eyes as he finally realized his mother's betrayal, paused, and then began ravenously ripping into the cooked flesh of the enormous feast she had prepared, his father's corpse beneath it all, will remain with me forever. The theme being the same, you might want to pass "The Order" up if truly depraved subject matter gets your goat (no pun intended).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ahhh...c'mon on, guys...it wasn't *that* bad!
30 June 2002
I gave this flick a shame faced 7 (a baseline 6 + 1 because I've thoroughly enjoyed it...twice!) I saw it first in 1991, a full 5 years before I learned to roller blade myself (at the ripe old age of 44) and again last night. I think the mistake made by those rating it so lowly was in taking it seriously. It certainly didn't take itself seriously. Not with lines like (paraphrase) [after a criminal is shot by a cop] "thank God we could take care of him here. I hate court". Or with newspaper headlines that read "Germany buys Poland". Or with a radio newscast describing Mexican INS agents rounding up and deporting American fruit pickers who had illegally entered their country to find work. Any sense of reality exited my mind as I watched them do everything in those skates, I, myself, having gotten hopelessly bogged down in the neutral ground trying to cross the street in my blades at City Park in New Orleans. The movie also had a refreshingly original take on the "doomed future" theme. Instead of the grim setting being a post nuclear apocalypse, we have a wasteland created, instead, by the crash of the American stock market. And this well explains the sad state of affairs (no money for police, a greatly weakened government, extensive homelessness, etc.) that is the backdrop for the film. The rollerboys seemed to be a blurry composite of all the evils of mankind since the beginning of time...racial hatred, greed megalomania, anti-semitism...you name it. The visage of the rollerboy gang materializing from the end of a dark tunnel, gliding effortlessly in white trench coats and black rollerblades, their arms swinging mightily in unison immediately called to mind goose stepping Nazis. The two undercover cops, who seemed to literally dwell in their van, making off the cuff quips about the rollerboys were a hoot. True, the acting was, at best mediocre but had it been excellent it would have spoiled the film. Occasional lapses into the melodramatic only added savor to the stew. Much of the dialog was so bad it was not only good but great. I guess this movie will remain one of my guilty pleasures. If it comes on again...I'll watch it again. I only wish Corey Haim hadn't grown up so they could make Rollerboys 2.
26 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Gift (2000)
They always forget to look for stumps.
26 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
POSSIBLE SPOILER POSSIBLE SPOILER POSSIBLE SPOILER

I so wanted to give this movie a 8 or a 9. The casting and acting couldn't have been more right on, the atmosphere exuded the swamp drenched, Spanish Moss laden South that I do so love and the cinematography was gorgeous. The story was full of well developed believable characters and the plot even made sense. I'm hard to frighten and it gave me some genuinely creepy moments...a few goose bumps, even. I sooooo wanted to give this movie an 8 or a 9, and I would have, too, if the heroine, whom I had come to love and whose intelligence I wrongly assumed for 100 minutes, hadn't twisted her damned ankle at the end.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This one needs much more than a single viewing.
12 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Like another reviewer I, too, don't understand the low ratings given this film. Granted, it probably won't be everyone's cup of tea. I saw this film first soon after it came to cable and before I knew much about Jennifer Jason-Leigh or had come to appreciate the power this amazing young actress can exude in the careful and often understated nuances she brings to her craft. She was as good then as she is now. Credit should be given, also, to the set design with it's seedy candy apple red painted cinder block walls, stark bare light switches and yards of metal conduit lining long hallways off of which open rows of cribs which we come to realize housed all sorts of perversions. We learn that her uncle not only pandered to and reveled in those same perversions but was also willingly sacrificed his own life by enslavement to those same twisted desires and actions. This was a timely and bold film, also, because it dealt squarely with the oncoming invasion of the heterosexual world by AIDS at a time when most straight folk still believed themselves immune. The suspense and terror builds credibly and effectively and manages to take the worn out "damsel in the old dark house" plot and not just dress it up but actually transform it into something new and original. But, you've got to see it at least twice...once to let your head adjust to the oddness of the story and then a second time to really experience the multiple levels of terror present in this film, both real and imagined, the most palpable being that lying buried in the human soul.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Major cudos to the writer.
3 September 2001
I gave this movie an 8 and after voting instantly wished I'd given it a 9. The cast, those playing the 4 main characters in the present and in the past, did an excellent job. The best acting performances were turned in by David Paymer and Adam Scott as "adult George" and "young George" respectively. I checked my skin a couple of times to make sure the slime hadn't slithered off of him and made it's way through the ether to my living room. But I think the real talent here was that of Jeremy Levine who write the script. I visited IMDB specifically to see if the story had been taken from a short story but evidently it wasn't. It was just plain good writing and even the heavy use of flashback, rather than slowing down the suspense, actually enhanced it. It was the classic writer's technique of starting with a simple situation and piling on complication after complication until the suspense is unbearable. He did it extremely well and it worked.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Back Street (1941)
5/10
I guess my mistake was seeing the Susan Hayward version first.
20 June 2001
I'm the rotten apple in the bunch. Everyone loved this version and blasted the 1961 super sudser. My comments will be brief. I just detested both of the main characters. Boyer's Saxel was a pompous boor at best and a downright t**d at worst. "Well, it's not as if I had a choice about taking this job!" paraphrase he exclaims haughtily when poor, poor Rae complains about his trip abroad. (Guess not...his father-in-law might have cut off his other... well, you know...and put it in his *other* jacket pocket) It was at about this point in the movie that someone needed to start slapping Rae about every 30 seconds or so. Someone called the Hayward version "unbelievable". That 1941-Rae would dump the oh so cute and sweet Curt in favor of that French aristocratic ass is the *height* of disbelief in my opinion. I mean, for crying out loud, Saxel not only left her for an indeterminate period of time but also took his wife with him, didn't tell Rae he was back for a week when he finally did come home and managed to pop off a baby girl Saxel with the little woman while on the boat. "You know how crazy everything gets when a new Saxel is born," <paraphrase> he tells her to excuse his tardiness (with an grudging "a"). Frankly, given his degree of romantic appeal, I'd have questioned paternity. Plot-wise, nobody is that stupid. But, Crazy Rae *still* leaves poor old Curt in the lurch to stand by her t**d. Now *that's* unbelievable. At least the Hayward character had the sense to get a job. In the 1961 version events were related pretty much as they happened...in this version, we are *finally* given an explanation of Rae's foolish devotion to Saxel (ah! now it all makes sense...well, no it doesn't) in so short a time that had I gotten up to yawn I'd have missed it. Saxel's lack of personality and superior attitude never was explained...chalk it up to a bad childhood in France. When the inevitable happened, I could only hope for lightning to hit the other end of the line. Well, I could go on but I won't. If ever a movie needed soaping, sudsing and completely dry cleaned it was this one and the 1961 Hayward/Gavin versions contained just the right brand of detergent. Put it on a hanger, slap it on the rack and tag it with a "00". I confess, in retaliation and outrage I voted the 1961 version a 10.
11 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
To anyone who didn't like the movie...read the book(s).
27 January 2001
To "iknow", the Australian who suggested the only good thing in "Heaven's Prisoners" is Teri Hatcher, I would respectfully suggest that he/she read the book...along with the rest of the Robicheaux series of detective novels by award winning author James Lee Burke. Being from New Orleans and also married to a Cajun from South Louisiana, as well as an avid fan of Burke's, I watched this movie with utmost scrutiny--3 times. I was at first dubious about Alec Baldwin playing the part of a Southerner, much less my beloved Cajun detective, Dave Robicheaux, aka "streak". After 2 viewings, I concluded he had done a fine job,indeed. The movie did well in doing the impossible, which is to capture on film the lush tapestry that is South Louisiana the bayous and New Orleans as captured in language by the unequaled master of description, James Lee Burke. To have made an action movie out of it would have been to bastardized it and ruined it. I feel for viewers who find a movie unsuitable because the body count hasn't mounted to 10 in the first 15 minutes or there isn't a burning car or an explosion every other frame. "Heaven's Prisoners" was the first, or one of the first, in the Robicheaux series by Burke and provides expose' for future tales. Again, the film captured the "feel" of Burke's seductive Louisiana Wetlands along with his character's troubled alcoholic mind as he constantly is forced to come to terms with life's underbelly and, ultimately, himself.

As an aside and correction to the member providing the plot outline, Dave resides in New Iberia, Louisiana, a real town close to Lafayette, not on "the outskirts of New Orleans".
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boogie Boy (1998)
9/10
A pleasant surprise.
22 December 2000
I gave this movie a 9 relative to the genre into which it falls rather than in comparisons to movies in general. I am a writer and currently viewing "gay themed" movies as research for a novel I'm working on. I have to disagree with "Moviemkr" on all counts. As a "storymkr" it was the tale itself that appealed to me the most. As far as story and plot (writer's vernacular much misused and misunderstood) I thought it had plenty of both. It was a neat little story of two men attempting to recapture love which started under artificial circumstances (prison) each having undergone changes since separating, that make an already improbable reunion impossible. It was well paced and without unnecessary artifact (even the violent scenes were muted with most of the gore off camera) and came to a satisfying climax and resolution. Nothing profound here but good tight story telling with few goofs. There is even a smattering of redemption and the gay twist makes this story stand out among others of it's kind. I thought the acting was right on. Dracascos and Wolvett portrayed well the hopeless, violent, volatile and desperate nature of life drenched in illegal drug dealing and addiction. Wolvett was particularly convincing as the drug addicted Larry going through bouts of withdrawal when a fix wasn't apparent. That the two men loved each other was obvious (their downplayed but touchingly familiar displays of physical affection true to character) but, sadly, so was the unlikelihood of the reunion each had hoped for--and no doubt dreamed of.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Arsenic and Old Lace (1969 TV Movie)
It's hard, if not impossible, to remake a classic.
26 November 2000
It's hard, if not impossible, to remake a classic. Since its theatrical release in 1944 only one attempt has been made to remake Frank Capra's "Arsenic and Old Lace and the fact that it came in the form of a "made for TV" movie made it seem, at first glance, even greater sacrilege. The production is, nonetheless, first class. Bob Crane (Hogan's Heroes) just shines as the befuddled newlywed Mortimer Brewster, suddenly confronted with the fact that his gene pool was more like a fetid DNA swamp of psychotic chromosomes. Careful updating of the original play only served to make it perhaps more appealing to contemporary audiences without detracting from the perfection of its predecessor. Casting was beyond reproach. Who could possibly protest Lillian Gish and Helen Hayes as the sweet, dotty albeit homicidal aunts or Fred Gwynne as the ominous brother Jonathan. This version is seldom if ever shown but if you ever get a chance to see it, do. It is an updated interpretation of the original and every bit as good.
47 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rosewood (1997)
Though historical accuracy has been called into question this is, nevertheless, a recounting of events that must not be forgotten.
29 July 2000
Anyone viewing John Singleton's account of the horrendous events that took place in Rosewood, Florida in the 1920's will be unable to escape powerful emotions, regardless of their attitudes on racial issues. Historical accounts of this atrocity are sketchy--likely due, in part, to efforts made to cover up the crimes--with estimates of the body count running from single to double digits. Singleton's presentation clearly assumes a worst case scenario. Further, some of the characters are highly stereotypical. Seizing one of America's many historical disgraces he produces an explosive story of racial oppression, bigotry and ignorance and leaves no stone unturned in putting the viewer through emotional cataclysm. I was exhausted when it was over. Regardless, having said that, I must say to John Singleton, "Bravo!" The film was a winner. I say this in the face of previous comments because it doesn't matter whether it was stereotypical, exaggerated or purposely provocative. Whether the body count was 1 or 100, the horrifying, inescapable fact is that it happened, and it is unlikely that anyone watching this powerful re-telling will soon forget it...and that's the point. Like the Holocost (which some now dare say didn't even happen at all) these events and others like them must never be forgotten. I dust this movie off and pop it into the VCR at least once a year, along with "Schindler's List" to make sure my rusting, aging brain remains ever aware of the darkest as well as the brightest aspects of the human creature.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In Dreams (1999)
Excellent translation of mood from print to film
13 April 2000
As a writer (albeit largely unpublished) of this genre I always look for a "based upon" credit to see if a flick is taken from a novel or short story. I was pleasantly stunned to see that "In Dreams" was taken from Bari Wood's "Doll's Eyes", especially since the book (and, sadly, along with all her other works) was out of print. Wood imparts in her novels a palpable sense of sadness and ultimate bittersweet doom that frantically drives the story and which is derived from some inherent unalterable trait in her main characters. Neil Jordan translated Wood's work beautifully by surrealistically using images like the apples, the color red, the school play and subsequent frantic search for the abducted child, etc., to convey the deteriorating state of the main character's mind in a unique and totally successful manner. Annette Bening was incredible and completely believable as the doomed Claire. Best of all, I have rediscovered Bari Wood. A fantastic movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
They don't make "Made Fors" like this anymore
13 April 2000
A chic, smart thrill ride of a flick full of cat and mouse, cross and double-cross with a clever and satisfying ending. I was 15 when I first saw this film and until today remembered it as a theatrical release--it was that good. It was a major topic of conversation at school the day after it aired.

Looking back, it puts me in mind of "The List of Adrian Messenger", another underrated, forgotten masterpiece. Hope springs eternal that it might be discovered and aired again but I'm doubtful. My heart skipped a beat when I saw the 1997 film of the same name (but entirely different story) listed on my satellite guide but quickly learned it was a completely different movie. I'd LOVE to see the 1967 flick again.
22 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed