miguelsanchez69 Reviews

Campfire Stories (2001)

Makes From Justin to Kelly look like Shakespeare

[1/10 · 19 April 2004]

This is the worst english language movie I've ever seen ("Zombie Doom", a German "film" is worse). Considering I've seen pretty much everything that's won a raspberry award, that's saying something.

I was expecting something bad after realizing I'd been ripped off and had spent 5 bucks on "Campfire Stories" rather than "Campfire Tales" (a good anthology horror film). But I was expecting something that was low-budget but had production values of at least ten dollars along the lines of tales from the hood or the dozen other direct to video titles in the genre (which I enjoyed). I figured well it has some b/c-list actors so maybe it will be OK (it wasn't like the cast is all unknowns). I'd say it's fair to say Jamie-Lynn Singler's film career has jumped the shark after watching this "film".

First off, it's shot on video. It looks like something that would air on public access TV. The direction is utterly awful, the editing is worse. The script is generic, cliched, disjointed and just plain bad, like Plan 9 from Outer Space bad. Most of the acting is abominable (which is probably mostly the director's fault in all honesty). The worst thing of all is the "cinematography". Awful. It's like they gave a drunk 10 year old a camera.

I enjoy bad movies, and I thought this movie was barely watchable, despite being unintentionally hilarious. It's just so bad. This movie is quite possibly the Plan 9 from Outer Space of the 21st century. If you like really really bad movies or are a masochist, it might be worth a rent, other than that - avoid like the plague.

Terrible. Not Recommended at all.

Steel (1997)

so bad it's good

[5/10 · 17 March 2004]

This is a B-movie classic. The special effects are awful and the acting is worse, but at least it's not boring. As a cinematic experience, it's below par, but as entertainment it's top notch. It's basically like a B-movie, unintentionally hysterical version of Superman (which makes sense, since apparently Steel is based on a DC comic series which was an offshoot of the Superman Funeral for a friend storyline) , except Steel's only discernible superpowers are: being tall, having a metal suit that makes him walk slowly, and uttering unfunny catch phrases that are so bad you have to bust out laughing. This movie is probably the funniest thing I've seen all year. Of course, it's not intended to be funny most of the time when it is.

Watching Shaq "act" is the highlight of the film. I fell out of my chair laughing every time he said something. Shaq's still a better actor than Hulk Hogan though, not that that's saying much. They should give Shaq more movies. Hulk Hogan made a dozen or more, and they were all awful, why not Shaq?

The special effects look like they were made in the 1980s. Bad miniatures and Superman-esque laser effects look pretty silly in this day and age. This adds to the fun factor of the movie though since you'll probably scream "Dear Lord that laser is the same miniature they used in Godzilla in the 60s!".

The plot to the movie isn't horrible, even though it's pretty thin. Basically Steel is a superhero with a secret identity out to save the world from an evil supervillain. Pretty standard superhero fare.

This movie has earned its place in my heart alongside other bad movie classics like "cool as ice" starring vanilla ice. A must-see for bad movie buffs. Some folks who like superhero films might like it too since it's mildly diverting and quick-paced. Those who relish quality cinematic experiences should avoid.

Once Upon a Time in China II (1992)

utterly transcendent film

[9/10 · 23 December 2003]

Wow. I was expecting a good martial flick but what I got was a great film. This is quite simply one of the most entertaining, moving and cinematically brilliant films I've seen in quite awhile. It reminds me slightly of an Asian version of Gangs of NY (I know, I know, this came first) since it's set amidst a sweeping historical backdrop at a point when nations we now know were being built, and because of its strongly patriotic undertones. The choreography by Yuen Ping is awe-inspiring especially since unlike many of his recent films, this film involves actual martial artists. Tsui Harks direction, from the opening shot is spot on, and the acting is great. Unlike a lot of martial arts films (even those I enjoy) this film's plot is superb. The music is terrific as well and really sets the tone. A minor note, the dubbing isn't terrific (though the movie is still immensely watchable) so try and get the subbed version if you can. This movie completely transcends the genre. Highest possible recommendation.

Evil Dead II (1987)

one of the greatest horror/comedy films of all time

[9/10 · 1 November 2003]

This is bar-none one of my favorite movies as well as a truly satisfying piece of entertainment. This time around, in addition to terror, Raimi showcase his comedic genius as well. This is one of the few movies I've seen besides the Godfather II, and Aliens and Terminator 2 where the sequel was superior to an original that wasn't half bad. Bruce Campbell is amazing as Ash, and gives a wonderful performances as the square-jawed hero. This is similar in tone to the darkly comedic Roger Corman/Vincent Price collaborations based on Poe's stories such as Masque of the Red Death except, arguably, better. Raimi uses some great camera techniques similar to the ones in his first movie (the good old strap a board to a camera and run technique was pretty much invented by Raimi). The special effects are great too. A absolute must see for horror movie buffs and those with a strong stomach and a dark sense of humor, as well as anyone who's ever read a comic book (Raimi's visual style and the manichean notions of good/evil are heavily influenced by that). The only cons to the film are its basically a remake of the first film with the newly introduced comedic overtones (so some might feel like theyre watching the same movie) and a larger budget. Quite honestly, the first film was scarier since it lacked comic relief. While not for those with weak stomachs, and despite similarities to the first film, Evil Dead II still comes extremely recommended. Tons of fun.

Carnival of Souls (1962)

good low budget horror

[8/10 · 1 November 2003]

Granted this movie has some budgetary limitations, that it, for the most part, transcends. The use of silence and sound in this movie is fascinating and surreal. The plot while overly predictable to modern viewers, set the stage for many subsequent horror films. Unlike many films of interest to film history buffs this movie is still suspenseful. The cinematography is quirky and riddled with close-ups and other shots that seem heavily influenced by the German expressionist silent film canon and is heavily visual, which is really unusual since it seems to fit this story, which uses many of the conventions of 50s horror. It is also unusual since most low-budget horror/sci-fi films of this era tend to try to relay much of the action through dialogue, because it's cheaper. This movie does have some shortcomings, namely some of the minor actors are fairly shoddy ie: the doctor is pretty awful. At times, the editing and camerawork is a little off ie: 180 degree lines are noticably broken, cuts involving creative geography are often unintentionally jarring since it tends to leave out things like the front of a house. Arguably that could be to further the jarring effect of the film. I doubt it though, seeing as these were first time filmmakers. I was also disappointed with all the loose ends at the end of the movie. Despite some flaws, this movie is quite recommended. A little predictable but definitely of interest for pretty much everyone who want a scary movie thats a little offbeat.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Quentin Tarantino delivers one of the year's best films

[9/10 · 25 October 2003]

Quite honestly, after Reservoir Dogs and and Pulp Fiction, when I saw Jackie Brown, I figured Tarantino had peaked. I was wrong. When I heard he was making a martial arts film, I was worried he'd overuse wirefighting in extended and boring sequences a la Matrix Reloaded. Again, I was wrong. Next, I heard it would be two parts and figured that this was a clever marketing scheme and the movie would be left as a cliffhanger/feature length teaser a la Back to the Future 2. Again, I was wrong. This movie is complete in and of itself. Instead, we get a uniquely americanized take on Asian cinema and the samurai films complete with some fun dialogue and the Charlie's Angels on crack-esque Super Viper Deadly Assassination Squad. The directing is great, the story's taut, though flashback-riddled, and the acting's even better with Uma living up to the types of roles Sonny Chiba and Toshiro Mifune originated. Quentin even manages to get the bright red color and spraying quality of samurai blood correct. I do have one quibble though. Unfortunately there is a problem with this sort of blood. In the House of Blue Leaves the dramatic impact is lessened since violence appears toned down and minimized by the use of Black and White. I am uncertain as to whether this was capitulation to censors or the original intent, but blood and guts, specifically bright blood, as in samurai films, looks MUCH better in color. Many people have commented on the violence in this movie. I disagree with most of what's been said. I've seen dozens of american action films more violent than this. The fashion the violence takes is a little different than most action movies though since a sword, rather than a gun is used. Some of the violence in samurai style movies typically involves dismemberment and blood squirting from the slain or maimed like a firehose. The "Baby cart at the River Styx" series aka "Shogun Assassin" in its dubbed american incarnation has a higher body count (as well as more limbs and arms flying) in its first 5 minutes than does this entire movie. Entertaining as all hell, though not quite as violent as many would have you believe. Should delight the average movie-goer and hardcore film buff alike. Highest Recommendedation.

Alien Avengers (1996 TV Movie)

easily the most enjoyable b-movie in recent years

[9/10 · 16 October 2003]

Low budget sci-fi genre has tended to be a breeding ground for some of the most awful films on the planet. Sometimes though, a movie like this comes and uses clever dialogue and scripting as well as a sense of humor about itself to overcome fairly shoddy special effects and set limitations and create a great piece of entertainment. This movie showcases what you can do with a shoestring budget, a great script with some campy dialogue and some decent actors. If you like campy dark comedy genre films (a la rocky horror, dead alive, evil dead) and B-movie sci-fi, rent this film. This movie is way over the top, and I was laughing hysterically through most of it. Deserves to be a cult classic. The sequel is also good, though not as good as the original (though its first 5 minutes are inspired and Julie Brown is much funnier, IMHO).

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

as predictable as it is entertaining .... must-see for horror buffs

[9/10 · 29 August 2003]

If you're looking for a movie that will bring you one stop closer to enlightenment or win next year's academy award this is probably not the film for you. If you are however a horror fan, or have ever even wondered over a beer or two with your friends what if freddy took on jason you will love this movie. This film has nods to many previous Nightmare on Elm Street and some Friday the 13th material (though the last films in both series seem to have been dismissed). The first 2/3rds of the film is pretty standard (though well-executed) slasher stuff, with a mildly convoluted plot about Jason being manipulated by Freddy. Jason proceeds to killing victims independently. But, the real fun comes in the third act, which is the payoff. The battle between Freddy and Jason is absolutely off the wall. Maybe this film isn't that original (the title isn't even that original - anyone seen Frankenstein Vs. Wolfman or Godzilla Vs. King Kong anyone?), but this franchise is the original slasher article and not a pale carbon copy like many recent teen slasher flicks or the bastardized halloween sequels. This movie is entertaining, it's crowd-pleasing (even if that makes it predictable and, even if it dismisses some of the previous films), and it sure as hell is the best slasher film to come out in the last decade. Highly Recommended to anyone who doesn't mind a little gore and a must for slasher aficionados.

When Time Ran Out... (1980)

awful movie, the Ishtar of disaster films

[28 August 2003]

This was as far as I know the last of the big disaster films before their revival in the 90's. I can see why. The direction is awful. The acting is wooden. It's a special effects film without any special effects to speak of. A great cast is wasted by a director. The script that had my laughing incessantly, though the film is intended as a drama. The production values on this films are abysmal. They obviously spent all the money on the cast and couldn't afford real sets, or writers. This movie has such cheap and unrealistic sets, I thought I was watching an episode of gilligan's island, only to find out it was a studio release. Not worth buying or renting but if it's on TV you might want to watch if you're a bad movie buff since it's unintentionally hysterical. It's that bad. Worst disaster movie I've seen. Since the genre is full of bad films, that's saying a lot.

Feardotcom (2002)

mediocre flick, bad script saved by interesting cinematography

[22 August 2003]

First off, I heard this movie was horrible so I had pretty low expectations. The movie has a lot of similarities to the American version of "Ring", except Feardotcom's plot is ultimately incomprehensible, even though its cinematography's a lot more interesting. The female lead's acting is wooden and was infinitely more cringe worthy than the homicides in the film. The other acting is passable. Movie is slow-moving and goes in too many directions. This movie is surprisingly low on gore, but has a high squirm factor, with its torture scenes. It definitely needed several more script rewrites as it follows every horror movie cliche but still doesn't make sense at the end. You could navigate the Titanic through some of this movie's plotholes. An epilogue would be nice, too. But seeing as many horror movies forgo this, that was definitely not unforgivable. The movie's atmosphere, which was created by some great camerawork and visuals, is what sells this film. At times the camerawork, blocking and shots were reminiscent of the exorcist, chinatown, and seven. Sure, most of the good shots were "borrowed" in their entirety, but if you're going to do something, do it right. Not a bad movie, not a good movie, but a decidedly mediocre one with a very poor script and one wooden lead. If you're a horror genre buff or want to see some pretty quirky cinematography you might want to rent it, or better yet watch it when it's on cable TV. Otherwise, you should probably avoid this.

When a Man Loves a Woman (1994)

Good Movie, Great Performances

[8/10 · 10 August 2003]

This is definitely a good, though often depressing, film about love, alcoholism, and sobriety. Meg Ryan gives the best performance of her career as a middle-class woman with an alcohol problem coping with love and sobriety. Andy Garcia is also quite good in an understated performance, as are the youths. The script manages to convey true emotion without descending into melodrama since this sort of material could have easily become movie of the week stuff in lesser hands. It's also nice for once to see a somewhat realistic movie involving substance abuse that doesn't moralize or have a prohibition mindset ie: noone goes on a killing rampage (Reefer Madness), or loses their job, or winds up in a straitjacket. There's nothing particularly revolutionary in a cinematic sense about this film, but it's well-directed and extremely well acted. Utterly heartwrenching, but well worth watching, especially if you or a family member has dealt with alcoholism. The ending felt a little too neat though.

Kangaroo Jack (2003)

Not nearly as bad as it looks

[5/10 · 2 August 2003]

First off, I had extremely low expectations when I saw this movie. Movies with animals in starring roles are generally terrible or gag-inducing family films, but this one isn't really either. The kangaroo is only in the film for around 5 minutes. It's really just a reasonably decent crime caper comedy/buddy film that for some inexplicable reason has a kangaroo (which doesn't talk by the way except in a dream sequence) as a plot device. All in all a standard Jerry Bruckheimer type production, except with a stupid title and a kangaroo. Lots of action, lots of humor, snappy dialogue, a hetero love interest for the main character, a dumb plot, and a happy ending. Sure, you've probably seen it all before. But, it's reasonably good for what it is. It's not Citizen Kane but if you want light entertainment, you could do a lot worse. Not really a family film by the way, despite appearances to the contrary. All in all a mediocre film, but not bad by any stretch of the imagination.

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

this movie is just bad

[1/10 · 16 July 2003]

Some movies are so bad they're funny. This isn't one of those. It's one of those gee I want an hour and a half of my life back kind of bad movies. People have said Universal delayed release of this film because it was too gory. I don't mind gory movies, so I decided to check this one out. Well I was surprised, when I found most of the gore in the movie was fairly tasteful by today's standards. I mean after the Evil Dead movies and Dead Alive, this looks like Mary Poppins. I think what's more likely is distribution got canned when they realized this movie was crap. Or maybe they just liked the movie better the first time they saw it when it was called the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. By the way TCM is NOT from the classic age of horror, it's from the 70s. Classic Horror is the Universal age people. Rent White Zombie (yes there is an excellent movie that Rob Zombie's band borrowed their name from) Island of Lost Souls or Bride of Frankenstein if you want classic horror. Horror films did not begin in 1970. But anyway, this movie is horribly derivative of 70s horror. The acting is bad, the sets are worse. The directing, replete with gimmicky negative photography, yellow lenses, and naked people prancing about who are not even in the movie is terrible. The writing is worse, with an incredibly simple and predictable plot, inane dialogue and an inconsistent tone as well as an unsatisfying conflict, climax and denouemont, and its not really scary either. The only decent moments in the movie are decent because they have been plagiarized, and generally involve Ms. Moon (who is actually fairly interesting despite her underwritten part). Very amateurish film that wouldn't be out at all if Rob Zombie wasn't the director. Rob Zombie should stick to making music. If you want to watch a 70s horror film rent the original item - not this. NOT RECOMMENDED at all. The only thing I found scary about this movie is the notion that it might spawn a sequel.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

good film, lousy documentary

[7 July 2003]

This film should NOT have won best oscar for documentary, though I rather enjoyed Moore's speech. Primarily, this is because it isn't a documentary but a good film nonetheless. I rather enjoyed this film and firmly believe its plot structure (and villainization of the NRA) while embellished for dramatic effect, is excellent. I also thinks its amazing that a film that was political and reality-based in nature could have gained such a wide release. I think I know why. It engages one's narrativity in the same way most feature film does, in a way documentaries often don't. I agreed with many (though not all) of the political points made on gun control before I entered the film. Yet, I can admit many of Moore's statistics to be highly misleading. Let's face it though, as a documentary this is the least objective thing I've ever seen, and as journalism, it's even worse. At least Triumph of the Will didn't have a voiceover narration. Moore even interacts with the events he's supposed to be documenting . Objectivity is completely non-existent in this film. This IS a propaganda film, a liberal one, and a damn good one at that. The editing in this film is brilliant and makes a coherent plot out of seemingly unrelated issues. While his racial theory of the nature of gun violence stretches at times, as a whole this political satire is still intelligent, incisive, funny and interesting. It's nice to see someone evening the playing field so that finally we have filmic counter-attacks to the recent barrage of pro-war propaganda, but it seems shameless to label this a documentary (though that might have been a studio decision) and ironic that the man who brought us "The Awful Truth" is so good at bending it. I guess propaganda film doesn't sound as good. Highly Recommended, and enjoyable if you could picture celluloid comeuppance for conservatives (like me), and are intelligent enough to realize not everything you see onscreen existed in the chronology in which it appears and statistics are often taken out of context.

Identity (2003)

highly predictable, decent, suspense film

[5/10 · 28 June 2003]

A decent suspense film take on Agatha Christie's 10 little Indians that is good for the first two acts, but ends disappointingly muddled in the third . Yes, you'll have the lingering suspicion you've see this all before and you probably have in films like April Fools and about a dozen others. The "surprise" ending in this film is to put it bluntly, horrid. First, it's not a much of a surprise, since I figured it out in the first 5 minutes of the movie. Second, its VERY disappointing and seems more like a trick to get the screenwriters out of several plotholes they'd dug themselves into rather than attempt at making a good script. Third, the surprise happens 20 minutes from the end so it pretty much ruins the suspense, then the film drags on. In all fairness, this movie is well-acted and has great atmosphere. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters apparently ran out of ideas (ie: lost their Cliff Notes of 10 Little Indians)at the end. A very disappointing finish to what starts as a quite good movie. Despite the cheap trick ending to wrap things up, by the end of the film one is left with more plotholes than answers and a lingering sense of disappointment. Plot completely derails to the point enjoyment is easily cut in half. Predictable film and an awfully scripted ending make this film not recommended.

Hulk (2003)

Brilliant Exploration of the Human Psyche and inventive filmmaking

[9/10 · 28 June 2003]

First off, let it be said - this is NOT just an action movie. If you want a an incredibly inept slam-bang summer action thriller, you'll probably be disappointed, since aside from one or two outbursts, there's not tons of action until the last half hour or so. Purists might also want to note that the hulk's origins as well as some other things have been changed from the comic. I never really liked the Hulk comic much, though when I was younger I faithfully read no less than 10 marvel comics on a regular basis, and this wasn't one of them. However, Ang Lee does a brilliant job at turning the Hulk's rage into a wonderful metaphor. Beneath the veneer of a comic book film we have a metaphor for the psychology underlying our parental relationships in a consumer culture in the same sense Crouching Tiger was clearly a film about the political independence of a nation hiding amidst what was ostensibly a martial arts film. The film's Oedipal themes are incredibly intriguing, though ended in a somewhat unsatisfying way. The film's editing and Ang Lee's use of varying camera angles to depict the same creative geography in different ways violates anything I've ever seen in Hollywood editing and is wonderfully inventive. It resembles comic panels more closely than any other comic films. A very dark, intelligent, and deeply psychological film as well as brilliant cinema. It's too bad more mainstream films couldn't be this good. 99% of it will go over the heads of the audience watching it though.

The Hot Chick (2002)

Surprisingly funny comedy

[8/10 · 26 June 2003]

First off let it be said, I'm a pretty big fan of comedies. I rather enjoyed Schneider's 1st film Deuce Bigelow, but gagged at the supreme awfulness of the Animal. The script to the Hot Chick is surprisingly good and well-organized (though it's premise is basically a raunchier riff on 80s body switch movies like vice-versa and freaky friday without any moralizing). It may not be original (similar to my other favorite comedy so far this year, old school) and it may not win any oscars , but it's funny, follows an established formula well, and doesn't deteriorate in the third act like a lot of comedies I've seen as of late into moralizing or seemingly tacked on drama. Rob Schneider and Anna Farris are incredibly funny together. Watch for a cameo by Adam Sandler. If youre in the mood for citizen kane or next year's oscar winners, look elsewhere. If you're in the mood for good, dumb, fairly raunchy fun to watch with a couple of friends - this movie's great.

Bruce Almighty (2003)

horribly boring film

[3/10 · 25 June 2003]

This is a horribly boring and morally sententious film. It reminds me of a really awful frank capra film with Jim Carrey ad-libbing gags. Personally, I really like Carrey (I think ace ventura is some of the best physical acting ever and adore that film) but he doesn't have much to work with here. This movie is just not funny and even Carrey's way over the top performance (in a part for which he is somewhat miscast)can't save this dud. The message of the film, which is essentially know your place and believe in higher powers since they know what's best for is undeniably fascist and ignores centuries of discourse on theodicy as well. There are so many theological plotholes its staggering, but granted it's only a film. I probably wouldn't have had the time to notice the inconsistencies if the movie wasn't so BORING. Horribly written with saccharine dialogue and an ending that made me want to gag, poorly edited (most of the shots and sequences with gags run too long) and no chemistry between carrey and aniston. Not recommended at all. One or two funny gags do not a film make. The only funny scenes in this film were already in the trailer. Bruce in the film might be divine but Bruce Almighty is very flawed

Psycho (1960)

good direction, paved the way for modern slashers, low production values

[5/10 · 26 May 2003]

This is a well directed and extremely well-scored movie. Unfortunately, while the movie is interesting for its place in cinematic history, (just look at the accelerated editing in the shower scene) it really isn't at all scary, or even all that interesting today. The production values for the movie are amazingly low, and it often shows (it was filmed on the cheap on a hitchcock presents TV lot). The script is weak and reeks of an exploitation film. The acting is good, though not great. Bad material handled by a great director that's worth watching if youre interested in cinema or too old to enjoy a gory, though better film. If you're looking for the zenith of this genre look elsewhere (ie: Halloween). If you're looking for the pioneer, this is it.

Hard Core Logo (1996)

good film thats been misrepresented

[8/10 · 24 May 2003]

Really interesting film for anyone familiar with the hardcore music scene that deals with the problems and moral dilemmas of a reunited band. The problem is the movie is mismarketed as a comedy. Humor in the movie is quite present though dark and dry (though still very funny). This movie is actually quite a bit better than spinal tap. It's not mocking a bad band of a genre, but exploring the problems of the scene by looking at what's viewed to be a good one. The only similarity between this film and spinal tap is the narrative framework, which is that of a documentary, though in this film, that device becomes less obtrusive, and in all honesty could have been removed. Also, this movie has much more of a human heart than a film like spinal tap or fear of a black hat (another movie that got lumped into the "mockumentary" genre). The big problem I think is that this movie is represented as a comedy, and it's as dramatic as it is humorous. Terrific ending too. Recommended to those who enjoy dark comedies and punk rock.

Tadpole (2002)

smart, funny film with a big heart

[9/10 · 23 May 2003]

Easily one of the best films of last year. Great acting, direction, blocking, smart script and good use of DV, too. Occasionally, though colors appear streaky when camera pans or tilts quickly, but that's more a restriction of the medium. Blocking in the movie is spectacular ie: right after Oscar reveals his crush to eve and we cut to the use of the table and doorway as divisive elements, and others. Terrific acting, especially by Neuworth. The use of Voltaire to provide chapter headings which separating the very episodic story is quite humorous and insightful. To those who find this use of "words" cloying, you're probably illiterate. The script is spectacularly good and witty, though if you're not from NYC, you'll probably miss some of the best jokes as well as what is probably the most honest depiction of NYC on film (or DV) in recent memory. To anyone who complains about the themes - it's a MOVIE, meaning it's not real. There's a thing called willing suspension of disbelief that one engages in when watching a film. Get used to it. It says what its about on the box, if you don't like that, don't buy or rent it. If you aren't a member of the moral majority however, prepare yourself for a fantastic film.

Kicking and Screaming (1995)

easily one of my favorite films

[9/10 · 23 May 2003]

One of my favorite films - bar-none. I first saw this film a few years ago before I got to college, and thought it was fairly good with good acting, direction, and a great script but couldn't quite relate. I saw it again when I was a freshman and it made a whole lot more sense. These characters weren't just well-written, they had turned into people I knew. I've seen it every year since then. Now, as I'm 22 and a week away from graduation, besides the graduate, it's probably one of the most relevant movies I've ever seen and best captures all the anxiety and ambivalence surrounding graduating college and the looming future. Highly Recommended to the current or recent college grad. To all others - you're too old or too young to get this, sorry.

The Wicker Man (1973)

Terrible Movie with a horrible religious worldview

[2/10 · 8 May 2003]

This was honestly one of the most boring and anti-religious movies I've seen in my life. I mean I'm not a pagan, but I doubt any randomly burst into song or sacrifice people in this day and age and find it morally offensive that they're represented as such. The ending is a real downer too. The plotting is seriously flawed as it barely has any turning point but drags on and on and on. I'm left uncertain what if any theme there is. Too much singing, too much talking, too little action, colors used in filming are too bright. Overrall not recommended. Plus, its NOT a horror movie, which was my biggest disappointment. There are no monsters. I'd prefer a hydrochloric acid enema to watching this movie again.

Igby Goes Down (2002)

very good, very unoriginal film

[7/10 · 27 April 2003]

I really enjoyed this film on a personal level. It has terrific acting, a great script and wonderful direction. The one thing it doesn't have is much originality. The plot has many similarities to two other coming-of-age stories catcher in the rye and this side of paradise, not to mention its many filmic antecedents, such as the graduate. The script is rife with great dialogue and loaded with quirky characters straight out of the canon fitzgerald and salinger. Also, directed and filmed rather conventionally with too much annoying hippie music. This film isn't startlingly original or innovative on a cinematic level but it uses standard cinematic techniques and narrativity quite well. For a more interesting coming of age film further down on the socioeconomic ladder, watch SLC Punk, which is more relevant and revolutionary to this decade even though it was about the last one.

The Rules of Attraction (2002)

mediocre movie thats seriously depressing occasionally funny

[6/10 · 20 April 2003]

First, let it be known I am not one of those people who watches the "Dawson's Creek" show but I still feel this film was very misrepresented in ad campaigns. It is the farthest thing on earth from a teen comedy and actually a pretty decent film. However, some folks might take issue with the time disjointure when the Point of View shifts from character to character (this is the films attempt to adapt Easton's epsitolary novel). I get a kick out of non-linear storytelling but I think it is overused in the movie. When the film first begins and we have a doublespeed "rewind" shot similar to the one in Memento. Also the type of non-linear same instant, several POV storytelling this movie uses has been done a lot better in Run Lola Run, Go, and Lawless Heart. I thought the use of the split screen to show 2 characters walking towards each other was particularly ingenious. The script though has a problem - there are multiple plots going on and occasionally they get muddled when they appear to conflate multiple accounts in the same period of time. On the positive side - the acting in this movie's great with Van Der Beek brilliant as an "emotional vampire"There's some non-cinematic problems I had with the movie - the characters are for the most part vile and unlikable. Everything truly bad in the movie happens to the only characters most audiences would probably detests least. Granted life isn't that fair either but this movie is major-league depressing. All in all, an interesting, somewhat flawed and very depressing character study thats sometimes muddled but generally interesting.