Change Your Image
lionlearn
Reviews
Opera (1987)
Some brilliant scenes in a confused thriller.
"Terror at the Opera" has some of the most imaginative camerwork and nerve-volting horror I've ever seen. It's also one of the most frustrating and maddening movies I've come across. I'll brake it down into what works and what "don't". *WARNING...SOME CRYPTIC SPOILERS AHEAD*
What works: 1) A masterstroke use of Ravens 2) Brilliant camerwork. 3) Three sadistic but unforgettable murder scenes. ( not the first or the last one. There's five total.) 4) Some surprisingly creepy and clever "red-herrings"
What does not: 1) The heroine does not react the way one would expect one to react. She's far too placid. 2) Idiot plot devices. ( why would you intentionally leave your front door open knowing there's a serial killer stalking you?) 3) Unforgivable lapses of logic that strain all credibility. ( Where did he get the dummy, and how did HE get out?) 4) Some big story holes. ( What's the deal with that brain? ) 5) Finally, an ending that feels like a way out-of-place, tacked-on afterthought. ( It should have ended with the Raven swarm, or at least by the "fire".)
Unfortunately, all these cons outweigh the pros. "Opera" comes across as an ambitious failure with some brilliant scenes.
Basic Instinct (1992)
Why does everybody like this piece of s**t?
Yes, MS. Stone has never looked or sounded better, but the film is at best illogical and rediculous. Which I might forgive, except that it's also unpleasant, virtually witless, ugly, sick and toxic to the spirit. I dunno. I guess everybody who's wanted to has seen it by now, but to those who haven't, haven't you got something better to do? Honestly?
Cruel Intentions 2 (2000)
"The Billionaires Club" meets "Dawson's Creek" meets "Red Shoe Diaries" overdosed on Viagra.
I intentionally avoided the first "Intentions" because...
A) Any rip-off of "Dangerous Liasions" is destined for oblivion and B) How can seventeen year-olds this wealthy already be so bored with life they must concoct sex games only the most jaded, dirty old folks could muster? ( Then again we're living in the Age of Acceleration, so perhaps I'm behind the times. )
So I caught "Cruel Intentions 2" on Cinemax, not having any pre-conceived prejudices, ( since this one's not based on anything other than it's own formula ) and got what I expected; A smarmy, mean-spirited, soulless, delicious, quasi-erotic, funny, shamelessly amoral, entertaining waste of ninety minutes.
I can't say I "liked" it, but it did fertilize my hedonistic, narcissistic shadow self.
I mean, what hot-blooded straight male wouldn't love to get in a trist with his red-hot stepsister, her best friend, AND conquer the Virgin who discovers she really IS "that kind of girl" after all? To not catch anything? To not get pregnant? To feel no guilt? Not to mention A $10,000 a week allowance? Where do I sign up?
Anyway, there is a kind of "Whose-f***kin' who?" intrigue here, but the "twist" is pretty damn easy to spot, and don't expect an entirely satisfying conclusion, since "CI2" was supposed to be a cable series that was axed before it even had a chance to see daylight, so there's narrative holes aplenty.
But be warned, this is the kind of material the Southern Baptist Convention would barbecue the negatives to if they got their hands on it.
The Black Hole (1979)
Why is this "Black Hole" every color BUT black?
I saw "The Black Hole" on HBO way back in 81' and thought it was a cheesy bomb even then. ( Some twelve year-olds DO have critical thinking capacities.) Even then I was wondering, " If not even light can escape from a black hole, then why is this one brighter than Vegas on acid?"
I had no interest in these people. What where they doing out there to start with? The last third is that tired, drawn-out "Take cover, she's gonna blow!!!" pandemonium.
Inane dialog, soapy, melodramatic and lousy acting. The only thing that saves it are some still-sorta-kinda-cool effects and a few minutes of disturbing imagery near the end. But those goddamned little trash-can robots with painted, yes PAINTED eyes! Surely they could've done better than THAT, right? To answer the summary, obviously if the movie actually just showed a "black hole" it would be pretty dull to look at, I guess.
What kills me is there are still those who think this is a mini-masterpiece while "Tron" is junk.
At least "Tron" didn't take itself so seriously.
Orgazmo (1997)
One of the worst movies I ever liked
"Orgazmo" had me laughing, often. Most people will most definitely not enjoy this,and you know who you are. Like "South Park" it's crude,crass and base, but JUST funny enough to sit though.
Granted,"Orgazmo" DOES wear thin in the last half-hour. ( Seems typical for most movies these days, especially comedies) There's just so many hairy buttock shots and smarmy talk one can stomach. It's gets a bit too serious as well.
But that theme song at the beginning! Hillarious. ( Pretend your're fifteen, you'll enjoy it more.)
Now the question remains...Are Trey Parker and Matt Stone 51% brilliant social satirists and 49% trailer trash? Or the other way arround?
Either way they're making more money than me.
Manhunter (1986)
Better than "Silence of the Lambs" part Ninety-Three
I guess I can't say anything additional that's positive about "Manhunter" that's not been repeated endlessly here. However..I must say...
1) I think "Manhunter" is INFINATELY better directed and acted that it's much more popular Hopkins/Foster vehicle. As graphic as it occationaly is, Michael Mann directs with more understatement that works on the subconscious, as opposed to Jonathan Demme's literally "In-your-face" blatantness. (80% of "Silence" was shot in such extreme close-ups I kept wondering if Demme was the most near-sighted director in history) Brian Cox was a MUCH more believable Hannibal.( I'll bet he was properly PO'D when Hopkins won that Oscar )
2) With the exception of the end credit song, MANHUNTER's music is spellbinding! Whoever isn't hypnotized by the three "Shreikback" pieces...well, I won't get petty.
3) Lastly, I wish people who read books a movie is based on would just not bother seeing the movie. 99% of the time the book is better, that's universally accepted.
Okay. I feel better now. Thank you for listening.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
The more I see it the better it gets.
I can't recall seeing a movie with absolutely no protaganists that I could actually cherish until "BJM". When I first saw "Being John Malchovich" in the theaters I was amused and intrigued. I was also put off by the unsavory characters and a cryptic, rather hollow ending. But the damn thing haunted me, so I watched it again. I'm now into my third viewing. It just gets better. There's so much more to it than meets the eye. I can't really say anything about "BJM" that hasn't already been said by others, with the exception that If at first your turned off by what you see, try again...just once...you never know.
Tron (1982)
A lost near-masterwork
How sad this little miracle of a movie has virtually disappeared from people's memories since it debuted almost two decades ago. Maybe I was just a subjective, overly impressionable "yute" when "Tron" opened in 1982,( I was thirteen.) but I don't care. I know it was a major box-office disappointment, most critics reemed it ( only Siskel and Ebert raved about it ), and I admit a noticeable portion of dialouge borders, if not cross over, to "nerdy" or just plain stupid, but I don't care. ( I noticed the occasionaly clunky dialogue even then. "Tron" was a fantastic feast for the eyes AND ears with it's quirky sound effects.( And I'm sure it STILL is with the right entertainment system) It's true sometimes I couldn't figure what was actually happening, or why, but I was so mesmerized... "Tron" really was a groundbreaker. Maybe I AM tainted with nostolgia, I suppose it is a "geek's" flick, but if the studs had more fun, at least "we" had, and deeply appreciated, other people's imagination. I'm actually greatful to this movie for giving me some pleasant memories. What a sad loss.
Ravenous (1999)
Well-paced,icky, well-acted, ballsy, not for mother.
I'm amazed "Ravenous" was released in mainstream theaters. ( Although it "tanked" of course) It's gruesome, but perhaps just a "smiggin" less than one would expect. (I emphasize "perhaps".) In a large sense, this is an all-male, nineteenth century set "Scream", but better. It's almost as funny as it is creepy. (or vice versa, depending on one's temperment.) I have but two qualms: 1) I'm tired of being told by artists what a sadistic beast I am because I like a good sirloin. ( The movie has a thick sub-text with this message ) Most of us are, and always will be, omnivores. Get used to it. 2) It seems 90% of the movies made have to end in a prolonged, grueling conflict of sorts and "Ravenous" is no exception. (Although here it's not as out-of-context) Anyway, it's much smarter and funnier than I was expecting, but something tells me the more "well-done" you like your meat cooked, the less likely you'll be able to sit through the whole show. ( I'm a "medium" guy.)
Pleasantville (1998)
Preachy Liberal Fundementalism
Intriguing, often hillarious, well- made, "Pleasantville" nevertheless left a sour after-taste for me. I felt like a liberal Jerry Falwell was standing on a podium, banging his version of the bible. I'm going to presume people have seen "Pleasantville" and cut to the chase. 1)I love a good book, fine art and great sex as well...Really! I also like the idea of small town Americana, which "Pleasantville" seemingly loathes. It's true that, even today, people can be stuck in an arcane, antiquated view of life. The fifties ARE gone, most likely ( hopefully ) never to return. Yet the Norman Rockwell places of America are dwindling rapidly, and many people cherish them. Myself included. 2 )Typical of Hollywood, there's a sore lack of spirituality in "Pleasantville". Not RELIGION, there's a difference. Wouldn't citizens of a liberated community discover the trancendance of THAT as well as the earthly pleasures?
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS-WARNING!* 3) Yes, sex is fantastic, but not always. On on occasion girls DO get pregnant. It's unfortunate yes, but it's funny this film doesn't address this. ( Although most movies don't. Fantasies sell better ) 3) Narratively, Gary Ross' screenplay revelations are convoluted. Why did"Magical Don Knotts" show up to give the kids the magic remote anyway?Why did he get upset when things on the show started changing. ( He must have known that would happen.) How is the boy going to explain to his mother that his sister has gone off to college in a paralel universe?
Anyway, I gave up church for the same reasons. NOBODY knows what's best for EVERYBODY.
The Last Broadcast (1998)
All preparation and no "H".
Far slicker looking than "Blair", " The Last Broadcast" shows what can be done with almost literally pocket change. But...that ending. That oh-so frustrating climax. ARRRRGGHH!!( In the "Charlie Brown" sound, you know.) It's one of those endings where it initially looks brilliant, but quickly made me go " Huh"? Too many story gaps. Excellent attempt to be bold and innovative. Almost worked. God, SOOO close.
Contact (1997)
Worth seeing once, but...
Despite an intelligent script, good acting, a fantastic set-up and a unique premise, "Contact" is a disapointment and doesn't hold up well on repeated viewings.
*SPOILER WARNING*
No, there aren't any "aliens" in the usual sense, which was okay. "2001" didn't either.
* END OF SPOILER *
The real disapointment is that such intense awe and suspense is built, but just when we feel we're about to be pushed over the edge, it pulls back. The conclusion isn't trite or silly, ( although many will beg to differ, I'm sure) but there's no transcendence. I wanted to be catapulted into the unknown and, briefly, was. Too briefly.
Despite this, "Contact" is thoughtful and thought provoking. Those who dismiss it entirely ( along with the superior " Close Encounters ) probably can't wait for "Species 3" or "Alien 19". Fine, they can have them.
As of now, the world is still waiting for the next "2001". I'm ready. Really ready.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Masterful. NOT a "New Age" movie!
It saddens and angers me how some people have become so numbed by modern ills that they can't see something beautiful without putting some bogus PC twist to spoil it. It's true the times have changed since "Close Encounters" debuted almost a quarter-century ago. Stories of Alien obsessions, abductions and cults have been so saturated on us by the tabloid media it's easy to get irked by this fantastic film If one is seeing it for the first time only now. We must remember, however, " Close Encounters" was made in a totally different era, with radically different attitudes. ( for the most part loftier, in my opinion. ) It's true Spielberg himself said he wouldn't make "Close Encounters" today, but I'm hoping he means he would just have unfolded it differently, perhaps. ( I hope ) I can see his, and some others, more mature observations about Neary, the Dreyfuss character, "abandoning" his family. That WOULD be selfish and cruel, but look again. Dreyfuss DOES NOT leave his family, HIS FAMILY LEFT HIM! There's the difference. There's an explicit scene where Neary desperately tries to get his family to come back to him, and they refuse,( At least his wife does) so that accusation simply doesn't hold.
As far as the pacing goes, it's just another indicator of the MTV pace mentality that has been plagueing us over the past couple decades. Events trickle in drop by drop, then bucket buy bucket, then the levee breaks. ( It's quite sexual actually ) So many people have to have everything happen right away these days, it's pathetic. I saw this movie when it first came out,( I was nine ) I wasn't bored in the least. In fact, I personally prefered it to "Star Wars" because it felt like something that could actually happen, however remote.
The narrative is RICH with detail. It takes several viewings to catch all the little conversations that take place. ( It's pretty easy to tell which parts were written by Schrader, and where Speilberg did the re-writes. Speilberg has a much lighter touch, Schraders is more on the technical and scientific side. )
Francois Truffut was wonderful as Claude Lacombe. There's a sweetness and intelligence to him that was perfect for this role. What's with that bashing about him?
I could go on, but I'm limited to 1000 words.
Maybe one had to experience this film in a theater, upon initial release, as a child, to feel the imagination and majesty of "Close Encounters." Seeing it on a TV screen, reguardless of size and sound, just doesn't match the movies.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Masterful. NOT a "New Age" movie!
It saddens and angers me how some people have become so numbed by modern ills that they can't see something beautiful without putting some bogus PC twist to spoil it. It's true the times have changed since "Close Encounters" debuted almost a quarter-century ago. Stories of Alien obsessions, abductions and cults have been so saturated on us by the tabloid media it's easy to get irked by this fantastic film If one is seeing it for the first time only now. We must remember, however, " Close Encounters" was made in a totally different era, with radically different attitudes. ( for the most part loftier, in my opinion. ) It's true Spielberg himself said he wouldn't make "Close Encounters" today, but I'm hoping he means he would just have unfolded it differently, perhaps. ( I hope ) I can see his, and some others, more mature observations about Neary, the Dreyfuss character, "abandoning" his family. That WOULD be selfish and cruel, but look again. Dreyfuss DOES NOT leave his family, HIS FAMILY LEFT HIM! There's the difference. There's an explicit scene where Neary desperately tries to get his family to come back to him, and they refuse,( At least his wife does) so that accusation simply doesn't hold.
As far as the pacing goes, it's just another indicator of the MTV pace mentality that has been plagueing us over the past couple decades. Events trickle in drop by drop, then bucket buy bucket, then the levee breaks. ( It's quite sexual actually ) So many people have to have everything happen right away these days, it's pathetic. I saw this movie when it first came out,( I was nine ) I wasn't bored in the least. In fact, I personally prefered it to "Star Wars" because it felt like something that could actually happen, however remote.
The narrative is RICH with detail. It takes several viewings to catch all the little conversations that take place. ( It's pretty easy to tell which parts were written by Schrader, and where Speilberg did the re-writes. Speilberg has a much lighter touch, Schraders is more on the technical and scientific side. )
Francois Truffut was wonderful as Claude Lacombe. There's a sweetness and intelligence to him that was perfect for this role. What's with that bashing about him?
I could go on, but I'm limited to 1000 words.
Maybe one had to experience this film in a theater, upon initial release, as a child, to feel the imagination and majesty of "Close Encounters." Seeing it on a TV screen, reguardless of size and sound, just doesn't match the movies.
Color of Night (1994)
Were Those Sex Scenes "Acting" or...not?
Awful, Awful flick. Crapola. It falls into unintentional hilarity. It would have been better as a farce, intentionally. I just found out "Maxim" magazine survey names the sex scenes for "Color of Night" the best ever put on film and that's difficult to argue against. ( The vote was taken by "perverted" guys like myself I reckon. ) Indeed the ONLY reason to rent it is to see these scenes. DAMN HOT!
That had to be be the genuine thing going on between Willis and Marsh. Imagine getting PAID for that. Maybe that's why Demi Moore did "Striptease". For revenge.
Dogma (1999)
People confuse audacity for humor.
The past ten years has seen "ballsiness" replace wit in so many "comedies". That in itself is not as disturbing as the (seemingly) rapid growing of people who can't differenciate the two.
I remember the predictable and tiring uproar from right-wing fundies getting all ranty and ravey about "Dogma" without having seen it. Fine. They were wasteing their energy. If anything, "Dogma" will only reinforce faith.
"Dogma" is, I guess, a "Gen X" spiritually play. Which means it's trying to be hip, "tolerant", and...like...you know... trying to get people in the audience to say things like, "Whoa dude,that's really f***ed up!", while still trying to be reverent. ( Can you possibly blend "Little House on the Praire" with "South Park"? ). Dogma isn't deep, reverent, thought-provoking or even the tiniest bit funny.
Oh you'll probably be gaping your jaw at some of the "blasphemous" images presented, but again, audaciousness is NOT automaticly funny. Honest.
Raising Cain (1992)
Hokey Brilliance
Old age must have mellowed Mr. DePalma by this time. "Cain" has most of the trademarks we love/hate about him; the beautiful, brazenly self-conscious camerawork; the juvenille and endearing dark wit, the totally illogical yet spellbinding premises. What's missing? Surprisingly, most of the sex and gore! More importantly, however, is the absense of the sickening, overt misogyny that gave "Dressed to Kill" and "Body Double" their toxic after-effects. This time the high point of his "Hickcockian" drama is not an over-the-top bloody massacre but an ACTOR'S PERFORMANCE. Man!!!! Of course I'm talking about John Lithgow, prior to his stint on the "Third Rock" show. Enough has already been said on this list about his wonderful performances, so I'll refrain. I can see why most people can't get into "Raising Cain". It's weird, it's not especially plausible and does have at least a couple Grand Canyon sized plot holes. For instance *WARNING SPOILER ALERT!!!!*
How DID his wife get out of that underwater car..alive? and Who WAS that woman we were shown that the police pulled out of the water?
*END OF SPOILERS!!!!!!!*
Yes I enjoyed it. If for nothing else, a wonderfully cockey line from Lithgow towards a collage age girl he's flirting with, "It's not the milage baby, it's the MAKE!"
The Awakening of Gabriella (1999)
Surprisingly Engaging ( and erotic )
Far too often, movies like this are poorly acted, mean-spirited and just dull. I was surprised how much I was both turned- on and actually INTERESTED. These actors seemed to actually enjoy making this flick. ( Even the women ) There's a whimsical, lightness of spirit in "Awakening" that is SO rare and refreshing. I actually LIKED these people. Personally, I found the movie quite erotic. This is subjective of course. Obviously the plot is pure "Red Shoe" and ridiculous, but isn't the point?
Lost Highway (1997)
Compelling and pointless
"Eraserhead" was certainly not for everyone, but it didn't pretend to be anything more than, as Lynch put it, " a dream of dark and troubling things." "Lost highway" doesn't have that excuse. Allegedly there's some mystery Lynch is presenting for us in this movie for us to figure. Sorry folks, but I'm POSSITIVE it ain't there. "Lost Highway" is just an excuse to show some bizzare and compelling images. THAT'S IT!
I would LOVE to have a one-on-one conversation with anybody closely associated with "Highway", particular Bill Pullman or Patricia Arquette, and ask them what they think this movie's about. I love bizzare, twisted, even cryptic movies if it's really giving the people something to think about, ( 2001, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and Bad Lieutenant for example ) but there's nuthin' to ponder here except why am I wasteing time with this movie when there's other, genuine mysteries to solve.