Amistad - Spielberg's new film really worths the money and the time spent to watch it !!! Exceptionally well shot (well, it's Spielberg, isn't it ???) with very good performances and a very strong plot.
Plus's - Performance of every single one in the cast, Hopkins really deserves an Oscar; strong plot, no gaps in the storyline; magnificently directed.
Minus's - a "Hollywood film", I use the quotes to differentiate from the origin of the film and stress the bad connotations the phrase has for some of us, there is a stupid scene somewhere in the middle of the film where glorious drums and orchestral music compel you to cry, totally stupid, you'll know when you see the film.
(enjoyed on 27-2-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Amistad (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
And it couldn't get MUCH better !!! Wonderful film, unmissable, you leave the cinema with a big smile on your face, full of optimism and hope, you start looking at life from a different view you 'become a better man' (woman, whatever....). SEE IT !!!
This guy (Mr Udall, ie Nicholson) is the most unfriendly, impolite, bad manners introvert on earth! Nevertheless his awful behaviour has nothing to do (apparently) with his feelings. The guy has a problem, he doesn't know how to behave, but he knows (thank God !!!) how to pity people, feel for them, feel something anyway. Now, how to express this, being the bastard that you are and being used to live alone, is totally another matter !!!
I really feel that, no matter how perfect your life may be, no matter how wonderful a person you might be, this film will change a few things about the way you treat people, about the way you treat yourself. You will feel that something needs to be changed, even something little or insignificant, right by the moment you get out of the cinema. Let's wait for the Oscars to see what the Academy thinks as well, I WANT THEM TO SURPRISE ME !
Oh, yes, if you want to have an idea what kind of guy we are talking about, have a look at the keywords at IMDb's page for the film, amongst others even the very Greek epithet 'misanthrope' !!!
(enjoyed on 16-3-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
I couldn't resist enjoying the film again after the Oscars ceremony. I wanted to see again the magnificent performances that so righteously granted Nicholson and Hunt with the lead role Oscars. Once again I confirmed that the rest of the cast contributed to the success of the film as well, by acting superbly and authentically, every single one of them, Greg Kinnear, Cuba Gooding Jr, even Kristi Zea as Hunt's mother and Harold Ramis as the doctor, who have very small roles. I have to warn though all of you out there, this is a typical american real life drama-comedy. If you don't like them you may not like this one either, no matter that it is one of the best of the kind, it has wondeful performances and it has a clever, realistic and not at all silly plot. If you think you cannot bear such films, go and see it with a girl, they all appreciate them ! And 'As Good As It Gets' at least deserves every bit of appreciation. It is just AS GOOD AS IT GETS !!!
(re-enjoyed on 26-3-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for As Good As It Gets (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Will Hunting is the name actually of the character played by Matt Damon, but HE'S NO GOOD AT ALL ! The guy is having a simple life by enjoying his extended teen years. Fights, nights out with his mates, drinking and great laughs, what the hell, he's just 20 years old. His background doesn't seem to haunt him at all, no family, he leads a life of his own, poor but at least he has a job and his mates who love him and would support him in any case.
Will has a talent, something more than photographic memory, he is a genius. And because the term has lots of connotations let me be more specific; Will absorbs knowledge but has the ability also to use it in a constructive way, he is imaginative and creative, he is clever. He knows his talent but he cares not. He is content, his God's given gift is a toy, he does it for fun, he doesn't care to invest on it.
Poor Will works though in MIT, just a seasonal cleaner, nothing more, but MIT is the spring of knowledge and progress, it doesn't take long for Will to be discovered. And there starts the dilemma, is Will's gift a gift to humanity which he has the obligation to put along with the society to earn money, to produce knowledge, to contribute to progress ? Does Will care to do so ? Does he have the Good Will ?
The maths professor from MIT would like to see Will succeeding, but for an academic person success is fame, money, career. The psychologist of Robin Williams would like to see Will happy, but for him happiness is self-comprehension and discovery, that's why he gets Will 'digging' in to his own soul. Then there is also Will's friend (Ben Affleck), another young person from a poor neighbourhood, who doesn't share Will's talent though, and he wants the best for his friend, and Will's girlfriend (Minnie Driver), who loves him and accepts him the way he is.
So it looks like Will is a really lucky guy. Not only he has an amazing talent, but he is also the focus of attention of these four people. But then why Will is in trouble ? What is it that he's looking for ? This is for you to discover unless you have the patience to wait for the end of the film.
Van Sant managed to get very good performances out of his cast. The script is also pretty well written (by Damon and Affleck), the characters are well described and analysed, thoroughlly though only Will's, and that's because there isn't enough time, rightly, otherwise the film would be tiring. Some friends considered the pace slow, I don't thing so, it's only right. What I find most interesting in the film though is not Will's gift and problems, but the conflict between the two worlds the maths professor and the psychologist represent; fame, career, glory at all costs, mainly at the cost of your own personality maybe, against inner peace, the joy of simple every day feelings and life's little treasures. There must so many other alternatives though, to be discussed in other films.
Oh, and the best quote of the year (at least), by Will, dedicated to Yorgos Kap and Kostas Zodiac. Have a look at:
IMDb - Quotes from Good Will Hunting
Hint: NSA stands for the National Security Agency
I love this guy !!! But he won't get an Oscar on March the 23rd with such a mouth !!!
(enjoyed on 20-3-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Good Will Hunting (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
In the dawn of time, long before man walked the Earth, God created Angels. Some of them are still with us, and they are not like J. Travolta's angels, no nice wings with snow white feathers, no shinny aura around their heads...
Let me start from the beginning. Poor detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington) enjoys his latest achievement, the serial killer he caught is executed at last. Elias Koteas has a brief role, but he surely manages to pass the message !!! The guy is talking fluently a couple of unknown languages, he is in great mood and shows no remorse, he even sings Rolling Stones !!!
All this should make Hobbes suspicious. It takes him though a while to realise that there is someone out there after him, and this someone is not easy to catch at all. You see, this someone has the bad habit to switch bodies, faster than the blink of Hobbes' eyes !!!
Enough with the riddles, Hobbes had the bad luck to capture the latest Azazel incarnation. Unfortunately Azazel is no human, he is one of the angels who have fallen from God's grace, one of the demons haunted to torture humanity. Azazel (any connections with Azaroth ? Ask Kostas Zodiac) has this handy ability, he switches bodies instantly by touch.
How can you kill a beast like that ? Hobbes figures it out, but I'm not going to tell you how.
Instead I'll tell you that sometimes I had the impression that the story could be a very good book, why did they decide to make the film ? But then there is Koteas giving a magnificent 10 minutes performance, there are some scenes like the first time Hobbes realises how Azazel switches bodies, or the last scene, which more than justify the producers. Some things are so much more powerfull in movies, no words could describe them. John Goodman and Donald Sutherland deliver very good performances as well.
The clip of the credits in the beginning of the film is the second best this year after 'The Jackal' one.
(enjoyed on 26-3-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Fallen (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Pretty Villages, Pretty Flames
George, a friend of mine, says 'Why do you watch Vietnam movies ? Do you expect THEM to show you how bad and tragic war is ?'
This film is not about Vietnam, but it surely helps to realise the vanity of war. This is a Yugoslavian film, shot by a Serb with an open mind in 1996.
It talks about 2 very close friends in Bosnia, Halil, a Muslim, and Milan, a Serb, and presents scenes of their childhood during peace as flashbacks. Scenes from the civil war in Bosnia are also flashbacks, whereas the real time is in a hospital in Belgrade where Milan is treated along with a couple of survivors from his squad. The contrast between peace and war is really shocking. Halil and Milan were like brothers before the war, only to become the worst enemies in the pyre of war paranoia. The gradual build up of hate in Milan's soul is very well depicted, even complete strangers to the Bosnian war can feel what exactly was happening in the victims' souls.
The two friends are doomed by the demon of war to play hide and seek around their home village, until they meet in the battle field, only to culminate the tragedy of their story. Back to the hospital, Milan is still the Muslim killer, he still hates Muslims with his whole heart.
Srdjan Dragojevic directs a film about a war beyond any reasoning. He shocks his audience with lots of blood and wounds, he pulls off the mask of glory from any warrior, courage and patriotism have no sense. Dragojevic is an Assistant Professor in Movie Directing in Belgrade. He knows this is a unique opportunity to briefly discuss political mistakes of the past. He does so superficially because his main aim is to show the futility of war. Nevertheless he dares to criticize Tito, the builder of Yugoslavia after WW2 and his silly politics in a country that was destined to break up to its elements. I think Dragojevic wants also to put the question, "did it have to happen through such a painful war ?"
(enjoyed on 26-3-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Lepa sela lepo gore (1996)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
An Australian film with Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett, this is the story of two pathological gamblers, one obsessive and one compulsive (! - they say so in the film, I don't know what they mean though...), who fall in love little by little, discovering the passion they have and trying to analyse it, fight it, live with it.
The story refers to the mid-1800's, English Oscar meets Australian Lucinda because of the passion they share. They are both strong and interesting personalities and they discover little by little other things they have in common, like their passion for life, their aversion to hypocricy and pretence.
Oscar and Lucinda will fight to overcome their passion, will fight to cast out their ghosts of the past. Still they both fail, through the story they will suffer loses of beloved people and they will try to regain confidence to themselves by setting the ultimate bet. They bet their hole fortunes on a crazy bet against each other, but they both know they bet their lives. They seek salvation through this bet, but they only demonstrate vanity by trying to show to themselves and to others they are still capable of great things. They will both pay the price, Oscar will lose his life and Lucinda will lose Oscar, but there is always something left...
The film has the atmosphere of 'The Piano', similar cinematography and soundtrack and picturesque scenes. It also gives the feeling that the main characters are just objects of their fate. I am not trying to compare the two films here, I am merely saying that Oscar and Lucinda made me feel the same way.
(enjoyed on 29-2-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Oscar and Lucinda (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Now, some of you may wonder "what is in there that we haven't already seen ? Sword fights, men with big hats and ladies with revealing busts, plus the bravery of the Musketeers". Yes, some times there is nothing more than a fairy tale, but this time they have casted a few of the most interesting and controversial actors around, Malkovich (Athos), Irons (Aramis) and Depardieu (Porthos). The story line is simple and anticipative but Malkovich and Irons perform very well. Depardieu is unfortunately wasted by the director's and/or producers' will to depict the average Frenchman according to Hollywood; he farts, he burps and he shows his buttocks for no reason. What a waste of talent....
And then of course there is DiCaprio (King Louis/Philippe) who starts getting to my nerves, but he's successfully casted to attract (supposedly) the female-under-30's audience. He's acting pretty well, I suppose, and the same stands for Gabriel Byrne in the role of D'Artagnan, but the lady King Louis is after (Judith Godrèche as Christine) is really bad, she reminded me of the other untalented actress I cannot stand, S. Bullock.
I don't know how I sound like up to now, but if the film's pros and cons stopped there I would gladly watch it again. The think is that towards the end the director Randall Wallace (who has written "Braveheart") decides to go epic! So silly scenes hit the unsuspected audience, like full frontal attack of the heroes while bullets miss them, the heroes idiotically kneeling in front of the king, hitting their chests with their arms in a unpecedentedly silly salute etc.
To conclude, the film is not a waste of money or time if you are determined to watch a fairy tale with a couple of sword fights and a little intrigue, with flat heroes, but real heroes and 'valour'. You won't remember much a week after, anyway.
(enjoyed on 2-4-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Man in the Iron Mask, The (1998/I)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
THIS is a dilemma now. How can you say that a Sci-Fi film is bad beyond repetition, when friends into sci-fi films love it ? Yorgos, a friend of mine says the plot is a bit unconvincing and some scenes seem too cliche, only to add that this is exactly why he liked it.
Well, for the same reasons, plus a few more, I DIDN'T like it. This is a waste of a lot of talents that causes my dissapointment, namely Michael Crichton (original novel, responsible also for the 2 Jurassic Parks and Twister), Barry Levinson (Wag the Dog, Donnie Brasco, Sleepers, etc), Dustin Hoffman (the expert psychatrist), Sharon Stone (the expert chemical bilogist) and Samuel L. Jackson (the epxert mathematician).
The three latter, plus Liev Schreiber (the expert astrophysician), are the four scientists invited by the US Navy to investigate (or witness the evil of, acting as guinea pigs) the spaceship discovered on the Pacific ocean floor. Levinson tries hard to create the scary atmosphere and suspence, but he misses just about. I jumped on my seat a couple of times, but that was it. The plot is just unimaginative and anticipative, full of 'analogies' with other sci-fi films. The mysterious sphere and the place it is in, reminded me of 'Event Horizon' (here the sphere is shiny), the messages on the computer screne of '2001: A Space Odyssey' and 'Solaris', the underwater scenes of 'Abyss' and the cheap 'oh God, we're doomed !' games with fire and water to create suspence, of b-movies. I can't understand how professionals of the Levinson's and Crichton's prestige, need to use scenes like the 'PULL THE LEVER - DON'T PULL THE LEVER !' one, to climax the action.
There are some clever points, but these are only a few, like the fact that the sphere does not reflect the visitors, or that the spaceship comes from the future etc, but I'm not saying more. I couldn't understand why Crichton had to gather these four experts if he wasn't utilising their experties in the scenario. What a waste of geniuses !
I was waiting till the very end for a twist in the plot, but there came no surprise. Even the conveniently clever ending felt like a big soap bubble. Jackson's performance is notably better than all the rest, but still the film belongs to the category that you forget in a month or so. The same happened with 'Event Horizon' a few months ago,a few special effects trapped in an unmoving plot, my memory was only triggered by the 'Sphere'. At the antipode lie sci-fi films like 'Contact', which stay in your memory because of the clever plot (Carl Sagan wrote the original novel) and real suspence. Nevertheless, if you are one of the sci-fi buffs out there, I am sure that you will decide to see the film with hope in your heart !
(enjoyed on 10-4-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Sphere (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ok, let me be sincere now, I never really liked Tarantino, I don't like his style as a director or as a script writer (especially the latter), nevertheless I've seen all the films associated with him, films he directed, produced or was responsible for the script. Of these films I really liked only the 'Reservoir Dogs' and the 'Natural Born Killers', for the rest I don't give a penny and I would never see them again. And I don't like Tarantino because of the way he wants to shock his audience, if I have to explain it in a few words.
To come to the point, 'Jackie Brown' has an interesting plot (nothing exceptional, and I already hear Tarantino fans cursing me), but very good performances, especially from Pam Grier (Jackie) and Samuel L. Jackson (Ordell). De Niro is not that bad, but Grier and Jackson are really magnificent ! Michael Keaton and Bridget Fonda are also quite good, given their relatively small roles. Can someone though tell me why the hell Robert Forster was nominated for an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor ??? Is it the Academy's general policy to nominate actors/actresses in roles of old, close to retirement, but still energetic and conscious of their age personalities ??? I think there lies the secret of Forster's nomination. Jackson's and Grier's performances have been nominated a lot this year, but only Jackson got the Silver Berlin Bear in the Berlin International Film Festival.
The grace of the film lies in it's story. Tarantino (who also scripted the story) narrates in an easy and clever pace, aided also by the original story of Elmore Leonard's book (he is responsible for Get Shorty, too). Jackie Brown is an air-hostess who has been involved in her past in petty crimes and as a result she is now working for a minor company. In this way though she has the opportunity to help Ordell with his criminal activities by carrying dirty money for him. This provides her with an extra income. When she's busted by the law (Michael Keaton and Michael Bowen) she has to find a way to:
1- Save herself from Ordell who wants to send her to Heaven, so that she doesn't give him to the cops
2- Avoid imprisonment
3- Get Ordell's money and retire for good !
Max Cherry (Robert Forster), a bail bondsman who falls for her, will be her aide on her adventures. The things get a bit more complicated because Melanie (Bridget Fonda), Ordell's girlfriend, wants to get the money for herself, and Louis Gara (Robert De Niro), Ordell's "retarded" employee, pulls the trigger more easily than he speaks.
Certainly a very enjoyable 154 minutes film, with a nice soundtrack and performances. It will still be equally enjoyable when it is out on video, though.
(enjoyed on 13-4-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Jackie Brown (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Great Expectations ? All of mine were fulfilled. To explain myself, I didn't know anything about the story before, and I mean the original story by Charles Dickens, so I cannot really say if it is a good adaptation or not. But I can surely say that I really liked the film, the story was very interesting and believable, very sentimental but very true and realistic as well.
The original Dickens' story is narrated in our times. With the beautiful Florida landscapes as a background, Alfonso Cuar�n (a director with no exquisite films in his life), surely takes his time to build the characters and satisfy our eyes with pictures which seem like well-drawn paintings.
Finnegan Bell is a poor boy in the 70's Florida who likes to spend his time alone, drawing. He falls for Estella, an egocentric and arrogant girl with a rich background. Her aunt, Ms. Dinsmoor (Anne Bancroft), warns him that Estella will only break his heart, but for him Estella represents a divine creature, it is more than passion or love.
Grown-ups Fin (Ethan Hawke) and Estella (Gwyneth Paltrow) will not change much. She will continue her dirty tricks with him, taking him from Heaven to Hell and back, one time talking sweetly to him and the other insulting him. He will still stay by her, having no choice but to bear her unjustified behaviour, until she leaves for studies abroad. Just when he is about to overcome Estella and focus on a simple life as a fisherman, a mysterious benefactor offers him sponsorship if he decides to paint again and present a show with his work in a famous gallery in New York. Fin will go there, but it seems only because Estella is in New York now. She's the magnet which drags him to the big city. But will Fin have the fatal end of the fly which is attracted by the strong light of a burning bulb ?
Alfonso Cuar�n has all the skills to create a wonderful imagery. In Florida his sets are like a fairy-tale, whereas he shoots indoors or outdoors the sets look false, unreal, products of a child's imagination - but then Fin in the beginning of the film says that he will tell things NOT the way they happened, but the way he remembers them. In NYC things are simpler, since interior design flourishes everywhere in the city and Paltrow and Hawke are always dressed in designer's clothing. The camera is rarely used as a simple observer, Cuar�n will play with the light and the shadow, the rain and the wind, the natural colours and his coloured lenses (I suppose), will try strange angles and perspectives. I liked very much the scene shot under the bridge in Central Park in NYC, Hawke and Paltrow are just two speaking shadows.
The artwork presented throughout the film as Fin's is actually made by Francesco Clemente especially for the film and it really adds to the atmosphere. The same stands for the music by contemporary artists like Iggy Pop, the Pulp and Verve. Paltrow is as beautiful as never before, Hawke is not DiCaprio (thank God), Anne Bancroft is superb as the love-hurted half-crazy aunt of Estella and Robert De Niro once again excels in a fairly small but key part.
I guess it is obvious that I liked the film very much, its sentimentality is not pretentious and the characters are quite realistic. The opposite view says that the film is slow, over-sentimental, falsely romantic, naive and tiring. According to some friends, the production was meant to be something like the latest Romeo+Juliet (an adaptation of a classic story in modern ages with good-looking actors), but it failed to fulfil the expectations! Well, the film fulfilled MY expectations and I certainly suggest it. Mind you though, it will be comlimented on a big screen and with a company of the opposite sex.
(enjoyed on 22-4-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Great Expectations (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Certainly not a masterpiece. Especially for Coppola's fans (are there any left out there ???), who are accustomed to exceptional films from him. The best recent film of his was Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) which was followed by the "comedy" Jack (1996) with Robin Williams - I have seen only trailers of this one, but I don't think it was anything worth mentioning.
If I need to count here Coppola's directing triumphs, from past to present, I would mention The Godfather (1972), The Godfather: Part II (1974), The Conversation (1974), Apocalypse Now (1979), Rumble Fish (1983), The Outsiders (1983), The Cotton Club (1984), Peggy Sue Got Married (1986), Gardens of Stone (1987), Tucker: The Man and His Dream (1988), New York Stories (1989) (Coppola is responsible for the 2nd segment, "Life without Zoe"), The Godfather: Part III (1990) and Dracula (1992). He was also involved in the worth mentioning productions of American Graffiti (1973), Koyaanisqatsi (1983), The Godfather Trilogy: 1901-1980 (1992) (video release), Kenneth Branagh's Frankenstein (1994), and Don Juan DeMarco (1995). Do I need to carry on, or is it already obvious that I am a fan of Coppola ? If I have to compare the above mentioned films with The Rainmaker the result wouldn't be very complimentary for the latter.
The story is based on a John Grisham's novel (other films based on his novels include A Time to Kill (1996), The Chamber (1996), The Client (1994), The Pelican Brief (1993) and The Firm (1993), all of them better than the Rainmaker) and it follows - once again - the livings of a young lawyer (Matt Damon as Rudy Baylor) and his efforts to practise his profession in a fair manner. He tries to implement his ideals by opposing the much more experienced lawyers of an insurance company that doesn't pay and by protecting the lady he falls in love with from her violent husband. Danny DeVito adds humorous notes in Rudy's hard times as his partner. Jon Voight gives a wonderful performance as "the bad guy", the representative of the insurance company, and Danny Glover is very good as Judge Tyrone Kipler.
What's wrong with the film then ? The story offers nothing new, it failed to grasp my heart or my interest. Apart from a couple of very clever dialogues and quotes from Rudy ("What's the difference between a lawyer and a hooker? A hooker'll stop screwing you when you're dead" - "How do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving") or the Judge and some good performances, the film has no nerve and Damon is not exactly the best actor around. His performance is flat and unexciting. If you insist on watching the film, maybe it would seem better on video.
(enjoyed on 24-4-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Rainmaker, The (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I had the great opportunity to watch the director's cut (209 min's for the UK release in 1997) and it was simply fantastic ! I don't really have the chance to watch many German language films, apart from the English and the French language ones I rarely watch films in other languages. But it is a great pity that films of such value are not widly available and known.
Directed by Wolfgang Petersen (Air Force One, Outbreak, In the Line of Fire, Shattered, Enemy Mine, The NeverEnding Story) the film tells the story of the crew of a German U-boat (German submarines of WW II are called U-boats). The film sets off at the French base of the U-boat, where the young crew get drunk and naughty before the new mission, while the experienced captain (J�rgen Prochnow, seen also in Air Force One, The English Patient, Judge Dredd, In the Mouth of Madness, On Dangerous Ground, Body of Evidence, A Dry White Season, The Seventh Sign, Beverly Hills Cop II, Dune etc) and his officers prepare themselves and discuss upon their mission. The greatest part of the film is of course shot in the U-boat. The long, nerve-cracking awaiting time before they encounter action is stretched up to the audience's limits. While the crew grow beards the audience can really feel how stressful and upsetting this waiting can be. When the time for action comes though, the whole crew acts swiftly and effectively, demonstrating how threatening these weapons were for the Allied convoys in the Atlantic during WW II. Petersen takes advantage of the claustrophobic atmosphere (so claustrophobic that you later have the feeling that this is a black+white film), but his cameras are so active during action scenes, following the crew through tight doors and even in the dark engine room or the torpedo room, that makes you think how difficult it must have been to shoot these scenes. Throughout the film the heroic actions of the crew are praised, but these praises are hand in hand with the austere criticism of the pointless war and the opposition to the incompetent Nazi leader and his followers. In the scene when the captain orders the lethal blow to an enemy ship, when he discovers there are still survivors on board, he feels guilty because he cannot help them. When after a lot of adventures the U-boat finally makes it to its destination in the Mediterranean, it is only ironical that it is sunk by the Allied planes tied to the dock and the whole crew is killed.
The film is the edited version of the popular German TV series under the same name. It really feels like that, because while watching it, you realise the potentials to analyse all these so interesting characters and which are lost only because of the limited time of a feature film. I reckon it is already considered a cult classic and has its own fans, and it will surely grab you as well. I definitely suggest to watch it on the big screne, if you have the opportunity.
(enjoyed on 3-5-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Boot, Das (1981)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Now, where were we ? If you remember, in 1994 Tommy Lee Jones got the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for The Fugitive. THAT film was a very good action film, Harrison Ford (as the fugitive) and Tommy Lee Jones (as the marshal hunting him) seemed like they were competing each other and the result was very enjoyable. So they thought they should make a sequel, only Ford is not in it and the fugitive now is Wesley Snipes, a superb choice which usually guarantees lots of action. Tommy Lee is still the marshal, Robert Downey Jr. (great in Restoration, Chaplin and Air America) is the bad federal agent, there is the compulsory team of great cops surrounding Tommy Lee, only they seem of purely decorative role, and of course a few stunts. Add to this recipe a major destruction scene (they crashed a train in The Fugitive, now they crash a plane), and you're done ! BUT, the film unfortunately does not compare to The Fugitive, it lacks the story line and the nerve, Robert Downey Jr. looks like a baby carrying guns (totally unconvincing) and poor Snipes struggles alone to save the film, which is doomed to be forgotten in a week. If you insist, a great film to watch on video with friends and with lots of pop-corn.
(enjoyed on 30-4-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for U.S. Marshals (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I have to start somehow, don't I ? So, this is simply an excellent film, with a very clever story, with at least 3 good performances and with strong points against fanaticism and racism.
Based on a novel by Hanif Kureishi (responsible also for the stories in "London Kills Me, "Sammy and Rosie Get Laid" and "My Beautiful Laundrette", for which he was nominated for Oscar in 1987, and for directing the first), the film is set in England and tells the story of a middle-aged taxi driver, Parvez (Om Puri, also seen in "Gandhi", "Wolf" and "The Ghost and the Darkness" amongst others), of Pakistani origin who works hard to earn his living. During his night-shifts he mingles with the night-life people but he leads a simple and quiet life. He has middle-class dreams, he looks forward to his son, Fizzy (Harish Patel - "Kama Sutra") getting a respectable degree and marry the daughter of the (white) Chief Inspector. He gradually develops a relationship of mutual understanding with a (white) prostitute, Bettina (Rachel Griffiths - "My Best Friend's Wedding", "Jude", "To Have and to Hold" and "Muriel's Wedding" amongst others), it seems like it really relaxes him talking to this girl. His dreams though are shattered when his son breaks his engagement to the white girl, who works as a bank accountant, (breaking in this way also his engagement to the white British capitalism, I suppose) and embraces the muslim radicalism in a quest to find his origin and true identity. Everything demolishes in front of Parvez, his house becomes the headquarters of the muslim extremists and their ideas infiltrate slowly into his wife's mind. He can no longer find the peace he was enjoying in his house. The catalyst in this story seems to be Mr Schitz, a German businessman who will employ Parvez during his stay in his town for the general provisions, transportation, girls for his parties, Bettina for his bed and booze. Parvez is desperate for a real person to talk to, and it is only Bettina who gives him not only the companion he seeks for, but also her love and affection. Parvez will not deny either.
The whole story is told form Parvez's point of view, as seen by his eyes. He is a simple man and he sees that fanaticism is pointless and harmful. He doesn't accept to be treated like minor because of his origin or financial status, he doesn't want to change the world either. He objects to any form of oppresion caused by different beliefs or way of living.
The narration is satirical until things get really tough, so the audience gets to laugh with things that might be sarcastic. For example Fizzy will break up with his girlfriend by telling her father, the respectable Chief Inspector that he is the only pig he would ever like to eat (!!!) - Simply unmissable !!!
(enjoyed on 3-5-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for My Son the Fanatic (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
I was not really looking forward to "Breakdown", after all what could it possibly offer more than the usual action films with Kurt Russel (remember the anything but exceptional Escape from L.A. (1996), Executive Decision (1996), Stargate (1994), Tango & Cash (1989), Escape from New York (1981)) ???
Well, I was really surprised, because although it is another action film with Kurt Russel it DOES make sense. A very clever plot that in some scenes gets a very good thriller, very well shot, packed with action in right portions and with lots of suspense. I think that the secret lies behind the realistic depiction of the characters. There is no super-hero, expert in guns and/or martial arts, Russel is just an ordinary guy and he has to fight against the bad guys who are not the professional criminals either.
J.T.Walsh, who died in February this year, gives really an exquisite performance as the lorry driver who abducts Russel's wife (Kathleen Quinlan - American Graffiti (1973), The Doors (1991), Apollo 13 (1995), Event Horizon (1997)). Russel is left alone in an unfriendly environment and he has to save his wife on his own. It may sound simple as a story, but it is really superbly made and very enjoyable, much more than the "U.S. Marshals" which cost 60 million dollars, as opposed to the 36 for "Breakdown". One of the few films of its kind that the audience remembers.
(enjoyed on 10-5-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Breakdown (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Deep nonsense, a waste of talent for Morgan Freeman, Robert Duvall, Vanessa Redgrave (needless to count here the films in which they have excelled), a waste of time (the time you spend waiting for the special FX which are neither special nor worth of the time wasted), an untalented and silly lead (T�a Leoni as a reporter).
It is really a pitty for the director Mimi Leder, who has directed the very good and realistic (for action film) The Peacemaker (1997) and several episodes of ER for the TV. It is also a pitty for the idea which unfortunately was consumed in a silly and unconvincing plot and for the composer of the original music James Horner (among others The Devil's Own (1997), Titanic (1997), Apollo 13 (1995), Braveheart (1995), Clear and Present Danger (1994), Patriot Games (1992), Field of Dreams (1989), Glory (1989), The Name of the Rose (1986), Aliens (1986), Gorky Park (1983)) who is the only island of hope for the film. There are a few disaster films out there to remember, but this one will never be among them.
So, it can always wait to be seen in video tape by the desperate ones - it is always SO NICE to see a black as the President of the US, it will take them some time before they really do it a non-white or non-male President.
(enjoyed on 28-5-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Deep Impact (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Martha, Meet Frank, Daniel and Laurence
Nothing more than a light romantic comedy, not bad though at all if you watch it with your girlfriend/boyfriend. There are some really nice jokes in there, pretty original, which make you laugh effortlessly. The plot is pretty decent as well, three friends flirt with the same girl, will love prove to be above friendship ?
The film is financially etc. supported by Channel Four Films, responsible for a lot nice films we've seen lately in the UK, and certainly a contributor to the revival of the British cinema.
Now, one clever bit is casting people who look like famous actors/actresses. So Monica Potter (Martha) looks (and acts) very much like Juliette Lewis and Joseph Fiennes (Laurence) looks (and acts) like Christopher Lambert and his brother Ralph Fiennes. There is also Ray Winstone (superb in Gary Oldman's Nil By Mouth (1997)) in a small role.
And that sums it all up I guess, you can well wait for the video release if you're not desperate for something light.
(enjoyed on 2-6-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Martha, Meet Frank, Daniel and Laurence (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
PURE !!! This is the first word that came to mind after I saw the film. Alex Proyas has done it before in The Crow (1994), that is create a superb, grotesque to the maximum, atmosphere that grips your full attention and never lets you go till the very end of the film. It is exactly the atmosphere of the dark gothic poems and short stories of E. A. Poe, whose poem "The Raven" is also quoted in The Crow.
Proyas hasn't really done anything else apart from these two films (he has contributed to the writing of Dark City too), which both gave me the same feeling; pessimistic, melancholic, doomed heroes, cursed to fight with no hope for a better future against something that looks inevitable. Although Brandon Lee in The Crow was fighting only for revenge, being already dead, both him and his beloved wife, John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) is still 'alive', well, as much as a man suffering from total amnesia who wakes up in a strange city under strange circumstances. The story is astoundingly good, told from the side of the 'psychiatrist' Dr. Daniel Poe Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland) and it gets straight to the point, no time wasted at all. I don't want to reveal anything about the story, it would be a pity for a such a well-built story to say anything, but the end is bitterly optimistic in the same way that the end of The Crow is. Jennifer Connelly as Emma Murdoch/Anna and William Hurt as Inspector Frank Bumstead worth mentioning as well. No performance is exceptional, but they are all very good, especially Sutherland. Hurt is not bad, but it seems like he never tries enough.
But anyway, the film doesn't need THE great performances. The Crow has already become a cult film with its own fans (which triggered a not that good sequel The Crow: City of Angels (1996) and at least one comic book series), to many attributed to the accidental killing of Lee on the set, but the latter is irrelevant to me since the former is true. Dark City surely deserves to be remembered similarly. Although categorised mainly in the sci-fi and fantasy genre (as opposed to The Crow which is categorised to the action and fantasy genre) and although it hosts hostile aliens, don't expect to see anything even remotely close to the sci-fi filmography. The settings, the music, the costumes are all from the 50's America and the dark atmosphere may remind you of some film noir referred to the same era. Nevertheless, Proyas' metaphors refer to the 90's man and society. 'When is the last time that you remember doing something during the day ?' Murdoch will ask Bumstead and will look puzzled; he won't be able to answer properly even the other question Murdoch addresses to him 'Which is the way to the beach ?'. In fact, no-one is able to answer this question, instead they all claim to know the way but nobody can really remember. It is the man of the 90's who cannot really answer these questions because he is too stressed to free his mind above commitments and every day life.
The film reminded me of The City of Lost Children (1995) of Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Alien: Resurrection (1997) and Delicatessen (1991)) and Marc Caro and I was surprised that the guys form IMDb agreed by referencing the latter in the page for Dark City. A friend told me that the film is based on a comic, although I don't think so I understand that he got this feeling from the film itself. It really feels like it but I would strongly recommend it not only to comic or sci-fi fans.
(enjoyed on 9-6-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Dark City (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Now, what can you say about a Neil Jordan film about a paranoid and violent boy in a small Irish village in the 60's ? Let's start from the awards in the Berlin International Film Festival (Silver Berlin Bear for Best Director, Special Mention to Eamonn Owens for his astonishing lead, and IT IS) and in the San Diego International Film Festival (Festival Award for Best Actor to Eamonn Owens).
Strange film and strange story, indeed, but certainly an innocent look in what affects the vivid imagination of a child who experiences the 60's growing fear for the Bomb and the Martians, an alcoholic father and a suicidal mother and the betrayal of his best friend. Jordan, who surely enjoys a lead in "different", if not "strange", films (Interview with the Vampire (1994), The Crying Game (1992), We're No Angels (1989), High Spirits (1988), Mona Lisa (1986), The Company of Wolves (1984) amongst others) films passionately the novel of Pat McCabe (rewritten by him and Jordan), as if it springs out of his own experience.
Francie Brady (astonishingly played by the 15 years old Eamonn Owens) has only one real friend, Joe (Alan Boyle) with whom he shares his childhood and a a real enemy the snobbish Mrs. Nugent (Fiona Shaw) who would get to extremities in order to harm him. Little by little Francie will be left alone, when his mother dies, followed by his father (Stephen Rea, known from many Jordan's previous films), and Joe leaves him alone to enroll into a high-class boarding school. Driven gradually to paranoia, he has visions of Virgin Mary (Sin�ad O'Connor) who advises and nourishes him. His simple paranoic and violent mind will soon lead him to the bloody murder of Mrs. Nugent, which will relieve him but get him into a mental institution.
It is certainly not exactly the entertaining film you would like to watch during a night out, but it is in the same way well made and thought provoking. It could well wait till the video release, anyway.
(enjoyed on 31-5-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Butcher Boy, The (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The long-awaited latest film of the Coen brothers (Joel directs, they both write the story), especially after the wonderful Fargo (1996). Fargo had a catchy story line and magnificent performances by William H. Macy and Frances McDormand (that's why she got the Best Actress Oscar in 1997). This is more or less the situation with The Big Lebowski, very good performances by Jeff Bridges as The Dude (the "little" Lebowski of the film), John Goodman as his friend Walter Sobchak, Julianne Moore (the loveable Amber Waves in Boogie Nights (1997)) as Maude Lebowski (no relation, purely coincidental synonymity!), John Turturro as Jesus Quintana, a paedophilic religion-fanatic creep (in a small role unfortunately, because he's superb !!!) and Ben Gazzara as the porn king Jackie Treehorn. There is also a quite laughable role for Philip Seymour Hoffman (Scent of a Woman (1992)) as the Big Lebowski's personal assistant.
The story line is equally catchy, poor Dude has renounced his surname (Lebowski) because it is shared by a famous meant-to-be rich snob guy. The Dude is simply enjoying his life smoking joints, drinking a lot and bowling with his equally low-life mates Walter (Goodman), a violent extreme character which brings a lot of laughs, and Donny (Steve Buscemi as flat as always). Unfortunately life gets him to get involved somehow in a strange kidnapping of the rich-and-famous Big Lebowski's young, beautiful and sluttish wife. And this causes lots of funnily interesting adventures which involve lots of equally funny and extreme characters and the usual Coen-type extreme scenes, like cut flying ears etc.
I would say that cinema-goers not particularly fond of the Coen brothers style may not like the film, nevertheless the rest will enormously enjoy it for its extreme black humour and the way it mixes craziness and reality in today's America.
(enjoyed on 6-6-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Big Lebowski, The (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The Hollywood remake of Wenders' extremely poetic Wings of Desire (Der Himmel �ber Berlin) (1987) with the magnificent performances of Bruno Ganz and Solveig Dommartin. Wenders directed the Wings of Desire and co-wrote the story (along with Peter Handke). The same screenplay (the credits of City of Angels mention also Dana Stevens as writer) is filmed by Brad Silberling (Casper (1995) and the TV Series "NYPD Blue" (1993) amongst others) with Nicolas Cage as the angel Seth who falls in love with the mortal Meg Ryan (who is the heart surgeon Maggie, quite far from Dommartin's circus acrobat in the original).
Meg Ryan ? Another soft american romance ? Yes and no. Without being the masterpiece like the original, City of Angels succeeds to grab your heart (well, it grabbed mine) mainly due to the good performances of Cage, Andr� Braugher (another angel, Cassiel) and Dennis Franz (ex-angel Messinger) (the famous detective from the TV Series "NYPD Blue" - well, the same director made it). Meg Ryan is not bad at all, but she's got so predictable by now, at least I have this feeling. To these performances add also the anyway clever and original story and some exquisite shots (like the angels sitting on the traffic signs in LA or their silent gatherings at the beach at dusk and dawn), and then the film becomes more than interesting, in a different way from the black and white (mainly) original of Wenders, and that's how they should both be considered like. City of Angels certainly pays back for the time you spend in the cinema.
(enjoyed on 7-6-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for City of Angels (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
As it was expected, very good story shot in an amateur way. The sound is bad, but still the story is very powerful, Allen grabs his chance to once again satirize the New York Jewish community and psychoanalyse himself and not only. A successful writer, Harry Block (Woody Allen), writes books about his life. The characters of his books directly refer to people who have affected his life one way or another, his father, sister and her family, his three ex-wives, his lovers. He virtually also depicts himself in his books, his addiction to prostitutes and pills, his passions, his worries. His immediate environment doesn't like that, all these persons referred to in his books complain, his love life is in a mess and the characters of his books come to haunt him or to help him pacify with all these people he implicitly criticise in his books. The catalyst seems to be the honouring ceremony his college (which once expelled him for his behaviour) prepared for him. He kind of abducts his son to take him to this ceremony and he shows up for the ceremony with a prostitute and a dead body !
Very good satire, but Allen is an expert in this, ain't he ? The film is full of clever one-liners (see the quotes of Harry Block in the IMDb web-page for a brief sample), but you rarely get the chance to laugh, the pace fast as the film usually flows as stream of words. Since Allen has become a status in the American cinema, lots of famous actors line up to even get a single line in his films. Thus in Deconstructing Harry there are (amongst others) Kirstie Alley (God, how fat she's grown !), Billy Crystal, Amy Irving, Demi Moore, Elisabeth Shue, Robin Williams. They are all very funny characters, even through the life adventures they suffer, but then maybe Allen wants to make us think "Ain't life funny after all ?" The film is watchable only for Allen's fans though, I would say...
(enjoyed on 18-6-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Deconstructing Harry (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
All the right ingredients demanded by the recipe of a good action film. Nice settings and clever shots (flying over sky-scrapers and city lights in the delirious way of Proyas in The Crow), the proper atmosphere and soundtrack (funky soul music during action and choral/instrumental music during shots in the temple), lots of guns and shooting (not as much though as in Rodriguez`s Desperado), a cool guy as the main tough character (Yun-Fat Chow, a very famous and appreciated actor in Hong Kong, who has worked a lot with John Woo (Face/Off (1997), Broken Arrow (1996) and many others in Hong Kong)- you'll be surprised how beloved this guy is if you have a look in the IMDb page for him, http://uk.imdb.com/Name?Chow,+Yun-Fat), J�rgen Prochnow (The English Patient, A Dry White Season, The Seventh Sign, Dune, Das Boot etc) as a bad guy and a very sexy lady shooting better than a man (Mira Sorvino sexier and wilder than ever).
Unfortunately just mixing the ingredients is not enough. You need a good cook (this is Antoine Fuqua's first film, although he made a couple of music videos, as you can tell from the film) and of course a good recipes book. The story is the simplest possible; (count my words) a killer gets sensitive, doesn't kill the target cop, the mafia boss gets angry and sends hordes of bad people after him, but a tough lady who's touched by his sensitive heart helps him out, so that in the end they shoot all the bad guys down. And all this in 87 minutes. My verdict ? It could do much better, but as it is, it can well wait for the video release. My rate, 5/10.
One more sentence that I felt I needed to put down; It looks like Fuqua is trying to follow the Hong Kong action films mythology (though I'm no expert in that), but Tarantino was there first. I'm sure they can do better than Quentin, and The Replacement Killers is a good indication, but they need better recipes (stories, scenes, surprises, twists).
(enjoyed on 29-6-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Replacement Killers, The (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
The latest film by Clint Eastwood (Absolute Power (1997), The Bridges of Madison County (1995), A Perfect World (1993), Unforgiven (1992), White Hunter, Black Heart (1990), Bird (1988), Pale Rider (1985) and Firefox (1982) among others). It refers to a true story which it uses as a vehicle to present the colourful social structure of Savannah, Georgia, a town deep in the South history and way of living. You may remember it from Forrest Gump (1994).
The main story is not extremely interesting, a rich, highly appreciated by Savannah's high society, antiques dealer kills his male lover during his Christmas party, an enormously famous yearly event attended by Savannah's creme de la creme. What is very interesting is how this unfortunate event is used by Eastwood to take his audience on a tour around Savannah's historical buildings on a study of the eccentricities of its society.
This is done through the eyes of the reporter John Kelso (John Cusack), who comes from New York to Savannah ("It's like "Gone With the Wind" on mescaline! New York is BORING!") only to write about Jim Williams (Kevin Spacey) and his famous Christmas parties. After the killing though of Williams' lover (murder or self-defence, you decide) he stays in Savannah because he finds the town certainly more exciting than NYC and to grab the opportunity to make a new book out of the story.
The film is indeed based on John Berendt's book, who is the actual person who lived the true incident in 1981 (Williams was acquitted of murder in 1989 and died in 1990) and saw thinks as Eastwood sees them through his cameras. Cusack and Spacey perform very well, as always, and the theme of the film is unique and thus enjoyable. People not used to Eastwood's films may find it though a little slow, no matter if the slow pace is intentional. It can certainly wait for the video relase for non-Eastwood fans. 5 out of 10 because I'm mean !!!
(enjoyed on 1-7-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Science fiction with a huge insect, quite good special effects and casting (Mira Sorvino, Jeremy Northam and even F. Murray Abraham in a small role), by a promising director (the Mexican Guillermo del Toro, who's made the Spanish speaking Cronos (1992), which I haven't seen but reviews praise). Nevertheless, the film deeps in all the cliche's soon after a dynamic intro of astonishing imagery (the scene in the hospital where Manhattan infected children are kept) and suspense; the small group of heroes (this time they are 4) is trapped in a small room (this time it is a metro train wagon) and crisis falls upon them (they fight and damn each other) while the "monster(s)" attack (this time it is the gigantic insects). How many times have we seen this ? The same stands for the typical "happy end", when the two lovers survive the disaster after saving the world, only to hug under a fanfare.
To be fair, the story is quite original; In search for the cure of a deadly disease which spreads fastly in Manhattan, killing only children, entomologist Susan Tyler (Mira Sorvino) and her assistants create a new breed of insect engineered to extinguish the cockroaches (the reason for the disease) and die, since it is incapable of reproduction. When they find out that their creation not only has survived, but through multiple evolving generations can now mimic humans (its predators), it's already too late. Not only in the story, but for the film too, because then all the cliche's follow, like the Alien-like eggs and nest and sticky excretions, the only male that they have to find and destroy etc. I know that sci-fi funs will see it, no matter what, but I have warned you. A mere 4 out of 10.
(enjoyed on 6-7-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
mimic can be split in 3 parts:
-first 1/3: good
-second 1/3: bad
-third 1/3: crap
So in fact we didn't like it, it's a shame that the last part is so boring because there are some bits really scary and disgusting and it was a good fun at the beginning.
Sentence of the film: The World is the biggest Lab
Claire 5-7-1998
Link to the imdb page for Mimic (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Apparently the title refers to the feelings the film causes to the audience; they get wild and get the blues ! It could have been much better if the director Barbara Kopple was not so much in love with Allen, that she shoots every single corner of his face in all possible lighting circumstances. Actually, I, personally, was disappointed because I didn't really have the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful New Orleans jazz music Allen's clarinet is producing along with the band complementing him. Unfortunately Kopple will grab every chance to interrupt the music with Allen's quotes.
After this brainstorm, let me tell you what the film is all about. It's a documentary made during Allen's tour in Europe for a series of jazz concerts. He was accompanied by his latest partner Soon-Yi (and we're forced to watch her childish attitude, which is a nightmare) and his sister. As I said earlier, the director seems to be in love with Allen (and she's very pretty from what I saw in the official website), so it gets a little boring following Allen everywhere. Of course, apart from the wonderful music (although in small samples), there are also lots of the famous Allen's one-liners which make you laugh. What is also interesting, if not funny as well, is Allen's adventures in Italy, scenes from the beautiful Venice and encounters with paparazzi's, business executives, local authorities and crazy Italians, as well as the end of the film with Allen's parents, who still treat him like a child !
If it makes any difference, Kopple has been awarded twice the Oscar for Best Documentary, Features (American Dream (1990) and Harlan County, U.S.A. (1976)) and so on and so on (a big list of nominations and winnings of awards). Still, this film is addressed mainly to Allen addicts, the ones who are after the music better get the cd, less time and money will be wasted. I'm mean again, 5 out of 10.
(enjoyed on 9-7-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Wild Man Blues (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Now, that was quite a surprise out of a coincidence. I would never go and watch this film, especially since friends had all the kindness to let me know how bad it is (see the review in greeklish) and the trailer was so kitsch. Then I got this free ticket and when I got to the cinema they said that they didn't receive the copy of the film they were supposed to show and that instead I could watch The Wedding Singer. I don't regret it at all, I had a great time, I laughed my guts out and I sang along all the '80's pop hits !
The story line is simple and cheesy, as you might expect. Robbie Hart (Adam Sandler), who had great dreams of becoming a rich and famous pop singer/songwriter but abandoned them to earn his living as a wedding singer, is the groom who gets dumped at the altar by his wife-to-be Linda (Angela Featherstone). This unfortunate event wrecks his mood, his job and eventually his life. The only way out of his misery is his love to the waitress Julia Sullivan (Drew Barrymore), only she's soon to be married to Glenn Gulia (Matthew Glave), a rich stockbroker. The good thing is she little by little falls in love with Robbie and he is eventually willing to fight for her, since he finds out that Glenn is not exactly Mr. Right.
I warned you that the story is cheesy, and so are the cars, the outfits, the colours, the way of living, even the music. But then again we used to live like that and listen to this music and they all, especially the sound track, bring back wonderful memories. Both Sandler and Barrymore are great and the film is full of scenes and gags by Sandler et al that made me laugh to tears. I won't reveal any, 'cos it wouldn't make much sense out of context. This is definitely the right film to watch if you want to have a great night out to cheer yourself up, especially if you were around in the '80's (ie. you're above 25). 5 out of 10, could wait for the video release, but it's not a waste of money or time.
(enjoyed on 13-7-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Wedding Singer, The (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Pathetic. It makes you wonder how they do it, you think "there's nothing worse than that" and this is how I felt for its predecessor, and then they release this at least equally bad sequel, although there is actually no good reason for doing so, apart maybe for cashing out a great (terrible) idea (which IS a good reason after all, ain't it ?).
Wes Craven has been producing, writing, directing and in general mingling with scary movies (amongst others Wishmaster (1997), Vampire in Brooklyn (1995), Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994), The People Under the Stairs (1992), Shocker (1989), The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988), A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987), The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1985), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Swamp Thing (1982), Deadly Blessing (1981), The Hills Have Eyes (1978), Last House on the Left (1972)) since the early '70's. Some of them contributed greatly to the genre, some of them were unbelievably bad, but most of them enjoyed great box office success, which granted Craven with a lot of fame and credit.
Unfortunately the two Scream films are unrepeatedly silly, with silly plots and the equally silly Neve Campbell (Wild Things (1998), The Craft (1996)) and Courteney Cox ("Friends" (1994/I) TV Series) as big stars. These films fail because they are not satires, they are not scary (poor Hitchcock would turn in his grave) and they are not funny either. If I need to deeply think about it, maybe the way the two films play with our primal fears is interesting. It is not exactly the fear for the unknown, it is only the sudden fear of the unexpected, hence the title - but this is again too much for these two films.
A great waste of money and time, even for the video, I saw it with a free ticket (I wouldn't watch it otherwise after the first disappointment) in a superb cinema, and I still felt stupid. 2 out of 10 may still be too much.
(enjoyed on 14-7-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Scream 2 (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Magnificent! Right to the point! Costas Gavras did it again, once more (Music Box (1990), Betrayed (1988), Hanna K. (1983), Missing (1982), Z (1969) amongst others) he managed to deliver a piece of absolute art criticizing ruthlessly "the system" under the disguise of "satire".
The story is simple when it is read in the first, obvious level. A successful TV reporter, Max Brackett (Dustin Hoffman), who is always of course after BIG stories (that's why he's successful, right?), is lucky enough to be, by coincidence only, present in the Natural History museum of an american township when Sam Baily (John Travolta) rushes in with weapons and takes as hostages a group of school children. The media fight over the living corpse of Baily and it is the other famous TV reporter, Kevin Hollander (Alan Alda) who tries to get the big piece of the story, without worrying about the consequences.
Now, the truth we get from Gavras's camera, which is always in the museum, right beside Baily (unlike the media cameras which report to the public irrelevant "truth", cooked for mass consumption), is that Baily is an ex-employee of the museum, a very quiet and easy-going guy who after being sacked from his employer got desperate because he couldn't sustain his family anymore. Yet, because of the situation he came into little by little without realising that he became the pawn in the media chessboard, he is cursed to be the victim of at least two media vultures, Brackett and Hollander, which fight for their own fame by manipulating the public opinion one way or the other, according to the TV rates ! Imagine how tough and complicated the whole thing gets when the police and FBI come to take a piece of meat from the innocent victim.
What more is there to say ? Some scenes may seem too far-fetched, especially to British, because they don't experience the every day reality of media manipulation like Greeks and Americans. I can tell, the story is not exaggerated at all, it happens so often around the world that it is really sad how true it can be. That's why I said in the beginning the film is not a satire, although you may laugh at some points at the absurdities you watch, it is nightmarishly true. 6 out of 10 and you better see it in the cinema, absolutely suburb !
(enjoyed on 16-7-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Mad City (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Not bad for what it promises, but after all it doesn't promise a lot, does it ? Of course you expect all the cliche's there, after all it's a typical monster/destruction movie. So, you're armed with patience and you get into the movie theatre to enjoy some state-of-the-art special effects. And it is so, exceptional visual effects, a good surprising first half, and then it gets all 'Jurassic Park' and everything reminds that film, at some points you think you're watching a bad copy of it. Oh, and there's some 'Aliens' scenes in there as well, and it is a pity for such a good myth like Godzilla to get consumed so quickly, in fact exactly on hour after the film's beginning.
Dr. Niko Tatopoulos (Matthew Broderick), a half-crazy nuclear scientist, and Philippe Roche (Jean Reno), a French Secret Services agent, will form a franco-american alliance to fight the monster, but are unable to save the film. The feminine point of interest is the at least boring Maria Pitillo. So Roland Emmerich (Independence Day (1996), Stargate (1994), Universal Soldier (1992) amongst others) delivers once again a pointless special-effects-packed blockbuster which gets unbearable after the quite interesting start. Watchable only in big theatres with digital surround sound, still 3 out of 10 'cos I fell asleep twice.
(enjoyed on 10-8-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Godzilla (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
One more of this summer's blockbusters. yes, it follows the cliche's too, all the good guys get all the bad guys and live happily ever after, the 'good kiss' comes at the end, and there is lots of action and suspense. This one is not boring at all, the special effects are really exceptional and gripping, the plot is not silly at all (although most of us would expect the contrary), the action scenes are persuasive and the cast really acts !!! Even Matt LeBlanc (known from "Friends" (1994/I), the TV Series) as Don West, the pilot of the spaceship which gets lost.
William Hurt is Professor John Robinson, who leads an expedition to Alpha Prime, a place quite far away from Earth, to check whether it can sustain human life etc. His whole family accompanies him, his wife Maureen (Mimi Rogers, also in Someone to Watch Over Me (1987) and Desperate Hours (1990) amongst others), his 2 daughters Penny and Judy (Heather Graham, the Rollergirl in Boogie Nights (1997)) and his son. Unfortunately the whole project will be sabotaged by the best villain around nowadays, Gary Oldman as Dr. Smith. And this will lead to a series of adventures, full of clever and spectacular computer graphics and special effects. I'll say it once more, the cast proves to be the most appropriate and they all act profoundly well, although Oldman is AGAIN the one who excels !
The director Stephen Hopkins is no stranger to similar productions (The Ghost and the Darkness (1996), Blown Away (1994), Predator 2 (1990), A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989) etc.). Lost In Space seems to b the only blockbuster of this summer which you can well watch with your little sister, all the scenes are appropriate, even the kiss sequences are well 'concealed' and there is no blood or swearing, hence the low ratings internationally. Still, it doesn't fail adults, since the action is continuous and fast. For all the above, and especially for Oldman, 6 out of 10.
(enjoyed on 11-8-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Lost in Space (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Mmm, another surprise there. An action film with Bruce Willis certainly makes you suspicious, since you never know whether it is going to be an interesting action film (eg. The Jackal (1997), The Fifth Element (1997), Last Man Standing (1996), Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995), Twelve Monkeys (1995), Die Hard 2 (1990), Die Hard (1988)) or a boring Hollywood-ish flop (eg. Four Rooms (1995), Pulp Fiction (1994), Striking Distance (1993), Death Becomes Her (1992), The Last Boy Scout (1991), Hudson Hawk (1991), Sunset (1988), Blind Date (1987)). Nevertheless, only a few months after Deep Impact, with an almost identical plot (an asteroid on the way to collide with Earth and threatening to destroy all life is confronted in space by a team which drills to put nukes inside the asteroid), Armageddon makes the exception; much better in all aspects than Deep Impact, special effects, action, plot, cast, directing, although second sequentially in time, Armageddon is the first as a complete and conscientious production.
When NASA, scientists and the top of the army and political hierarchy find out that a huge asteroid is on course to collision with Earth, Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton) (whose position in NASA I never figured out during the film, but I've read he's the executive director) employs Harry S. Stamper (Bruce Willis), a much accredited driller, and his team in an impossible mission to plant a nuclear bomb IN the asteroid, hoping to break it in two pieces deflected from the course towards Earth. Now the 'experts' team, humorously dubbed 'The Wrong Staff', consists of A.J. Frost (Ben Affleck - Good Will Hunting (1997), Chasing Amy (1997)), Charles "Chick" Chapple (Will Patton - small roles in After Hours (1985), Desperately Seeking Susan (1985), No Way Out (1987), The Client (1994), but this is his best by far), Rockhound (Steve Buscemi - The Wedding Singer (1998), The Big Lebowski (1998), Con Air (1997), Fargo (1996), Things to Do in Denver when You're Dead (1995), Pulp Fiction (1994), Reservoir Dogs (1992), New York Stories (1989)), Oscar Choi (Owen Wilson) and Jayotis (Bear) Kurleenbear (Michael Duncan), all scumbags with long-term experience in drilling. On the way to the asteroid on american space shuttles (because it is of course the Americans who are going to save the world once again) they manage to destroy the russian space station (it was about time), but they save the Russian cosmonaut Lev Andropov (Peter Stormare). All these guys have absolutely laughable gags, especially Willis and Buscemi. The background story is the love affair of A.J. with Grace Stamper (Liv Tyler - Stealing Beauty (1996), That Thing You Do! (1996)), Harry's only daughter and it is much better than the background stories in Deep Impact, the love affair of two teenagers and the deteriorating relationship of a reporter with her father.
As I said above, the film succeeds not to ridicule itself, apart from a couple (only) exceptions, eg. the military salute at the end. It also reserves a nice surprise for the end, which ones survive and which don't, and the story is ruthless there, I'm telling you, and full of twists and surprises. Michael Bay directs with nerve,, but then he's done it before (The Rock (1996), Bad Boys (1995)). For all these the best blockbuster of the summer deserves 6 out of 10 (I'm in good mood).
(enjoyed on 12-8-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Armageddon (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
At last, I saw the long awaited stylish film out of a much beloved TV series with a wonderful cast. Shot exclusively in UK locations and featuring a well-known Scot (Sean Connery) and a well-known Welsh (Ralph Fiennes), producers aimed to capture the 'british atmosphere'.
The story is simple, Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) is a monomaniac scientist with world domination aspirations. When he decides to apply his knowledge and create a machine which controls the weather worldwide, he demands to be treated as the planet patriarch, threatening to cause cataclysms and catastrophes to the ones who don't abide. The British intelligence will set after him its exceptional agent John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and the weather scientist with lots of other extra virtues, like for example expertise in martial arts, Dr Emma Peel (Uma Thurman). The plot follows the mutual attraction between Steed and Peel which the TV series implied. Unfortunately the plot seems a bit lose, because although there are no continuation gaps, the side stories are not well-developed, leaving me at least with question marks. I'm talking about the caring feelings of de Wynter for Peel and Peel's clone, I didn't really understand what was the point.
Anyway, the special effects are not the best around, although you get to see Big Ben destroyed by a storm, but the performances are nothing less than what was expected. All the three stars deliver their roles with absolute sweetness and style, the inherent one for Connery and Fiennes, the well exercised one for Thurman. Both Fiennes and Thurman succeed in radiating the 'british' posh style, they take EVERY opportunity to have their favourite cup of tea, and their costumes are certainly in the TV series spirit; so there we have all the right ingredients from the series, so what could go wrong with the final product ?
Well, nothing really, although Fiennes and Thurman are not exactly Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg, the couple during 1966 to 1968, they are surely not far and they certainly add new dimentions to the characters, not mentioning how 'british' Thurman managed to sound, indeed ! I wouldn't attribute the not-so-exciting feeling for the film to the director Jeremiah S. Chechik (Diabolique (1996)) either. Maybe it is a fault of the writers Sydney Newman and Don MacPherson (Absolute Beginners (1986)), or of the producers Susan Ekins and Jerry Weintraub. Maybe it is the fact that the plot twists a bit nervously, like they are trying to fit too much in too little time, or that there are no people around in any of the scenes, like all the locations are deserted; actually, apart from the three protagonists there are only seven more actors in the cast !
You can tell me what felt wrong for you when you see it, 'cos it is definitely worth seeing, it is a good value for money and for that it deserves 5 out of 10.
(enjoyed on 16-8-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for The Avengers (1998)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
At last, a non-blockbuster film, amid the mainstream Hollywood storm. Pedro Almod�var (The Flower of My Secret (1995), Kika (1993), High Heels (1991), Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! (1990), Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988), Matador (1986) amongst others) is not new to the european audience and i would even say he enjoys his own fans. He has received several awards for Live Flesh (1997) and Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988).
I should confess here that he's not my favourite exactly, although I quite appreciate his work, which definitely has a unique style. In this film he again contributes to the scenario, along with Jorge Guerricaechevarr�a and Ray Loriga, based on a novel by Ruth Rendell.
The story is absolutely intriguing and moving, but I cannot say too much, because the strength of the film lies exactly there, you see, there no big American names or any special effects. So, in short, V�ctor Plaza (Liberto Rabal) is a loser since the day he was born, since he was even born in a public transportation bus in Madrid by a prostitute. His first love Elena (Francesca Neri) is a loser too, and she doesn't even want to see him again. His persistence will end in an incident which will affect the two young people's lives, as well as the lives of the two policemen, David (Javier Bardem) and Sancho (Jos� Sancho) and his wife Clara (�ngela Molina). The story is really so clever, since these five characters intermingle in relationships of passion, hate, sex and desperation. I really wouldn't like to spoil the way the film tells this so interesting story.
The performances are very real; especially Neri (daughter of another known Italian actress, Sara Bay), apart from acting very well, she is also very good-looking and sexy. Almod�var directs like being the secret witness of all the important turns in the lives of these people. His camera shoots like the indiscreet intruder, the curious gossiper. This film is certainly a special treat to whoever got bored of the usual Hollywood nonsense and wants to watch a real life story. For all this 6 out of 10.
(enjoyed on 17-8-1998 by E. Avgerinos [email protected])
Link to the imdb page for Carne tr�mula (1997)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>