SanderStrijbos Reviews

Any Way the Wind Blows (2003)

Great movie

[24 August 2004]

Tom Barman's Any Way The Wind Blows is a great movie, but (big BUT here) do not try to find a coherent story here. The movie is a mosaic of lives in Antwerp, Belgium, in June. We follow these people during whatever they do on this Friday. The most have only one thing in common: They end up at the same party that night.

The film is beautifully shot, the actors are all great, the dialogue is loose and realistic, the direction is terrific, but the one thing that makes this film really stand above most of the films made in Western Europe nowadays is... The Soundtrack (with capitals). I own it and it's on of the best compilations I have ever heard! Dance, rock, jazz, instrumental... It's all there. And it brings the film to a higher level.

Mind you, this is not a film for everybody, but for the people who are not afraid to see something else than the usual slick fare that is, alas, too common nowadays. And remember: "Although life is short, you have to perform all the miracles that you can..."

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Yeah, right (spoilers)

[7/10 · 27 March 2004]

The Matrix: Nice action movie, but not original as most people wanted us to believe. Rip everything from ancient mythology, commercial film making (the bullet time), anime and add a bit of publicity. Voila, the sleeper hit of 1999. The sequels were highly anticipated and while backpacking in Australia last year I even bothered and went to the opening at midnight in Brisbane. Reloaded was a big disappointment and I didn't even bother watching Revolutions in cinema. But I saw it on DVD last night and rented it.

Whoever hailed the Wachowskis as talents should be laughed and mocked at for the rest of their mortal lives. Looking back it might be very well that Bound (an excellent thriller) is their best. They can do something decent, but with the Matrix Trilogy they have overplayed their hands. Instead of directing the franchise to a really cool direction they keep doing every single thing wrong. What if they killed Neo off in the first one instead of the third one and let the story be taken over by Seraph and Persephone. Now, there are two interesting characters that get way too little screentime. These two facing Smith (Weaving is always good).

Unfortunately we are stuck with Neo (yawn), Morpheus (who lost all credit during his speech before the rave in Reloaded) and that cliche story of The Kid. O, and the rest of that Zion sequence. All characters dragged by their hairs. Anyone who has seen more than one film could've guessed the outcome of that scene. Trinity could've been one of the best characters (as she was in The Matrix), but she gets too little to do but walking after Neo.

2003: The Year Of The Matrix, or what was it? Ha ha ha. Wachowskis, pay attention: great trilogies are made of quality, not publicity. Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, the original Star Wars trilogy, the Godfather, Back to the Future, Alien (forget the fourth one), etc.

By the way, didn't they mention they 'intended' this to be a trilogy from the start? Why not more clues in the first one. As said before Seraph and Persephone should've been main characters. They should've carried the torch.

The W-Bros. (not Warner) should do interviews to apologize! Clues to mythology and philosophy don't make a good movie!

Panic Room (2002)

Great Thriller (spoilers)

[8/10 · 4 June 2002]

Another great film by my favorite director, David Fincher. Although the film doesn't reach the brilliance of Fight Club and Se7en, it's a very enjoyable film with great performances by all the actors.

The story is known, so I won't spend any time on it here. Koepp's script is no Academy Award winner, but surprisingly clever for a big-budget film. God knows we've seen enough (too) simple scripts turned into box-office smash-hits. And Fincher knows what to do with it. He lets the camera spin, fly, move through the house, ceilings, walls and floors. Very close to Fight Club, these camera-moves.

Another great thing is that we never leave the house during the actual story. From the moment we take a look (with the characters) in the house, we stay there. That's also a good thing. We learn to know the house along with Meg and her daughter.

The villains aren't the most clever people alive. One times, when Meg does something (won't say it here), Raoul says: "Why didn't we do that?" and that makes the character more human than the average Euro-terrorists who dominate action films so much. People I know said the burglars made stupid mistakes. Well, people make stupid mistakes.

Minor things I liked: the opening credits. Brilliant. Perfect. The weaknesses of Meg and her daughter. They aren't perfect, just like the bad-guys and that makes them human and we can relate to them.

One thing I didn't like (and now the spoiler comes): The final scene. We see Meg and her daughter on a bench in a park, looking for a new house. In my opinion it didn't add anything to the movie and we left the house. I'd like us to stay in the house until the very end.

In general this is a great film, has its minor flaws, but they are compensated with a clever script, great performances, terrific camera work, perfect direction and the house itself, which I thought was one of the main characters. It might be a little bit of a safe bet for Fincher to do a big studio film. Personally I'd like to see him more risky projects, like Se7en and Fight Club, but he does a great job here and gives me confidence in Fincher doing Mission: Impossible 3, like the rumors are.

Baise-moi (2000)

My review (contains spoilers):

[6/10 · 22 May 2002]

Controversial. Explicit. Uncut. All true? Big yes. But does it live up the hype? I rented the tape in the same week as it was banned in Australia and for the same reasons the people there went to see it, I rented it: I just wanted to know what kinda film created all the buzz.

Two women kill - separately - two people and they decide to run. They meet at the train station and find out there are no trains going anywhere at that time of the night. They go together with a car and leave a trail of destruction behind them.

Combine this with explicit sex (even porn), lots of ultra violence and you've got a clear picture of Baise-Moi. The most controversial thing about this film are the sex-scenes, which are - at times - hardcore. I admire the fact the makers had the guts to film them and even let it pass in the editing room, but I have a suspicious feeling they did it just for the effect.

The violence is also explicit and sometimes gory. But ladies, nouvelle violence died about seven years ago. They also discuss the fact they should say something cool whenever they kill people. But somehow they never manage to really say anything important, to make a statement. Okay, they are both on the run and one of them was raped earlier in the film, but they never give a clear motivation for the killing. Is it they want to have revenge on "all the men"? Well, later in the film, in a sex-club, they also kill women.

If you look beside the controversy you can see that this could be a good movie, an evil Thelma and Louise, but the makers are too much focused on the sex and the violence and that makes it nothing more than an exploitation flick. The ending was good, though.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

"At last..." (spoilers)

[10/10 · 16 May 2002]

"At last..." a real hardcore fan sighed behind me last night in the theater when "A long time ago..." came on screen. Like he knew what was coming. Three years have passed since The Phantom Menace (ten years in the movie) and the changes are all in favor of Attack of the Clones.

No "Yippee", less Jar Jar and more action and fun. From the beginning through the end the film is filled with beautiful landscapes and action sequences that will thrill EVERYBODY.

Highlights of the film are the Clone-factory, the chase through Coruscant, the Arena battle, the Clone-Droid battle, the conveyor-belt scene, but most of all: the fight between Obi-Wan, Anakin and Yoda against the evil Count Dooku. The ending leaves enough for us to see more of Christopher Lee as this most threatening character since Darth Vader (or is it until Darth Vader?).

The acting is good, but not great, although Lee, MacGregor, Jackson and Oz (as the voice of Yoda) deliver strong performances. The love story between Anakin and Padmé didn't convince completely, but it's still better than most teen-flicks we've seen in recent years. The love story was the weakest part of the film, but it didn't bother me that much.

Lucas did a good thing to stuff this film up with action, action and... uhm... even more action, so we don't have much time to think about the story (which is considerably better than The Phantom Menace). We roll from one action-sequence into another.

And the CGI? One word: fantastic! It's like George Lucas and Peter Jackson have a contest who creates the most breathtaking shots and views. Lucas has raised the bar once more and shows some serious battles. Star Wars indeed. All our thanks go to ILM for creating this.

Now, overall: Episode II is a great popcorn-action-ride, which it's supposed to be. It has its flaws, but they don't matter to me. I wasn't distracted by them. The references to Phantom Menace and the original trilogy are plenty and fun. I can't wait for Episode III, seemingly the darkest film in the saga.

We just have to see what the effect is of Yoda's words: "Begun these Clone Wars have..."

Rip It Off (2001)

Acceptable B-flick

[6/10 · 18 March 2002]

The story is nothing new: Three girlfriends stealing the money their boyfriends intended to steal. I see this more as a Bound meets Ocean Eleven, but done with a tiny budget.

The acting, on the other hand, is very good. Especially the three female leads and Todd Field. They keep the film going and watchable.

Beyond City Limits is an enjoyable film without many surprises and despite its many flaws it's watchable.

Return to Normandy (1998 Video)

My view on Return to Normandy

[6/10 · 7 March 2002]

This short 'making of...' is not a making of in the traditional sense of the word, and in that way it disappoints.

Spielberg, Hanks, Damon, Kaminski, Stephen Ambrose, Dale Dye and others are interviewed, giving their view on the film and - mostly - on the war and how brilliant Spielberg portrays the war (and they're right).

If you are looking for a making of Saving Private Ryan, you're in the wrong place, but if you're looking for some insight of the war by the makers, you'll have a good time here.

Gummo (1997)

Strange, but it pays off

[7/10 · 31 January 2002]

Gummo is not an average film. It is no film with a solid story-line either. Gummo plays in Xenia, Ohio where a tornado struck several years ago and the town people never really got over it. The film is a collection of loose scenes containing people and their (sometimes strange) behavior.

Korine observes his cast, which mostly consists of amateurs. He doesn't judge them or ridicules them - which is often easy to do, but Korine loves his characters.

Most of the film is shot with digital hand-held camera, which provides the film with a documentary-style look and sometimes I had to ask myself if I wasn't watching a documentary, especially at the moments when some of the characters seem to talk straight into the camera.

The brilliance of Korine really comes onto the screen near the end, the sequence with Roy Orbison's 'Cryin'' on the soundtrack. That's - in my opinion - the best part of the film and it states the message of the film: In the end, it will stay the same. Nothing changes.

Like a fellow-commenter said: "It's a film to see with an open mind."

Jiskefet: Debiteuren Crediteuren - Ruimtetaxi (1995) Season 6, Episode 14

Great

[15 January 2002]

This is probably the funniest and most quoted Dutch TV show from the 1990's. The makers of Jiskefet build this show from a gag they had in their already running satirical show about four people at an office.

The funniest episode is when Sinterklaas (the Dutch version of Santa Clause) visits the office. A classic episode already!

The characters, accents and humor are just perfect, but mind you: this isn't for everybody.

10/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A great and fantastic epic. One Film to rule them all!

[10/10 · 2 January 2002]

Wow! That was the only word I could say when the end credits started to roll at the end of LOTR:FOTR.

Peter Jackson has accomplished the - almost - impossible and did not created a film, but a universe, like George Lucas did years before with the original Star Wars saga.

When I listened to the score a month ago I almost knew that it couldn't go bad anymore and seeing the trailer and some behind-the-scenes shots I knew before this film could not fail.

And I was right! It's a roller coaster ride like I haven't seen since Raiders of the Lost Ark! Peter Jackson (and everybody else working on this massive project) handle the story with care and love and it shows. Of course, some things had to be omitted. Tom Bombadil was cut out and the Hobbits get to Bree much faster and from that moment on there's no stopping in the pacing. It's a three hour movie that feels like... much shorter. Many films want to give the audience too much (or worse: too little), but LOTR gives enough. From the impressive battles in the beginning (stunning visuals) right until the 'ending' it's a perfect combination of fantastic story-telling, great visuals and beautiful acting.

And now the cast. I can be short about it: they didn't act, they were the characters. There were a lot of unknown names (for the big audience) in the cast, but I predict that most of them will get a great career after the Lord of the Rings-saga. My personal favorite is Billy Boyd as Pippen Took.

Where there any flaws? Probably, but I didn't notice them since I've seen it only once (this will change, my friends!), but with a film like this I don't know if it matters. Raiders has its flaws, Star Wars has its flaws, LOTR has its flaws, but it's that kinda film that can get away with it.

Finally I want to give a compliment to New Line Cinema who was - probably - the only studio who dared to make three films back-to-back with a director that isn't known that well with the big audience. Personally, I think Peter Jackson is a genius and they couldn't get a better one.

I think we can all sit back relaxed and wait until The Two Towers and The Return of the King hit cinemas.

I rate it 10/10

Drowning (2001)

Short review on Drowning

[9/10 · 5 December 2001]

Saw this one in front of Lost Souls (lousy Winona Ryder flick) last night on rental video.

Drowning has a creepy atmosphere and deals about a girl who's going to swim, but discovers she's not alone. She got a warning a girl drowned last week in that very swimming pool...

Made for an extremely low budget, but very good! Ivo Martijn follows the trend in horror films that wants more suggestions and less special effects and he succeeds in it big time!

I rate it 9/10

The Thief and the Cobbler (1993)

My review:

[7/10 · 2 December 2001]

Director Richard Williams came up with the story in 1968 and developed it over the years. His lifework ended in 1995 when Miramax dumped this film on video without giving it a (proper) theatrical release.

There are a lot of things wrong with this film. The story is poor and can't hold the attention very long. It also has to do with the fact that in 1992 Disney came up with Aladdin, which scored big time at the box-office as we all know. The animation (especially the characters) sometimes look like they were drawn like an East-European animated TV-show (for anyone who hasn't seen these shows: they're very poorly drawn). The songs are... easy to forget. I'm not a fan of songs in animated films. Even in Disney films I don't like them, mostly unnecessary and holding up the story.

Now to the good parts of this film: The animation is brilliant at times, as it is poorly at other times. The brilliant stuff is especially the Escher-like surroundings throughout the story. The voice cast is very good. Vincent Price, Matthew Broderick, Jennifer Beals and eric Bogosian, Toni Collette and Jonathan Winters all do well. Finally, the jokes. There were as many good jokes as there were bad ones. Most of the jokes came from The Thief and referred to the 20th century pop-culture and half of them are good, the other half are not. Some jokes are good, but not for this film. Whatever they were thinking, I guess they needed a funny sidekick to make some wisecracks.

In all, an interesting film. The good animation at times can hardly make up for all the flaws throughout the film. Still I wonder why Williams couldn't come up with a better story for this one. He worked long enough on it. There are many good ideas in this film, but they are mostly poorly developed.

Despite its flaws I rate it 7/10.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

A BRILLIANT MADNESS!!!

[10/10 · 28 November 2001]

This film is brilliant!

It has a script with tons of cliches, an editing style that makes MTV jealous and - no - it's no film by Michael Bay.

Instead we get one of the best musicals ever. Where other musicals have their 'own' songs, Moulin Rouge! uses pop-songs from the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's to carry the whole film and it works great, even if the film plays in 1899 and 1900.

McGregor and Kidman, the two leads playing Christian and Satine, are a perfect match and this combination will be placed in movie history along with other classic couples like Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca and Leigh and Gable in Gone With the Wind. Time has to tell if Moulin Rouge! will become a classic like these two, but it looks good for Moulin Rouge! It's my favorite film of the year (closely followed by A.I. and Fellowship of the Ring has yet to come!)

Baz Luhrmann is absolutely brilliant, something we could've seen already in Romeo + Juliette. It seems he doesn't know what an anachronism is, but that's completely fine with me. In the hands of a lesser director this could've been a very bad film, but it all turned out perfect.

My favorite part is where Christian and Satine are on the top of the Elephant and start singing several songs (or at least a few lines of them) in one brilliant scene.

Is there anything wrong with this film? Perhaps the first half hour is sometimes too much, but it delivers great cinema. And, like said before, the script is a collection of cliches, but in this case it didn't bother me, because the film had tons and tons of other things to offer. These small minor points are nothing against the pro's the film has to offer. Just see it... no, EXPERIENCE it!

I wonder why it did so poorly at the box-office? Are people not ready for it? Were it the poor reviews of critics who praised The Mummy Returns and Pearl Harbor (both: worthless, especially in comparison with Moulin Rouge!) and thought Moulin Rouge! was a mediocre film? I don't know. Maybe one day we'll know...

To be short:

This one will blast you out of your seat and has to be seen in the theater. It's a total cinematic explosion! A film to love and see over and over again!

It's a true must-see and I rate it 10/10!

Everybody's Famous! (2000)

A Very Good Film

[9/10 · 23 October 2001]

*** SMALL SPOILER ALERT ***

Iedereen Beroemd is one of the best films from Belgium I've ever seen. It's a great comedy with a tremendous cast. Josse de Pauw excels as the father who is convinced of his daughter's talent and he will do anything to make her famous. Even when he has to kidnap the national pop star for it. The dialogues are fantastic and the film has many brilliant moments, like the one in which Jean (De Pauw) goes out to get the 'ransom', with a Michael Jackson mask on. The scene is hilarious!

A 9/10 ('cause it was a little predictable towards the end)

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

A big disappointment

[3/10 · 15 October 2001]

After reading a lot about this film (classic, cult, etc.) I decided to rent it at the local video store and I expected a good horror film, but what I got was some sick piece of crap, made by the sickest people on earth. I'm not talking about the lousy story or the ridiculous acting, but about the mutilation of animals.

Who on earth decided not to use special effects for this? Besides, this is one of the worst horror films I've ever seen. Horror films are supposed to scare the hell out of people, but in that this films fails big-time! It's as scary as Mary Poppins and the poor production values indicate that there was only one Saturday afternoon spend on writing the script. Well, the only thing that scared me about this film was that some people came up with money for this and that there are people who actually like it! 33 % of the voters voted a 10! Can anybody tell me in what asylum I can find these people?

The makers try to sell this film as it was made as a documentary and that everything was real. A concept that was done much, much better by the makers of The Blair Witch Project. This is the only thing I have to admit that was good in the film: The concept. The execution is worthless. The main characters lack every depth and/or motivation. (They are supposed to be professional film makers, but instead they kill natives and film each other while naked).

Cannibal Holocaust is a poor attempt to shock people, but it only proofs the retardness of the makers. Who made it anyway? Some 14-year old kids? These films give GOOD horror a bad name.

Cut (I) (2000)

Could've been good

[6/10 · 12 August 2001]

The first hour of this film is promising, but it fails to deliver the goods in the right way in the last 20 minutes. The idea behind it could be a Blair Witch sequel or a new chapter in the Scream franchise, but the makers made a B-film that goes over the top in the last part.

I thought it was quite good, until Molly Ringwald says: Let's kill the son of a bitch! After that it got worse.

Maybe the writer had to send the script to The X-Files or something. The idea is good, the execution sucks.

A 5/10

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Big, fun popcorn thrill-ride (SPOILERS)

[8/10 · 2 August 2001]

I saw the movie last night and it was better then one should expect from a third part of sequel. It has its thrills and fun and is probably one of the best examples this year of mindless fun.

Jurassic Park 3 starts of with a young boy who's paragliding near Isla Sorna (Site B from JP2: The Lost World). He crashes down and his parents start looking for him. They hire Alan Grant who knows the dino's best to guide them through the island. Billy, Alan's protegé, and three mercenaries come along with them. Of course, the plane crashes and we're back in the good old world of 'Oh and ah, but soon it'll be running and screaming.'

What can I say? I liked the film very much. Of course there werre flaws, but I'll get to them soon.

What was great? The actors were fantastic in their roles. Sam Neill and Laura Dern act like they never and the new people (William H. Macy, Téa Leoni, Alessandro Nivola) are perfect added in the JP-franchise. The script was good enough, not pretending to be more than it is: a big popcorn flick. The dino's... The dino's were (as always) awesome!!! The Spinosaurus who kills the T-Rex in the first half hour, the raptors with their 'new' intelligence and the pterodactycles (is this written right?) are just breath-taking CGI. The pacing of the film was perfect. Johnston introduces us to the characters in the first 20 minutes and then... WHAM! We're in the middle of the action and we never get out until the end credits. Joe Johnston is a perfect replacement for Spielberg (who disappointed us all with JP2: The Lost World a bit). Another cool thing was bringing in the birdcage, which also featured in the original Jurassic Park-novel by Michael Crichton. Remember they did the same thing with the waterfall in The Lost World.

Now then: what was not so great? First of all: the length of the film: 88 minutes. All those screenwriters (most of them uncredited) couldn't come up with something more? One big final battle? Which leads us directly to the ending, which is too quick. Another thing: the three mercenaries die too quickly. If they lived a little longer, we could know them better and decide to care or not care if they died, but now they die so quickly that we don't.

Then there were three things I liked to see in the movie, but which weren't in it: - Paul and Amanda Kirby visiting Ian Malcolm who refuses to go back with them (since he was the one who actually was on Isla Nublar, Alan wasn't) - The film should've take place on Isla Sorna, the original Island. It would make it more believable that they actually hired Grant for the mission and it could provide some cool scenes with Alan revisiting some good old places like the Tyrannosaur-paddock. - The ending. When Alan calls Ellie, it would've been cool if Ellie called John Hammond immediately. He has far more influence than she has and it would make it even more believable when all those marines show up.

Despite these flaws, I really enjoyed the movie and rate it a 8/10.

Brokedown Palace (1999)

Good, but nothing special

[7/10 · 11 June 2001]

A good film with strong performances (especially the two leads). The film is about two American girls who are caught with 6 kilo's heroin on an airport in Thailand. They're both thrown in prison and one of them signs a confession. Bill Pullman plays the lawyer who tries to get them out. All they have to do is find a Nick Parks who put the narcotics in the bag of one of the two girls. So far for the story which isn't that original (it has many resemblances with the better Return to Paradise).

The acting and Newton Thomas Sigel's beautiful photography make this film worth to watch. A 7 out of 10.

G.I. Joe: The Movie (1987 Video)

Great movie

[7/10 · 30 May 2001]

I saw this film last night for the first time in ten years and I must say I still knew most of the dialogue! I saw it about a 1000 times when I was 10 years old. This film didn't loose the 'magic' when I reviewed it last night (other shows and films from my youth like Airwolf, A-Team and the Thunderbirds did loose their 'magic').

G.I. Joe The Movie is still a great, entertaining and fun cartoon. It's all about the origin of Cobra (G.I. Joe's nemisis). An ancient tribe of mutants (the ancestors of Cobra) want to take over the world and it's up the the Joe's to avoid this.

Despite its many flaws (some plotholes, continuity-goofs, etc.), it's still a great time watching it. This is certainly a film that defined my youth.

A 9 out of 10.

Miss Congeniality (2000)

Big fun!

[7/10 · 27 March 2001]

I saw this one last weekend and although I'm not a fan of the genre at all I really enjoyed Miss Congeniality.

First I thought I was going to see some bad movie (I didn't like the first scene at all and it should've been dropped on the floor of the editing room). I was afraid that the Pearl Harbor trailer was the best I was going to see that night, but luckily I really began to like Miss Congeniality. Okay, the plot was very predictable, but Sandra Bullock gives a terrific performance and carries the whole film to the end by herself.

Bullock and Michael Caine are a perfect comedy team and the scenes they share are the highlights of the film.

It's just big fun. No more, certainly no less!

High Fidelity (2000)

Great comedy

[8/10 · 16 March 2001]

This is the best comedy of last year. Period. John Cusack is fantastic (again) as Rob Gordon, the owner of a record store and a obsessive list maker. The last years he specializes himself in roles in which the character starts to doubt his lifestyle (the killer in Grosse Pointe Blank and the puppeteer in Being John Malkovich) and he seems to be born to play this character. (Like Bruce Willis is born to fight terrorists and other bad guys with a hang over and George Clooney disobeys his superiors' orders in every movie).

The rest of the cast is also great, especially Jack Black who could be a cousin of Randall in Clerks (p*****g the customers off).

High Fidelity has just what a movie needs. Terrific performances, perfect script and a soundtrack that is a part of the story (like in Forrest Gump and Boogie Nights).

I'm gonna recommend this film to everyone I see and it's already my favorite film of the last year.

The first thing I did after seeing this one was making a tape...

10 out of 10.

Stigmata (1999)

Exorcist rip- off (may contain spoilers!!!)

[6/10 · 14 March 2001]

First of all I don't think this is a bad movie. It's quite entertaining, but you can't miss the similarities with the all time classic The Exorcist.

First of all: the story opens in a third world country. Enter a priest who is set to help a young girl in the States who is possessed by an (evil) spirit). Besides this: the floating above the bed, etc. In my humble opinion the makers intended to be the line: 'How is your faith today, father?' (or something like that) to be the new 'The power of Christ compels you'.

Gabriel Byrne is good as always as the priest/ scientist (only a short time after he played Satan in End of Days). Patricia Arquette isn't bad, but isn't great either. The film itself looks good. Maybe to much MTV- style editing, but the photography is terrific!

Now we come at the flaws in the script (may contain SPOILERS!!!). What is it that Frankie suddenly falls in love with Kiernan? It didn't work (for me) and I'm surprised this part was still in the final cut. It makes the film and the characters unbelievable. Why did they suddenly come up with those Dead Sea scrolls (one of them written by Jesus)? They could have made a whole film out of this bit.

Still a 6 out of 10.

Twister (I) (1996)

A big fun action ride!

[8/10 · 14 March 2001]

Twister is - what I think - a perfect example of Hollywood entertainment. It has no message whatsoever, but brings just fun. Tons of it. It was only when I walked out of the theater (almost 5 years ago) that I realized there was almost no story, but that didn't matter, because I wasn't looking for one during the film.

The story (Bill and Jo chasing a tornado) is just an excuse for bringing great action and superb CGI to the public (us). Don't look for any deeper meanings, but just enjoy the ride!

8 out of 10.

Scary Movie (2000)

I'm sorry. Was I supposed to laugh?

[2/10 · 11 March 2001]

Friends told me this was the funniest film they've seen in years and normally I take their recommendations serious. Let me tell you one thing: SCARY MOVIE is a waste of time. You can do better things in 90 minutes. Only two times I had to smile and that was during the Amistad II scene and during the scene in which Cindy's father says he has to disappear for a while for 'uncle Escobar'. I didn't laugh, I only smiled. These films are made for laughing your heart out. The only moment I really laughed was when the end credits started rolling. What a relief!! The end of this piece of s**t.

In the movie a character says people stopped the TV show The Wayan Brothers. Looking through the credits I see that the Wayan Brothers are responsible for this and I wonder: Why is he surprised that they stopped the TV show???

I still have some questions: Who gave the green light for this one? Who had the power to cancel it? Can't this small army of writers come up with one single FUNNY joke? And, last but not least, WHY ARE THEY MAKING A SEQUEL RIGHT NOW? Haven't we suffered enough????

Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)

Not as bad as they say

[6/10 · 9 March 2001]

May contain a few spoilers

First of all: It's nowhere near the original. The original wasn't a masterpiece, but it was a classic example for big fun!

This one has some good performances, good direction, great action sequences, but a terrible script. Who wrote this shit?!? (The credit shouldn't be: 'written by...', but: 'accused of writing trash...')

If you like good action, hit the fast forward button to the last half hour, (SPOILER WARNING!!!) when the ship crashes into a village and a tanker, The Eindhoven (!) Lion explodes! Now, if the whole film was like this, it would've been great, but it isn't so we (the audience) have to sit through one and a half hour of cliches and characters. What were that Dante- guy and the deaf girl doing there, except being annoying?

Sandra Bullock was fine as Annie, but Jason Patric can't let us forget Keanu Reeves.

If there will ever be a Speed 3 (which I doubt after the disappointing box office gross this one made), please pay at least a little attention to the script.