The Bone Collector (1999)

Starring - Denzel Washington; Angelina Jolie; Queen Latifah; Michael Rooker & Mike McGlone Director - Phillip Noyce MPAA - Rated R for strong violent content including grisly images, and for language. As action/suspense movies go, this is one that ranks above average. But, make no mistake about it -- it isn't quite in the same league with movies like Seven or Silence Of The Lambs, although, it does try very hard to get there. Including generous use of grisly, but not overly gratuitous, scenes featuring butchered dead bodies. Denzel Washington plays Lincoln Rhyme, a police forensic specialist who had suffered a spinal injury several years before which left him a quadriplegic. Rhyme now only has movement from his neck up and limited movement in his little finger. But even though he is no longer able to go into the field, he still has the best investigative mind around and is called upon frequently by the New York Police Department in serious cases. This is one of those cases. A serial killer called The Bone Collector is posing as a cab driver and kidnapping people. He then brutally kills them and leaves little clues with the butchered bodies, taunting the police to put the pieces together and find him before he kills again. Angelina Jolie plays a young officer who finds one of The Bone Collector's victims and impresses Rhyme with her natural ability in forensics. So much so, that he shanghais the reluctant woman into joining him on the investigation. She is to serve as his eyes and ears in the field while he talks her through the investigation from his bed. No surprise that the investigation takes her to some of the deepest recesses of New York City on her mission to stop the killer before he strikes again. First, let me say that Phillip Noyce did an excellent job of directing The Bone Collector. Like the movie that this is most easily compared to, Seven, much of the action takes place in dimly lit areas. Unlike Seven, which seemed to take place in a perpetual rainstorm, it is abandoned subway tunnels and decaying buildings that give The Bone Collector it's feel of impending death. A great soundtrack also helps to darken the mood considerably. Washington may have given his best performance ever in this film. It is truly a credit to his abilities that he plays such an integral and interesting part in this movie based solely on his facial expressions and tone of voice. But as good as Washington is, this is Angelina Jolie's movie. This is really Jolie's first major starring role and she carries the movie beautifully. The fact that she is one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood doesn't hurt either. Am I the only one that thinks she has the most amazing lips ever? Washington and Jolie also have a great deal of help from the supporting cast. Michael Rooker (Cliffhanger) is Jolie's nemesis, the head of the police forensics department, and plays up the character's arrogance to the hilt. Queen Latifah also does a solid job in her fairly small role as Rhyme's personal aid. The two biggest surprises would have to be Ed O'Neill and Luis Guzman. O'Neill plays the lead detective on the case and gives a performance that I never would have expected from the man best known as Al Bundy. But the biggest treat was Guzman as Eddie, an NYPD forensic technician. He had some of the best one-liners in the film and stole just about every scene that he was in. My only complaint with him was that he didn't get more screen time. The comparisons between this film and Seven are inevitable, and very understandable. But The Bone Collector is more than able to stand on its own besides the obvious similarities. If I had one major complaint, it would be the film's ending. Without giving anything away, I thought the choice of the killer was a bit weak, and the ending was just a bit too formula for an otherwise clever movie. I haven't read the novel by Jeffery Deaver upon which this movie is based, but I have read the sequel, The Coffin Dancer. Knowing how clever that book was, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that The Bone Collector lost a little something in the translation from the page to the big screen. Regardless of its flaws, The Bone Collector is still a great movie. The story is entertaining, albeit a bit gory in places; and the directing is superb. But the best reason to check out this movie is for the cast. All the performances are bang on and Jolie shows why she is an actress to watch in the coming years. 8/10 Reviewed November 11, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Pumpkinhead (1988)

Starring - Lance Henriksen; Jeff East; Cynthia Bain; John D'Aquino & Kimberly Ross Director - Stan Winston MPAA - R Lance Henriksen plays a country bumpkin living out in the middle of nowhere. Some reckless city teenagers who are staying in the area kill his son. He vows revenge, and seeks out a very sinister old lady who lives in the nearby woods. He has her summon the demon Pumpkinhead -- who got his name because his body rests in an old graveyard which doubles as a pumpkin patch. When Pumpkinhead awakens, he sets out to get the man's revenge in blood. When Henriksen's character realizes just how horrible the demon is, he has second thoughts, and tries in vain to help Pumpkinhead's targets get away with their lives. Pumpkinhead has other plans. This movie is your typical b-grade horror flick. Just about everything about it says cheese. The performances are substandard -- including Lance Henriksen. And the young teens are mostly there just to fulfill the victims-in-waiting quota that is so crucial to a movie such as this. The writing doesn't add too much to the movie to take your mind off the bloody awful (no pun intended) acting. The monster, while looking pretty good, isn't particularly scary. This is due as much to the writing as anything else. It's hard to be real scared when you know who is going to get it next. No suspense whatsoever. The only surprise was method of death. Perhaps the only thing that saved the creature from being completely laughable was the fact that the fog was quite thick in woods where the creature appears, so it makes the creature look slightly more ominous. This is a movie that actually appears to have tried, just not succeeded all that well. Pumpkinhead had a good premise with a lot of potential; it just wasn't executed properly. It's the typical horror film that you will find collecting dust in the dark recesses of your local video stores' horror section, or populating late night cable TV on some b-movie horror marathon. It's not unwatchable, just nowhere near the top of my list for horror (even cheesy horror) flicks. It doesn't even have the virtue of the old "It's so bad, it's good" phenomenon. There just isn't much to it. It's better than a late night infomercial on TV though. 5/10 Reviewed July 14, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls (1970)

Starring - Dolly Reed; Cynthia Myers; Marcia McBroom; John Lazar & Michael Blodgett Director - Russ Meyer MPAA - NC-17 (Previously rated X in 1970.) Bad. Bad. Bad. That one word seems to pretty much sums up Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls. If that summary isn't enough for you, how about T&A, T&A, T&A? Still haven't got the point? Other than director Russ Meyer's predilection for casting attractive large breasted women who ultimately expose the afore-mentioned anatomical areas, there is really only one other reason to recommend even taking a look at this movie. That is the fact that it was co-written by famed film critic Roger Ebert, who also was responsible for the screenplay. After watching this movie you will never be able to sit through another one of his reviews where he gives a movie a thumbs down for bad writing with a straight face. This movie stinks out loud. Quite frankly, this movie deserves a 0 out of 10. But there are parts of it that are so bad they are almost funny. So I'm giving it a 1 out of 10. And maybe that is too generous. Right from the opening credits, I knew that I had a class-A bomb on my hands. Not only are the way the credits actually shot distracting, but the first scene you see includes a big breasted young woman being chased by a guy in a Nazi uniform. I had absolutely no idea why the hell that was happening (it does get explained later) and as soon as the first scene is over, we cut to a completely unrelated scene. To be honest, as I sat through this movie mesmerized by just how incredibly awful it was, I actually forgot about the seemingly out of place opening until it popped up again later in the film. With the quality of the writing during the rest of the film, it wouldn't have surprised me if the opening had never been explained. So what is this movie about? Like it really matters... OK, here goes. This all-girl band headed by Kelly McNamara (Dolly Reed) and her friends go to Hollywood to try to gain a foothold in the music industry. Once there, they do manage to find success (Due as much to their hooters as anything else -- it sure wasn't for their brutally bad singing voices), and the movie chronicles how their lives change for the worse as the pressures of fame get to them. Everything from big egos, to booze and drugs to free flowing sex sends them on a downward spiral. There are a couple of other idiotic subplots thrown in for good measure, but the fame is the one that pretty much sums up this thing. From a creative standpoint there is nothing redeeming here. Other than the above-mentioned obsession with big knockers that Russ Meyer seemed to have. The dialogue is so incredibly bad that it literally is funny in parts. Mr. Ebert has generously thrown in helpings of "hey man", "dig" and my all time favorite -- "this is my happening, and it freaks me out". Now I ask you, with lines like that how can you go wrong? Ebert had tried to inject as many big words as possible into the dialogue. Maybe he thought it would make the movie seem smarter. I don't know, but all the big words in the world wouldn't be able to disguise the bad writing and even worse acting. But the wretched dialogue goes along well with the wretched quality of everything else in this movie. I've seen home movies directed better than Meyer managed with this turkey. In fact, there is one scene -- the one in which they are in a van driving to Hollywood to make their fortunes -- during which I really had to question if Meyer or his editors had just suffered serious head injuries. Add to the directing and writing the music in this movie. I almost got up to check my sound system to see if it was broken, there was such a pile of crap emanating from the speakers. Then we have the cast. First let's start David Gurian who played Harris, the manager of the band. This has got to be the goofiest looking guy that has ever set foot in front of a motion picture camera. Sadly, his acting doesn't come close to making up for his looks. If you have been following along up to this point, this shouldn't surprise you. Meyer's stable of well endowed girls also have the benefit of being fairly attractive to go along with their other assets. Dolly Reed plays Kelly, the leader of the band. And no surprise here, she was cast for her cup size, not her talents. And yes, she does loose the shirt a few times and display her impressive talents. Sadly, her ass is almost as large as her chest. Hey, it a sexist movie, so I'm writing a sexist review. Then we have former Playboy Playmate Cynthia Myers in a fairly small role as Casey, one of the other band members. This goes along with the rest of the idiotic thinking in the movie. Meyer casts a gorgeous Playmate with a rack to kill for and who obviously has no acting talent at all, but her nude scenes are the biggest disappointment of all. Sure Russ; now is the time to get artsy and throw in some well placed shadows. On the up side, she does have a fun lesbo scene. I sound like I'm writing a review in a porn magazine. But hey, I'll admit it; the only reason that I actually managed to sit through this damn movie was to catch a look at Cynthia Myers naked. And since that was a huge disappointment, I pretty much wasted two hours of my life on this turkey. The only thing that I can say about this movie is that you should stay away from it. Unless of course you want to feel good about yourself by knowing that even a Pulitzer Prize winning film critic like Roger Ebert has screwed up at least once in his life too. And if you are thinking of checking it out for the double D's -- you are better off just downloading nude Cynthia Myers pictures off the Internet. This is a movie that should be avoided at all costs. An even better idea might be to require video stores to place a warning on the box of Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls -- Beware: This movie is extremely hazardous to your common sense. Proceed with extreme caution. 1/10 Reviewed August 27, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Enemy Of The State (1998)

Starring - Will Smith; Gene Hackman; Jon Voight; Lisa Bonet & Regina King Director - Tony Scott MPAA - Rated R for language and violence. If nothing else, Enemy Of The State will do one thing. It leaves no doubt that Will Smith is officially a movie star. While Smith has been in other hits like Independence Day and Men In Black, their success could be attributed as much to their high-end special effects and not so much to Smith's presence. Well, no more. While Enemy Of The State has great action sequences and special effects, the main attraction here is Will Smith. He does a great job in this film, and when you throw Gene Hackman and Jon Voight into the mix, you can almost guarantee that you have a very entertaining movie. Smith plays an attorney who becomes mixed up in something that he wants no part of. A secret US Government agency thinks that Smith's character has acquired some very sensitive information that they don't want him to have. They are afraid that he may leak this information to the press and ruin them. So the agency, led by a very nasty Jon Voight, sets out do discredit him as a preemptive strike, in case he can use this information before they can get it back from him. Along the way Smith enlists the help of a former Government surveillance expert (Gene Hackman) in order to get his life back. Enemy Of the State is a top notch movie in every sense of the word. The acting is terrific, the writing is intelligent, and visually it looks great. Smith does a great job carrying the film, and he very easily proves that he is capable of more than just comic relief in a movie. No surprises when it comes to the performances of Gene Hackman and Jon Voight. These two men leave little doubt why they are two of the most talented actors working today. In a little bit of irony, Hackman's paranoid surveillance expert could almost be the same character that he played back in the early seventies in The Conversation. The irony being that The Conversation in one of the worst films of all time and Enemy Of The State is one of the better movies of the year. The other thing that is worth mentioning is the fact that unlike many other similar cloak and dagger type movies, Enemy Of The State doesn't suffer from the inevitable confusing plot twists that usually plague this type of movie. At no point will you find yourself scratching your head wondering what the heck is going on. This is not to say that Enemy Of The State is without it's intricate plot twists, quite the contrary. The writing is simply so slick that a brain-damaged chimpanzee could follow along. Another interesting part of this movie is the technology that the government uses to track and spy on Will Smith's character. You can't help getting just a little uneasy when you wonder just who much of this stuff is real, and how much of it is just strictly a work of fiction. My money is on very little fiction. Enemy Of The State should appeal to action fans and fans of the suspense genre alike. Will Smith fans will not be disappointed either. While he isn't cracking jokes in this movie, his charisma makes up for it. Enemy Of The State is a very entertaining way to spend a couple of hours. 8/10 Reviewed November 29, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Friday The 13th (1980)

Starring - Betsy Palmer; Adrienne King; Jeannine Taylor; Robbi Morgan & Kevin Bacon Director - Sean S. Cunningham MPAA - R This is the first film in what would become the most successful series of horror films of all time. Right up front, here's a fair warning to those of you who might be inclined to watch this movie for the first appearance of everyone's favorite goalie-mask-wearing homicidal maniac. Jason, the guy who single handedly controlled the overpopulation problem around the Crystal Lake area, doesn't start his quest to find the most interesting household item with which to kill someone until the first sequel. While he does have a small role in this film, we the audience have to depend on another blood thirsty maniac to rack up the body count. The plot, like every other Friday The 13th movie goes something like this -- crazed killer murders as many unsuspecting teenagers as he/she/it possibly can in the space of a 90 minute movie. The reasons that the aforementioned unsuspecting teenagers come into contact with the bloodthirsty killer are usually of little importance to the story. But for those of you out there that might actually care about such trivial matters in a movie such as a plot, here are the basics. A bunch of unsuspecting teens get a summer job at a long closed summer camp. They are days away from the arrival of the kids and they are spending their time fixing the place up and making sure it is ready for the kids. Sadly, they start being butchered one by one by the bloodthirsty killer. At this point I would usually say something about the quality of acting, directing or maybe something about the high quality of the production. Since I'm not going to do that, feel free to assume that if I did, it wouldn't be positive. I will say that this movie looks as if it was made for about a hundred bucks, and that includes the actors' salaries. If you are used to recent horror films like Scream, you are in for a bit of a surprise. The only saving grace for Friday The 13th is that it was really the first of its kind, with the killer taking real pride in his work; and using as many methods of murder as they could. None of this single murder weapon stuff like that unimaginative Leatherface in Chainsaw Massacre, or the creatively stifled imagination of Halloween's Michael Myers who just used brute force or a really big kitchen knife. Nope, in the Friday The 13th movies, you can always count on the killer taking great pride in his work. One fun fact about this movie is that the cast includes a very young Kevin Bacon, although after this movie it is a wonder he ever worked again. The main reason to see Friday The 13th is if you want to watch all of the series from the beginning. If not, stick with the later films with Jason, everyone's favorite hockey fan. Friday The 13th is the sort of movie that is fun to sit down and get a couple of scares from. Just don't sit down expecting a whole lot. 4/10 Reviewed January 01, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Starring - Pierce Brosnan; Jonathan Pryce; Michelle Yeoh; Teri Hatcher & Judi Dench Director - Roger Spottiswoode MPAA - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action violence, sexuality and innuendo. Tomorrow Never Dies is the 18th film in the long running series of films about British Secret Service agent James Bond. Pierce Brosnan returns for his second stint as 007. Brosnan is joined by Jonathan Pryce as the evil villain, and Teri Hatcher and Michelle Yeoh as the mandatory bond girls. This time Bond is up against a madman bent on world domination of the media. Jonathan Pryce plays Elliot Carver, the head of a world wide media conglomerate who is expanding his news operations and wants a good juicy news story to add spice to his new venture. So he decides to create it. As usual, it's up to Bond to stop the crazed villain and make the world safe. Nothing new here in the basic plot line, but this is a Bond film and we don't exactly expect an Academy Award winning drama here. This is meant to be pure escapist entertainment, which it succeeds in being. While Tomorrow Never Dies might not be the best Bond film ever, it's in the top 5 for sure. It offers some of the best stunts of the Bond films, and what felt like the most stunts ever in a Bond film. Not surprisingly, Bond is backed up by an assortment of nifty gadgets provided by Q (Desmond Llewelyn in his 17th appearance in that role). The most notable of which, is his new remote controlled BMW. Like all Bond films before it, Tomorrow Never Dies is not a deep movie. There are no deep hidden meanings, nor is it laced with messages of social value. Although the movie is laced with another sort of message -- advertising. While this has been present in the other Bond films (at least since the Roger Moore era) this one seems to go a little over the top. I'm not sure if it really has more product placement shots than previous Bond films, or if they are just more glaring -- like Q wearing an Avis (the car rental company) uniform. Perhaps it was the unbelievable amount of product tie-in ads that aired in the weeks leading to the release of the film. (Anyone who hadn't seen at least one ad must have been living in a cave -- they were everywhere.) Brosnan continues to fit well in the role of Bond. Pryce is a fine successor to all of the Bond super villains of days gone by. He would give Dr. No or Goldfinger a run for their money. The biggest treat in this film is the new Bond girl Michelle Yeoh. She is one of Asia's biggest action film stars. Basically, she is the female Jackie Chan, doing all of her own stunts while playing Bond's Chinese equivalent. Bottom line -- if you are a fan of James Bond in general, and Pierce Brosnan's in particular, go see this one, you won't be disappointed. On the other hand, if you have never seen a Bond film that you liked, well, this one isn't going to change your mind. And most likely you haven't gotten this far into the review anyway. 8/10 Reviewed December 24, 1997 by Joe Chamberlain

The Ice Pirates (1984)

Starring - Robert Urich; Mary Crosby; Anjelica Huston; Ron Perlman & Michael D. Roberts Director - Stewart Raffill MPAA - PG Cheesy from the word go. But I enjoyed it. I have to say that The Ice Pirates holds a few memories for me. When I first saw it in a theater, oh so many years ago, it was the first movie that I had ever seen in a theater with any sort of sexually suggestive dialogue. It was quite the shock. It is also the very first movie I ever rented when I got my very first VCR. I didn't get it because it was so spectacular the first time around, but because it was Christmas and there wasn't a great selection in the video store. Watching this time, I was surprised at just how packed to the max with cheese this sucker really was; although that seems to be the intention of the filmmakers. I can't imagine that they ever expected anyone to take this film too seriously. The Ice Pirates is set in a distant galaxy where ongoing wars have depleted the galaxy of water. So the most precious commodity is ice, and the evil rulers of the galaxy control that. Robert Urich (yes, Spencer: For Hire) plays an ice pirate who makes his living hijacking transport ships filled with shipments of ice. His crew is a motley band of scoundrels including Anjelica Huston (yes, that Anjelica Huston). On one of these raids, Urich runs into a beautiful princess (Mary Crosby -- Bing's daughter). He ends up falling for her and the two of them go off looking for her father -- who has disappeared. This is a big simplification, but to be honest, in The Ice Pirates, I don't think plot was ever something that anyone was real concerned about. The movie is filled with every plot device, prop and cheesy special effect that can possibly be crammed into one film. All with seemingly the same purpose -- the specific intent of making this film as cheesy as possible. These range from the space herpe that infects the ice pirate's ship. To the high-speed effects which are used when the ship hits a time warp. I'm not even going to bother getting into the robots that populate this film. Actually commenting on the performances of this film seems pointless. Everyone in this movie seems to be giving 110% effort at making their performances as over the top as the possible as they can without actually breaking up laughing during a line of dialogue. Bad; bad; bad; but since that is what they were going for, they can be excused somewhat. If there were one compliment that I could give The Ice Pirates, it would be that nobody would ever confuse it for a good movie. But I still had fun watching it again. 5/10 Reviewed March 13, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Godzilla (1998)

Starring - Matthew Broderick; Jean Reno; Maria Pitillo; Hank Azaria & Kevin Dunn Director - Roland Emmerich MPAA - Rated PG-13 for sci-fi monster action/violence. The advertisements said that size does matter. I guess that's a bit of an irony considering the size of this film's budget. Even with all of the money that was obviously spent on this movie, Godzilla will probably go down as one of the biggest disappointments of all time. Don't get me wrong, the special effects are impressive -- what there are of them. But this movie spends way too much time on the characters discussing strategies for stopping the overgrown iguana and not enough time actually fighting the big lizard. This movie could have been called Matthew Broderick as opposed to Godzilla -- Broderick gets way too much screen time in relation to the big guy. When Godzilla is on screen, it is always dark and raining, so the special effects never really come across as being that spectacular. For those that don't really care about special effects shots, Godzilla has a decent story line. It's just that Godzilla was marketed as a big budget special effects picture, so when you notice the decided lack of spectacular effects, it can be a bit of a disappointment. Add to that the fact that Matthew Broderick, who is a great actor, just isn't the first person you think of as the lead in an action film. Nuclear testing in the South Pacific has genetically altered the native lizards in the area and created what may be a new species, and a very large species at that. Godzilla has lived under the sea in the area for years but is now running out of food, so he is venturing out of hiding to find a new food supply. His search eventually leads him to New York City (coincidentally, the place where he can do the most damage). Broderick is a scientist working for the US government who is brought in when Godzilla is first discovered. He is supposed to try to figure out exactly what they are dealing with. He then assists the powers that be in their battle to save New York City from the big lizard. The search for Godzilla in New York is then the focus of most of the movie. They never seem to know quite where he is at any given time -- a point that undoubtedly saved the producers millions since they didn't need to spend any money on special effects shots. As I said, Broderick is a good actor, just not somebody who would be my choice to headline a summer blockbuster movie. That having been said, he does a pretty good job. As does Jean Reno, who plays a mysterious man who seems to keep showing up at the scene of Godzilla's destructive actions. The good acting on the part of the leads really doesn't make up for the so-so writing and the disappointingly scarce special effects. Godzilla's creative team of Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin were also responsible for Independence Day, another film that was short on story but big on effects. I guess they figured this time that they would go short on both story and effects. The end result is that they don't have nearly the film in Godzilla that they had in Independence Day. Godzilla is not a truly bad movie, but it never even comes close to living up to its enormous hype. 6/10 Reviewed December 4, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Junior (1994)

Starring - Arnold Schwarzenegger; Danny DeVito; Emma Thompson; Frank Langella & Pamela Reed Director - Ivan Reitman MPAA - Rated PG-13 for sex-related humor. The only thing that you can say about Junior is that it is a disappointment, and a big one at that. Junior brings together Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito with director Ivan Reitman. These are the same men that brought us the very funny Twins. So foolish me, I was hoping for something that would at least come close to the level of quality of Twins. That hope went out the window very quickly. Schwarzenegger and DeVito play two scientists (Doctors Hesse and Arbogast) who are working on a new drug that will reduce the possibility of miscarriage in pregnancy. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond their control, they are denied permission to test this new drug on humans, and subsequently lose their funding. Still believing that their drug will work, they decide to test it anyway, on Hesse. So, Dr. Hesse (Schwarzenegger) artificially inseminates himself and begins taking the drug. Their theory is that if the drug can prevent a man from miscarrying, surely it will work on a woman. Does the thought of Arnold Schwarzenegger pregnant sound funny or humorous to you? Well, it must have to the producers of Junior. Admittedly, Schwarzenegger has the comedic talent to pull it off. Perhaps if it had been done differently it might have actually been funny. But it wasn't, Schwarzenegger pregnant is goofy at best. The sight of Schwarzenegger running around going through the hormone imbalances that come with pregnancy, and the accompanying emotional swings, is not funny. Schwarzenegger comes very close to embarrassing himself with these antics. I kept thinking to myself, with the time Arnold wasted making this turkey he could have been making an action picture. Better yet, with Schwarzenegger, DeVito and Reitman all in the same place at the same time, why didn't they make a sequel to Twins? Anything would have been better than this mess. Danny DeVito is wasted in this movie. His part could have been played by any joker they pulled in off the street. (After seeing the movie, if I was DeVito, I probably would have wished they had pulled someone in off the street.) Emma Thompson is wasted here as well. While Thompson is best known for her Jane Austin adaptations, she is also a fine comedian. Too bad she didn't get to use any of that talent here. Am I being too hard on this film? I don't think so. Schwarzenegger and DeVito are two of my favorite actors in film today, and Ivan Reitman is one of the more talented directors in Hollywood. With a supporting cast of Emma Thompson and Frank Langella, the filmmakers really have to be trying hard to make a bad film. They certainly managed here. Maybe it was well intentioned, but unfortunately this is a movie that never should have been made. If you are tempted to see this film, do yourself a favor and go rent Twins, a film that truly takes advantage of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito's comedic talents. 3/10 - Bad. Reviewed December 28, 1997 by Joe Chamberlain

Disturbing Behavior (1998)

Starring - James Marsden; Katie Holmes; Nick Stahl; Steve Railsback & Bruce Greenwood Director - David Nutter MPAA - Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, language, and drug content. Disturbing Behavior is your typical teen oriented horror flick. It's certainly not going down as one of the classics in the genre. To be perfectly honest, probably the only reason it will be remembered is because of the presence of Katie Holmes. While her performance isn't quite as good as fans of her TV show Dawson's Creek might have come to expect from her, she does make the most of the material that she has to work with. As do the rest of the fairly talented, if not exceptional, young cast. Steve Clark (James Marsden) and his family move to a small Pacific Northwest community where something seems just a little too good to be true about some of the local high school students. They are high over achievers and very community oriented. They also have the tendency to become homicidal on occasion (nobody's perfect). Like every school, this one also has its less than perfect students. They are the leather clad, drinking and smoking (not necessarily cigarettes) bunch, who aren't exactly on the honor role. Their numbers seem to be diminishing slowly as many of them are joining the ranks of the preppy elite in the school. This is all due to the influence of the school guidance counselor who is doing a little experimenting on his students. The basis of this movie is how Marsden and his new friend the leather-clad Katie Holmes run head on into the preppies. First, I should start by saying that Katie Holmes in leather is more than an adequate reason for me to recommend this movie. If that isn't enough for you (and I can't see why it wouldn't be), I'll give the movie a couple of more points in the win column. As I've already alluded to, the acting is solid, and is certainly better than most films of this genre, although not quite up to films such as Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. This is a good looking film, very well photographed, and the Pacific Northwest scenery is used to full advantage. At least to the extent that it looks god in the daylight shots. Which, as horror fans know, are few and far between in horror flicks. The basic premise of the movie is a pretty tired one. The population slowly being converted into something else has been done more times than I care to imagine. There are really not a great deal of new twists that make it considerably different from other films of this type. Even though it's not particularly original, it does add enough twists to keep your interest through the whole movie. Not exactly ringing endorsements, but considering the horror films of just a few years ago (pre Scream), this could almost be considered a masterpiece. If taken for what it is, a formula horror flick, Disturbing Behavior isn't half bad. My guess is 10 years from now the only reason that anyone will remember this is for the fact that it was one of the very talented Katie Holmes' first starring roles. 7/10 Reviewed January 19, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

The Postman (1997)

Starring - Kevin Costner; Will Patton; Larenz Tate; Olivia Williams & James Russo Director - Kevin Costner MPAA - Rated R for violence and some sexuality. The Postman is Kevin Costner's much-maligned movie that seems to always be mentioned in the same breath as his other much-maligned movie, Waterworld. While Waterworld deserved much of the criticism that it received, I think that most people where a little bit too harsh on The Postman. By biggest complaint with this movie was that it was a bit long. Other than that, it really wasn't half bad. Sure, maybe it was a bit self-indulgent on Costner's part, but self-indulgence is nothing new in Hollywood. The Postman is set in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, specifically Oregon. It is several years into the future and there has been a civil war in the US, and the government is now in ruins. The man with the power in this part of the country is General Bethlehem (Will Patton). He maintains his power through fear and with the help of his somewhat ragtag army. Kevin Costner plays a down on his luck actor who stumbles across the dead body of a US postal carrier whose body had been there from the time of the war. Costner assumes the identity of the postal carrier in the hopes that he might be able to weasel some food out of one of the local communities. The locals buy his story that he is a postman and a representative of the newly restored US government. In fact, he is so convincing that he inadvertently inspires a whole legion of postal carriers who work for the newly restored US government. The fact that there is no newly restored government is something that none of these postal carriers ever seem to figure out. Anyway, these new representatives of the US government pose a threat to the power of General Bethlehem, so he decides that they should be eliminated. The rest of the movie follows how Costner's character goes from being a con man to believing in the hope that has sprung from his lies. The Postman is a bit hokey in places, but for the most part, it works quite well. By the end of the movie I even started to like Costner's character. I never really disliked him; I just didn't care about him in the least. Lorenz Tate gives a great performance as Ford Lincoln Mercury (named after the ruins of a local car dealership), the young man who is the first to be inspired by the postman. It is he who later inspires Costner's postman. Olivia Williams plays Costner's love interest in this movie. For the most part, this really didn't work for me. Although by the end of the movie I was actually starting to root for the two of them. For me, the man who really made this movie was Will Patton as the evil general. Costner fans might recognize him as the bad guy in one of Costner's earlier films, No Way Out. Patton gave the best performance of the movie, and his character was, by far, the most interesting. Other cute casting touches included Tom Petty as a guy who used to be famous before the war. And while it was fun to see Tom, and his performance was pretty good, I wouldn't recommend him for the lead in a Shakespearean drama anytime soon. My main criticism of The Postman is that it could have stood a little more time in the editing room. I'd hazard a guess and say that a half an hour could have easily been cut from this film. The result would have made for a significantly more enjoyable experience. But if you don't mind long movies (especially ones with lags in the action) and a little self-indulgence on the part of a Hollywood heavy hitter, The Postman isn't all that bad. My only hope is that the next time Costner decides to make one of his epics that the studio makes him keep it to a manageable length. 7/10 Reviewed February 11, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

The Haunting (1999)

Starring - Liam Neeson; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Owen Wilson; Lili Taylor & Bruce Dern Director - Jan de Bont MPAA - Rated PG-13 for intense horror sequences. When The Haunting arrived in theaters, all I kept hearing about was the overdone special effects and the fact that very often the unseen bumps in the night in a horror film are far scarier than those that you can put a face to courtesy of special effects. While I agree that this remake of The Haunting goes a bit overboard in the visual effects department, I don't think that they are completely to blame for this movie's failure. It appears that some people have failed to take into account that the original Haunting had the "unseen" terrors, and it was about as scary as a dust bunny. So special effects or not, if the story isn't the least bit scary, you aren't going to end up with a very frightening movie. The thing that interested me most about this movie was the caretaker of this building played by Bruce Dern. Dern is always great, and even though he may have had only about 3 minutes of screen time he was still the most interesting element of the movie. As I sat through the seemingly endless, albeit fairly impressive, special effects, I kept wishing that this movie was about Dern's caretaker and not the one dimensional characters that populated the cast. Never a good sign when a bit player is the best part of the movie. Liam Neeson plays a scientist who is conducting experiments on fear. He decides the best way to get results is to trick a group of fairly unstable individuals to spend a few days in a haunted mansion. He tricks them into participating by letting on that he is conducting an experiment on insomnia. And he also fails to mention that the mansion has a reputation for strange goings-on. Catherine Zeta-Jones, Lili Taylor and Owen Wilson play his subjects. Like the original, Taylor's character is the star of the movie. But since she doesn't quite have the marquee power of Liam Neeson and Ms. Zeta-Jones, their parts did seem to be a big larger than in the original. And let's face it, probably half the people who see this movie will do so because of Zeta-Jones. I'll admit that I would have never seen this thing if she weren't in it. But the real stars here are the special effects combined with the fairly overdone sets. They take over the movie as the supernatural elements of the house start to interact with our hapless insomnia patients. There really isn't much of a story here. Just endless setups so director Jan de Bont can showcase all the nifty special effects that he got to play with. And the special effects are great. In many cases they are as good as you are likely to see anywhere. In other cases they are overdone and obviously thrown in just for the sake of hitting the "cool shots" quota. At no point in the movie do any of these things ever come close to being scary -- funny, maybe; but not scary. Then we have the set. When I first saw the house, I was very impressed with the very cool gothic look about it. But it only took a short tour by the characters around the place to see that the set designers obviously had as much money to burn as the visual effects people did, and decided to take the idiotically overdone route. This included a flooded hallway with books as stepping stones and a mirrored circular room that revolves. What part did these rooms play in the story? Absolutely none, they were just there to take our minds off the fact that there was neither a descent story nor a single scare in the entire movie. Then we have the actors. Lili Taylor has never been one of my favorites. And when the fact that her character is mousy and pathetic is factored in, she comes in around the average or slightly below mark. I have no idea why Liam Neeson took this role. He basically reminded me of the ringmaster at an out of control circus. His character was in charge of this farce but it quickly got away from him. I have no doubt that Liam will want to lock all prints of this movie in a very secure vault along with all copies of Darkman. Zeta-Jones was cast because she is too hot for words. The fact that her character is bi-sexual is just icing on the cake. All Catherine has to do in this movie is look good. Fortunately that is something she does very well. While she does have a fairly good size part, it is obvious that her only purpose in the movie was as eye-candy. It's too bad someone of her talents wasted them here. Any random supermodel pulled out of a fashion show could have easily filled her role. The Haunting is the antithesis of another of 1999's horror movies, The Blair Witch Project. The Haunting had a seemingly limitless effects budget, while Blair Witch relies on piles of rocks for its scares. Both prove quite nicely that special effects are irrelevant to a horror film. If the story sucks, it's all downhill from there. My advice? If you are looking for special effects, go rent Star Wars. If it is scares you want, rent Halloween. Either way, it's probably in your best interests to skip The Haunting. 4/10 Reviewed December 25, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

The Exorcist (1973)

Starring - Ellen Burstyn; Max Von Sydow; Lee J. Cobb; Jason Miller & Linda Blair Director - William Friedkin MPAA - R (1973); Rated R for strong language and disturbing images. (2000 re-release) As you can probably glean by the title of the film, The Exorcist revolves around an exorcism -- specifically, the exorcism of a little girl. When little Regan (Linda Blair) starts to behave strangely -- like killing family friends and float in mid-air over her bed -- her mother (Ellen Burstyn) becomes concerned. Add to that the fact that Regan also claims to be possessed by the Devil, and it's obvious that the family has a problem on its hands. Her mother consults every member of the medical profession that she can think of. None seem to be able to help the little girl, who continues to get worse. One psychiatrist suggests that Regan's problems may be more spiritual than mental. Since she thinks that she is possessed, he suggests that maybe an exorcism might snap her out of it. Little do they know, she is really sharing her body with something sinister. A Jesuit priest who works at nearby Georgetown University as a psychiatrist is called in to examine Regan. He decides that an exorcism is the girl's only hope. The rest, as they say, is history. More specifically, the rest of the movie focuses in on the exorcism. At the time, the exorcism scenes were some of the scariest ever shot. First let me say that I would like to nominate Ellen Burstyn for the William Shatner award for overacting. This has got to be one of the worst performances that I've ever seen in a film (and I've seen Pauley Shore movies). Quite frankly, I didn't really find any of the characters in this movie were particularly compelling. Although the performances of the priests (Max Von Sydow and Jason Miller) who performed the exorcism, and Lee J. Cobb, who played the police officer investigating the death of the afore-mentioned deceased family friend, were decent. I have no idea why Linda Blair became a star over this film. I can find nothing great in her performance. The Exorcist looks dated. It was made in the early seventies, and it is really showing its age. Like most other "classic" horror films, The Exorcist doesn't exactly fit my definition of a scary film. What might have been shocking or even frightening nearly 30 years ago doesn't hold up today. The characters spend far too much time talking about Regan's problems, and very little time actually doing battle with the thing possessing her. My estimate is that less than a half an hour is actually spent on things that might have, at one time, been considered frightening. The only redeeming quality about The Exorcist is that it involves the very real procedure of the rite of exorcism. The Roman Catholic Church still practices this ritual to this day; albeit in extremely limited circumstances. Personally, I have always been fascinated by this procedure, so some of the movie I found to be interesting. But I don't generally watch a horror film for the knowledge. Call me demanding, but I generally like a few scares, or at least a high amount of tension. The Exorcist has neither. The only thing that I got out of this movie was a little bit better understanding of the Catholic Church's rite of exorcism. This is hardly a compelling reason to recommend a horror film. 5/10 Reviewed November 16, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Phantoms (1998)

Starring - Peter O'Toole; Joanna Going; Rose McGowan; Ben Affleck & Liev Schreiber Director - Joe Chappelle MPAA - Rated R for sci-fi violence/gore and language. Phantoms is a very pleasant surprise. I have to admit that I wasn't really expecting very much from this horror film based on the Dean Koontz story. Two sisters return to a small northwest town to find it apparently deserted. Although they soon discover that the town isn't deserted but that everyone has been killed by someone or something. They also realize that the same thing that killed everyone has also trashed the engine in their car so that they are unable to leave the town. It turns out that not everyone is dead, and the two sisters are joined by a few members of the local sheriff's department who were out on a call when the carnage ensued, and avoided being killed. Unfortunately, whatever killed the rest of the town intends to make sure that they don't stay alive very long. I can't say a whole lot about the thing doing the killing in this film without giving too much away, so lets just say the audience is kept guessing throughout most of the film. While Phantoms was better than expected, I wasn't really expecting a whole lot. The movie was not incredibly scary, but it was fun to watch. The cast was the usual assortment of attractive young actors including some names that you may actually be familiar with. These include Liev Schreiber and Rose McGowan (both were in Scream) and Joanna Going who isn't a big name yet, but my money says she will be. Rounding out the cast was Ben Affleck who made this film before going on to win an Academy Award for Good Will Hunting. All gave pretty good performances, at least as good as you can expect from a horror film. I won't knock the writing too much since it was penned by horror master Dean Koontz; who knows a good scare when he sees one. The production values are high and the special effects are stylish, if not overly spectacular. The idea behind phantoms is a good one, and it comes across on the screen fairly well. Phantoms is a good choice for a little scare, just don't rent it expecting it to become you new favorite movie. 5/10 Reviewed July 26, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

The Waterboy (1998)

Starring - Adam Sandler; Kathy Bates; Henry Winkler; Fairuza Balk & Jerry Reed Director - Frank Coraci MPAA - Rated PG-13 for language and some crude sexual humor. I still can't figure out why people went in droves to see this movie. Now before you go assuming I'm some sort of high brow snob, who can't appreciate a little dumb humor, let me say that I love cheap humor. I thought There's Something About Mary was one of the funniest films that I have ever seen and it was certainly one of the best films of 1998. Low brow adolescent humor can be a lot of fun, the problem with The Waterboy is that it is just low brow and adolescent, there is no humor component. I wanted to like The Waterboy, I really did. I think I only laughed maybe 2 or 3 times throughout the entire movie. Actually, I smiled a couple of more times on top of that. Not a great record for a 90-minute film. The problem with The Waterboy is the same as most other Adam Sandler movies. Those responsible for this mess seem to think that the sheer fact that Sandler walks around using a goofy voice and playing dumb the entire movie is a substitute for actual funny material. Nothing could be further from the truth, as matter of fact, Sandler's idiot voice started to get on my nerves at points in this film. It's really a shame too, because this film had the potential to be very funny. I personally believe that Sandler is probably a very talented comedian; it's just that so far he hasn't been able to find the right film to showcase his talents. If his only talent is making goofy voices and playing morons, my guess is that his career in the movies will go down the same road as the vast majority of the former stars of Saturday Night Live. Most of whom are now happily no longer in the entertainment industry. Sandler plays a 31-year-old, somewhat mentally challenged, waterboy for a college football team. The team's somewhat mentally disturbed coach (Henry Winkler) realizes that his waterboy has a great deal of pent-up rage, which, if harnessed properly, would make him a force to be reckoned with on the football field. You can figure out the rest from here. Sandler joins the team and this once lowly waterboy becomes a football star. As I said, the film had a great deal of potential. The idea was a decent one, but the main potential of this movie is a result of the cast. All of whom are very good, just hamstrung by really, really, lousy material. Even Sandler, annoying goofy voice and all, has enough charisma and natural comedic ability to overcome some of his bad material. Even as unfunny as his character is, I still found myself rooting for him throughout the film. But it is the supporting cast that I feel most badly about. If their material had been just a bit better, this film could have been such a funny movie. Fairuza Balk plays Sandler's leather-wearing biker-chick love interest and does a great job playing sleazy and sexy at the same time. Winkler is great as the coach who uses a "Coaching For Dummies"-style book to help him get through games. The real standout though, is Kathy Bates. Even with some of the worst material of her career to deal with, she is still a treat to watch in her role as Sandler's overprotective and overbearing Mama. Even with the performances of Bates and Winkler, there is absolutely no way I would recommend this movie. Although I get the distinct impression that without them, this film would have ranked in negative numbers for me. I can't really put my finger on a particular element of The Waterboy and single it out as the cause of this movie's failure. It's kind of sad, because it's obvious that those involved, specifically the actors, tried very hard to make what they thought was going to be a funny movie. It's just too bad that 99 percent of all of the jokes fell flat. 4/10 - 3 of which are for the performances of Winkler and Bates. Reviewed April 18, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

An American Werewolf In London (1981)

Starring - David Naughton; Griffin Dunne; Jenny Agutter; Don McKillop & Paul Kember Director - John Landis MPAA - R An American Werewolf In London is John Landis' groundbreaking feature about an American tourist who gets himself bitten by a werewolf in jolly old England. The groundbreaking part of the movie is the special effects -- specifically, the makeup used for the transformation of a man into a werewolf and for the ghosts that haunt the main character. Even twenty years after its release, that part of the movie is still impressive. Although, I would have to say that it really is the only part of the movie that could be considered impressive. The rest of the movie is a run of the mill werewolf flick with some extra gore thrown in for good measure. If it weren't for the cutting edge makeup effects used in the werewolf transformation it is most likely that this is a film that would have gone largely unnoticed when it was released back in 1980. And with good reason -- the acting isn't great and neither is the writing. Well OK, we don't actually expect either of those things to be great in a horror film. But one other important element is lacking here too -- it isn't scary. With no exception, you know what is going to happen before it happens. You don't even need the obligatory scary music to give you a hint. I will give director John Landis credit for this being one of the best looking horror films that I have ever seen. But John, it just wasn't scary. I didn't know if this was intended to be some sort of romantic drama and the whole werewolf thing was just thrown in to get people to come to the theater to see it, but it didn't work for me. Actually, it was intended as a sort of a spoof on horror films. But the mix of the comedic moments with the melodrama was so bad; the intended humor was lost on me. It's never a good sign that you don't realize a movie is supposed to be funny until after the movie is long over and you read it in the background material. Call me crazy, but you shouldn't have to do research on a movie to enjoy it. I'm not even going to get into the plot of the movie that much, since the title pretty well sums the whole thing up. Werewolf bites boy (David Naughton). Boy ends up in hospital where he is tended to and eventually falls for pretty nurse (Jenny Agutter) and then strange things begin to happen to boy. Including, and I must admit this is a very nice touch, visits from his friend who was killed in the same werewolf attack that ended up with him in the hospital. The neat thing here is that his buddy is a rapidly deteriorating corpse. I know it sounds strange, but it actually works. The scenes between David Naughton and the dead buddy (Griffin Dunne) are really the best parts of the movie. As I said, probably the only reason that this film was a hit was because of the special effects. While they are still impressive today, they aren't impressive enough, or plentiful enough to warrant watching this film. And since they are more or less the highlight of the film, there are far better choices out there if you want a scary movie to curl up with your sweetheart to watch. Actually, the 1998 sequel, An American Werewolf In Paris, is more entertaining since it doesn't take itself as seriously and actually provides a few more laughs along the way. 3/10 Reviewed October 6, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Return Of The Jedi: Special Edition (1997)

Starring - Mark Hamill; Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher; Billy Dee Williams & Anthony Daniels Director - Richard Marquand MPAA - Rated PG for sci-fi action violence. Return Of The Jedi: Special Edition is the third installment of the Star Wars trilogy and the second best of the three (Star Wars being the best). Although, Return Of The Jedi is probably the most disappointing when it comes to the Special Edition version. It picks up where The Empire Strikes Back left off -- Han Solo is feeling somewhat confined and Luke Skywalker is dealing with some serious parental issues. In this film, Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) travel to the forest moon of Endor. There they must try to deactivate the generator that powers a shield protecting the Empire's new Death Star. Once the shield is down the Rebel armada plans to attack the Empire's new space station in their final showdown with Darth Vader and friends. If you don't know all this by now, most likely you have either been in a coma or living in a South American jungle for the last 15 years. Unlike The Empire Strikes Back, which bordered on depressing in places, Return Of The Jedi is much more fun. The scenes on the Endor moon involving the Ewoks are especially good. They are probably the cutest creatures to ever hit the big screen, with the possible exception of E.T., Steven Spielberg's little alien that hit theaters the year before Jedi. Return Of The Jedi also benefits from what seems like the most action of the three films. This is highlighted by the spectacular battle between the Imperial forces and the Rebel/Ewok team. I must confess to being a much bigger Han Solo fan than I am a Luke Skywalker fan. So if I have one criticism of the movie it is the extended periods in the film that focus on the Emperor's attempts to turn Luke to the dark side of the Force. It's a minor complaint, but one worthy of note. Although it is not a point large enough to prevent me from ranking Return Of The Jedi as one of my favorite films of all time. Return Of The Jedi serves as a fitting end to one of the greatest series of movies ever produced. It ties up all the loose ends of the previous films and stands as a reminder that sequels don't necessarily have to be inferior knockoffs of the original film. Now, my second complaint (actually more of an observation) is the fact that updates that the trilogy received for its re-release in Special Edition form did very little to benefit Return Of The Jedi. First of all, special effects had been advanced greatly from the time Star Wars was made until the time Return Of The Jedi was made. So Return really doesn't benefit from the improved special effects that make the special edition of Star Wars such a treat to watch. Nor does it contain any lost footage like the Special Edition of Star Wars. All it really does contain is a new dance sequence in Jabba The Hut's palace, a couple of shots of various celebrations at the end of the movie and a new musical score for both the enhanced dance sequence and celebrations. I have to admit while the new dance sequence and celebration shots where nice they certainly aren't worth watching the Special Edition for. As for the new score to accompany these new sequences -- call me resistant to change, but the old one was just fine. Changing the old score was the only thing that I can honestly say that I think was a mistake. It's not that it was bad, but I think most Star Wars fans are like me in that they have probably seen Return Of The Jedi a dozen times. When a familiar piece of music wasn't where I expected it to be I felt as if I was missing something. Hey, the original John Williams score was brilliant - don't mess with perfection. But don't let this minor criticism make you think that the update hurts Return Of The Jedi, it's still as wonderful as it was when it was first released. My point is merely that if you can't find the Special Edition in your local video store; don't be too disappointed -- the original version isn't a whole lot different. For a few brief seconds towards the end credits, maybe it's just a little bit better. Whether you've seen the first two films or not, Return Of The Jedi is easily two of the most enjoyable hours you will ever spend watching a film. A word of warning though; if you are simply renting the Special Edition to see the improvements -- don't bother. You will just end up being disappointed. Rent the updated version of Star Wars instead. 10/10 Reviewed October 27, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Starring - Mark Hamill; Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher; Billy Dee Williams & Anthony Daniels Director - Irvin Kershner MPAA - PG The Empire Strikes Back is the second film in the original Star Wars trilogy, and the darkest of the three, and easily the worst. Although worst is a relative term when it comes to Star Wars films, since I would still rank The Empire Strikes Back as one of the ten best films of all time. The film picks up shortly after Star Wars left off. The Death Star has been destroyed and the Empire is none too happy about it. In particular, Darth Vader wants to get his hands on Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), and will go to any lengths to do so. Vader and his men track Skywalker and company to the Rebel's new base on the ice world of Hoth. The ensuing battle is still one of the best in film history. The Rebels manage to escape (if they didn't it would be a real short film). Luke, along with R2-D2 goes off to find Yoda, the Jedi master, to learn how to become a Jedi like his late father. In the mean time, Vader's forces pursue Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), Chewbacca and C-3PO. There is not much point saying more, since the movie has been out almost two decades everyone knows what happens from here. Let's just say it involves asteroid fields, swamps and a way cool cloud city. Even after this many years, the special effects still look good. Although that may be a moot point now that the Special Edition has been released; it's likely you may find it difficult to find a copy of the original. The Empire Strikes Back is almost depressing in places it's so dark. But it still finds time to inject some humor. No surprises when it comes to acting, directing or story. All are impressive. Harrison Ford continues his trend from the first movie by stealing pretty much every scene he is in with his roguish charm. And the scenes that Ford doesn't steal go to Frank Oz in his performance of Yoda, and Kenny Baker as R2-D2. As stated earlier, one of the ten best movies of all time, always worth checking out again and again. My guess is that you will probably have to settle for the newer digitally mastered Special Edition though. But on the up side, the differences are fairly insignificant, and some of the minor flaws of the original version have been corrected. 10/10 Reviewed January 26, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1992)

Starring - Kristy Swanson; Donald Sutherland; Paul Reubens; Rutger Hauer & Luke Perry Director - Fran Rubel Kuzui MPAA - PG-13 Buffy The Vampire Slayer is the film that spawned the successful television series of the same name. While Buffy's creator Joss Whedon, who is probably one of the most talented men in Hollywood, wrote both the TV series and the movie, the lead actress is different. Buffy was first played by Kristy Swanson in this movie, as opposed to Sarah Michelle Gellar who plays the vampire killing babe on TV. Buffy is cheesy. And it is meant to be (at least I hope that they meant it to be). My first piece of advice is if you watch this film expecting anything other than a campy, fun little film, you are in for a big disappointment. Apparently vampires roam the Earth. On top of this disturbing fact, there is only one person that can stop them - the vampire slayer. Now there is only one slayer at a time, and each time one gets killed a new one is chosen to replace her. Well, in present day Los Angeles its air-head cheerleader Buffy (Kristy Swanson) that gets the nod to be the next slayer. When she gets approached by Merrick (Donald Sutherland), her watcher (the guy that trains her), she is not exactly interested in the job. But soon becomes convinced that LA has more than its share of vampire activity. The vamps are headed up by Lothos, played by Rutger Hauer in one of his usual villain rolls. The interesting casting choice comes in Lothos' sidekick, Amilyn, played by none other than Paul Reubens (a.k.a. Pee Wee Herman). Now I don't want to give anything away, but when Pee Wee's fate is decided at the end of the movie it is one of my favorite scenes in a movie of all time. I won't say any more but the movie is almost worth it for that one scene alone. Almost, but not quite. As a horror film -- it isn't scary. As a comedy -- it isn't that funny. So I'm not really sure what Buffy The Vampire Slayer is trying to be. As I said, I think Buffy's writer Joss Whedon is one of the most talented men in Hollywood, but I get the impression that this one of his earliest efforts, and I must say that his skills have improved significantly since this movie. Kristy Swanson shines in this movie if only because she is just so darn cute. The fact that other than Pee Wee, she seems to get most of the best lines on the movie doesn't hurt either. Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer are good in their roles but one has to wonder just how bad their careers were at the time to take these roles. Luke Perry also shows up as pike, Buffy love interest. Not being a big Luke Perry fan, I was surprisingly impressed at the job that he did. In Summary, Buffy is cheesy, campy, and not a particularly great movie, although worth a look if you are just interested in a little bit of fun without having to think too much. 5/10 - Good for a few laughs, but not much else. Reviewed June 13, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

Starring - Matt Damon; Gwyneth Paltrow; Jude Law; Cate Blanchett & Philip Seymour Hoffman Director - Anthony Minghella MPAA - Rated R for violence, language and brief nudity. In some strange way, The talented Mr. Ripley is what you would consider to be a chick flick. I'm not sure why, but that's how it ends up. The two guys who I saw the movie with both disliked it as much, if not more, than I did. But yet my buddy's wife and her female friend really liked it. I'm not sure what it was about this movie that we males disliked the most. I would have to say that a movie starring Matt Damon and Jude Law would never normally top my must-see list. Add Gwyneth Paltrow to the mix and you have the makings for a movie that is just too sickly sweet for words. Maybe it was all the gay references that we didn't appreciate. I really don't want to pay to see one guy put the moves on another guy. (Two women together are just fine; but not two guys.) But I think the real killer for me was the male frontal nudity. Do we really need to see Jude Law in a bathtub? Let me answer that with a resounding NO. What is it with the dick shots in movies lately? The night before watching The Talented Mr. Ripley, I had to endure Oliver Stone's 3-hour tribute to male genitals, Any Given Sunday. I know all the females out there will say that it's about time we get male nudity, since females have been going topless in movies for years. But ladies, there is a hell of a difference between breasts and penises. I propose a new rule for male nudity in movies. If we have to endure male genitals swinging in the breeze, I say that it should be mandatory for female genitals to get an equal amount of screen time -- just a thought. Anyway, back to this movie. Another problem that I had with this movie was the story. Matt Damon plays Tom Ripley, a young man, who by a twist of fate, (or is it?) runs into a shipping magnate (James Rebhorn) who mistakenly thinks that Ripley is a former classmate of his son's. Ripley does nothing to correct this error. Instead he accepts an offer from the man to travel to Italy to try to persuade the man's son, Dickie Greenleaf (Jude Law), to return home to the United States. This is where things get interesting. Tom Ripley immediately begins to show signs of some serious sociopathic behavior. He arrives in Italy and immediately ingratiates himself into the lives of his "friend" Dickie, and Dickie's girlfriend Marge (Gwyneth Paltrow). It is difficult to go into a great deal of detail without giving too much of the movie away, but suffice to say that Tom wants Dickie's life, and is willing to do whatever he has to in order to get it. The pure sociopathic genius with which Tom Ripley goes about his chores is amazing. My hat goes off for writing of Ripley's manipulation of everyone else in the movie. At times I almost feel sorry for his character's occasional problems, until I began to wonder if everything that is going on is not just some part of his master plan. My problem with the plot is that I was never sure why Ripley was doing what he was doing. (I know he was nuts, but I wanted more than that.) I could never see his goal. Maybe that was supposed to be the point, but I felt that it hurt the story more than helping it. I can't find fault with the Ripley character, and if everything surrounding him was a little more rounded, this might have been a better movie. I just didn't care about anybody else in the movie. So the manipulation that they endured at Ripley's hands never elicited much of a reaction. I made a crack about Damon, Law and Paltrow at the top of the review. It's not that I dislike any of them, they are just the sort of actors that fall into my "take them or leave them" pile. Damon is actually quite good as Ripley, but not good enough to overcome the multitude of weak spots in the plot. Jude Law continues to land in my "who cares" pile. He was good, but I was so ambivalent towards his character that I really can't give him high marks. Then we have Gwyneth. It seems her only job was to play the girl who you can't help but fall madly in love with. She fills the role nicely and, as usual, exudes charm. The one actor who I do have very good things to say about is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays Dickie's playboy friend. He is about the only one who is suspicious of Ripley and you can cut the tension with a knife when he and Damon appear on the screen together. Unfortunately, his role, while integral, is fairly small. This is a movie that I have no doubt I would have really enjoyed under different circumstances. Other than the above-mentioned problems, I can't really put my finger on the major flaw that really hurt the film. But it was there nonetheless. The Talented Mr. Ripley is the sort of film that I hope gets remade someday. All of the major components are there for a spectacular movie. With some expert tweaking, it could have been one hell of a film. 6/10 Reviewed December 29, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Scream 2 (1997)

Starring - Neve Campbell; David Arquette; Courtney Cox; Liev Schreiber & Sarah Michelle Gellar Director - Wes Craven MPAA - Rated R for language and strong bloody violence. Somebody is taking their love of sequels too far; although it isn't Wes Craven. If ever a horror movie deserved a sequel, it was Scream. The original was, in this reviewer's humble opinion, the best horror film of all time. While scream 2 might not be number 2 on the list, it is certainly top 5. Scream 2 picks up a couple of years after the first movie left off. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) has gone off to university as has one of the few survivors of the first blood bath, film trivia buff Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) who steals most of the scenes he is in, as he did in the first film. Enough time has elapsed so that journalist Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) has written a book about the original murders, and it has been made into its own slasher flick "Stab". The release of Stab has obviously given someone a few ideas. The murders begin again. It seems our friend in the black cloak and ghoulish white mask has been lurking around again and toting a very sharp knife that is just perfect for carving up coeds at Sidney's university. Also returning from the first film is David Arquette playing Deputy Dewey Riley. Joining the cast for this go round are Buffy The Vampire Slayer's Sarah Michelle Gellar as a sorority sister and Slider's Jerry O'Connell as Sidney's new boyfriend. It is hard to compare the sequel to the original. Scream 2 has the same great dialogue as the first film and continues the great parody of slasher films and pop culture. The only problem is it is not as new any more. When Scream came out no one had ever seen a slasher film so well made before, so it had the extra advantage of never having been tried. With scream 2, the solid writing and plot twists are expected, so in small way it takes a little bit of the fun out of it. Scream 2 is definitely the best horror films you will see this year; although Screenwriter Kevin Williamson's other horror film of 1997, I Know What You Did Last Summer, is close second. A word to the wise though, this is not a film for younger children or the easily upset. This is a very violent and bloody film. Those that saw the first film will know what to expect. Word to the wise #2 -- Those that haven't seen the first film should go out and rent it before seeing Scream 2. Unlike the slasher films of yore this movie has a plot and that plot is heavily dependent upon the fact that the audience has to be real familiar with the events of the first movie. Trust me, if you haven't seen the first film, not only will you miss out on most of the inside jokes in the film you will be completely lost before you get halfway through this movie. It is great to see TV stars Courtney Cox, Neve Campbell, Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jerry O'Connell move to the big screen. It proves that TV stars really can carry a big screen effort; although, they owe a lot of thanks to Kevin Williamson's screenplay and the direction of Wes Craven. I guess if you put all the right people together on a project you can't help making a good movie. Too bad Hollywood doesn't come to that conclusion more often. 8/10 - One of the best horror films you will see this year. Reviewed December 12, 1997 by Joe Chamberlain

Mimic (1997)

Starring - Mira Sorvino; Jeremy Northam; Alexander Goodwin; Giancarlo Giannini & Charles Dutton Director - Guillermo del Toro MPAA - Rated R for terror/violence and language. Mira Sorvino stars as a bug expert in this science fiction horror film. A deadly plague, spread by cockroaches, breaks out and is wiping out the children of New York City. Bug-friendly Mira develops a new strain of bug using genetic engineering to wipe out the roaches and stop the spread of the deadly disease. When the killer bugs have done their job they are supposed to die out, and apparently that is just what happens. Except, a few years later it seems as though they hadn't all died, and those that survived have evolved into something big and nasty and have multiplied quite rapidly. Now they are living down in the sewers and old subway tunnels under New York, and emerging when they get hungry to prey on the human population above ground. To make matters worse, these overgrown insects have developed a unique kind of camouflage which enables them to pass themselves off as humans long enough to easily lure their prey into being a human happy meal. It then is left up to Mira, her boyfriend and a New York transit cop to stop the insects. Nothing about Mimic really makes it any different from any other monster film that I have ever seen. The special effects are pretty good in terms of the big bugs, but they certainly don't reach out and grab you (pardon the pun). They are nowhere near the groundbreaking quality of the original Alien. I will give the film points for the nifty concept of the bugs developing the camouflage to pass for human. That alone is one of the more original ideas that I have seen in a film of this nature. It makes it stand out just a bit more in a genre that sadly lacks a whole lot of original ideas. I'll also give Mimic points for a showdown between Sorvino and friends against the bugs, which takes place in abandoned subway tunnels under the city. It is one of the better sequences that I have seen in a while in a horror flick. Sorvino also deserves some praise as the heroine of this movie. While she doesn't quite compare to Sigourney Weaver in the Alien films, she does manage to hold her own while doing battle with her mutated creations. And, on a purely sexist male note, she looks damn good doing it. The rest of the cast is competent, but no one really distinguishes himself or herself. With the possible exception of Charles Dutton, playing the subway cop who becomes a less than eager tour guide to the bug busters as they make their way through the subways. Mimic is the type of movie that you rent on a Saturday night for some light entertainment. Just don't rent it with real high expectations. It's far better than most of what you are likely to find on the shelves of the horror section of your local video store, just don't expect it to become a classic any time in the near future. 6/10 Reviewed July 31, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Deep Rising (1998)

Starring - Treat Williams; Famke Janssen; Anthony Heald; Kevin J. O'Connor & Wes Studi Director - Stephen Sommers MPAA - Rated R for sci-fi violence and gore. A luxury cruise liner is on its maiden voyage when terrorists decide to hijack it. The terrorists only have one problem -- when they board the vessel, they find that all the passengers have been killed by a sea monster -- and they are its next meal. Deep Rising is not real heavy in the plot department, as you might have gleaned from that very brief synopsis. This is what you would call a typical b-horror flick if it weren't for the fact that the production values are high enough to bring it out of the low-budget b-basement. It's obvious that far more effort was expended on the look of this film than on the story. I'm taking my shots at this movie, but to tell the truth, as average monster flicks go, this was fairly entertaining. The cast, while far from outstanding, wasn't that bad. Treat Williams and Famke Janssen (Goldeneye) head up the cast. Sure, Treat was a bit over the top, and Famke was clearly cast more for her stunning looks that her acting talent, but they were fun to watch together on screen. The supporting cast of mostly unknowns is good while they are with us. But, as is typical with movies like this, most are just meals in waiting for the nasty sea monster. It goes after, and devours things with a great deal of zeal and gore. We mustn't forget the gore in a film like this. If there were no gross-out moments, where would we be? The CGI monster shots are not bad (certainly no where near as bad as Anaconda was), but they won't be heralded as groundbreaking either. They work well in a movie of this caliber. The ship is very well done -- most of the action seems to take place on the lower flooded levels of this rapidly sinking cruise liner, and it all is very impressive from that standpoint. Of course, the lower decks are also consistently splattered with generous helpings of gory slime and excreted digested human bodies. How appetizing. Deep Rising is a fun little flick. No more suspension of disbelief required here than in any other typical horror/monster movie. Just sit back with a big bowl of popcorn and enjoy. But, if I were you, I would finish the popcorn before the characters start going down to the lower decks. Enjoy. 6/10 Reviewed September 25, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

A Perfect Murder (1998)

Starring - Michael Douglas; Gwyneth Paltrow; Viggo Mortensen; David Suchet & Constance Towers Director - Andrew Davis MPAA - Rated R for violence, sexuality and language. Michael Douglas plays Steven Taylor, a rich financier who has a very young wife. (Gwyneth Paltrow). Things are not going great in the marriage. This may have something to do with the fact that she is having an affair with a struggling artist (Viggo Mortensen). So Hubby decides to have his lovely young wife murdered -- and he hires his wife's lover to do it. If that doesn't interest you right there, I don't know what will. Douglas's character has the murder planned to perfection. Except one little thing goes wrong, his wife survives the murder attempt. Now her husband must cover his tracks and avoid being caught. A Perfect Murder is based on the stage play "Dial M For Murder" and is a remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic of the same name. This latest version is certainly on of the most well written movies that you are likely to see in the near future. I was amazed at the amount of thought that was put into the story, particularly the amount of detail surrounding the murder plot. The dialogue is also first rate, which is what you'd expect for a film of this caliber. It's one thing to have good writing, but you also need the acting to go with it. Casting Michael Douglas in this film was the best thing they could have done. He gives his usual stellar performance, and makes everyone around him look that much better. That's not to say that Douglas's costars weren't great. Quite the opposite, Gwyneth Paltrow and Viggo Mortensen did a fantastic job in this film. In both cases though, they did not fail to give their best performances in the film when they were doing a scene with Michael Douglas. Also worthy of mention is the overall look of this film. To say it was stylish was an understatement. This is one good looking film. The obvious attention to detail that was paid to the sets and overall feel of the film is more than a match for the intricate plot line of this film. A Perfect Murder is a film that makes you pay attention. Not because you have to, but because you want to. This is a tribute to the fine storytelling of this movie. It also makes A Perfect Murder a very good choice for your next trip to the video store. 7/10 Reviewed October 10, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Lord Of Illusions (1995)

Starring - Scott Bakula; Kevin J. O'Connor; Famke Janssen; Vincent Schiavelli & Barry Sherman Director - Clive Barker MPAA - Rated R for strong violence and gore, and for language and sexuality. If you could say one thing about Lord Of Illusions, it would be that it is definitely different. Scott Bakula stars as a private eye that specializes in cases dealing with the paranormal, such as demonic possessions and the like. Dorothea (Famke Janssen), who is the wife of a magician, approaches Bakula's character, Harry D'Amour. She is worried about her husband's safety. Hubby was involved in an incident, years before, where he and several others tracked down and killed a cult leader who had kidnapped a little girl. This was no ordinary cult leader -- this guy had the power to control people's minds using the power of illusions. Well, all these years later the folks that helped to get rid of the cult leader are starting to die. Famke's character thinks the reason for the deaths is that the cult leader is coming back to get revenge for his death years earlier. She wants Bakula's character to get to the bottom of it, and provide some protection to boot. That's pretty much the story in a nutshell, and if it sounds strange, it's not just because I'm lousy at describing movies. The story really is a little on the strange side, although surprisingly easy to follow. On the whole, the acting isn't bad in this film, but some performances are over the top to the extent that they end up being just plain terrible. That goes for pretty much all the villains in the movie. No, strike that. Bakula and Janssen are OK in the film, but everybody else is bad or borders on it. With that being said, it really doesn't hurt the film all that much. That is to say that you could have had Robert De Niro or Jack Nicholson in some of these parts and it wouldn't have made the film a whole lot better. It really isn't a bad film all and all. Although, if you are someone who can't stand magic, and really can't swallow mind over matter plots, then you should definitely stay far away from this movie. The special effects in the illusion sequences aren't bad, but they look like something that you would see on television as opposed to a production intended for theaters. Confusion, bad acting, and a less than wonderful idea for a movie all contribute to making Lord Of Illusions just your average thoughtless horror film. The only saving grace is the fact that Bakula can actually act, and Famke Janssen is a major babe. (I'm sexist, so sue me.) But even Famke couldn't get me to sit though Lord Of Illusions for a second time. I've never understood why Clive Barker is held up with such great regard among horror fans. His writing and direction of this film leave me even more puzzled than before over his popularity. 5/10 Reviewed February 14, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Psycho (1998)

Starring - Vince Vaughn; Anne Heche; Julianne Moore; William H. Macy & Viggo Mortensen Director - Gus Van Sant MPAA - Rated R for violence and sexuality/nudity. So why remake a classic like Psycho? After seeing the new version I still have no idea why a remake was necessary. The only reason that I can come up with is that they wanted to reach a younger audience that wasn't likely to watch the original Black & White version. So how does this virtual shot for shot remake compare to the original? Not bad. But compared to current horror films, Psycho is dated, even if it is in color. Let's face it; the original Psycho is not real scary by today's standards. I have my doubts that the shower scene that terrified audiences back in 1960 will even faze today's more jaded moviegoers. The original Psycho is a classic; this new version will most likely end up as nothing more than a footnote. This is not to say that the new Psycho is a bad movie, it's just that considering the only differences in the movie are the cast and the color, most people would be better off going to their local video store and renting the original. For the uninformed out there, the plot of Psycho goes something like this. Marion Crane (Anne Heche) steals a large quantity of money from her employer and skips town with it. After a long day of driving, she stops for the night at a motel run by Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn) and his Mother. Marion checks in and then never checks out again after a little mishap in the shower. Marion's sister (Julianne Moore) and Marion's lover (Viggo Mortensen) and among those that set out to try to find out what happened to Marion. In terms of the performances, the entire cast of the remake does a good job. A real credit to them considering they are repeating line for line the original dialogue of the original cast. Of course the main focus is on the character of Norman Bates. Vince Vaughn does a very good job as the shy motel owner with the overbearing mother. It's not good enough to make you forget why Anthony Perkins' performance made the original the classic that it is today. Other standouts in the cast are William H. Macy as a detective working to find Marion Crane and her stolen money. The biggest treat of all is the inclusion of Robert Forster in the cast. His character shows up at the end of the film, and while it isn't a big part, it does end the movie with a nice touch. In terms of the look of the film, director Gus Van Sant does a good job. Of course it would be hard not to do a good job since he basically replicated everything Alfred Hitchcock did 40 years ago. My only complaint was that they changed the exterior of Norman Bates' house, for what seems like no reason other than for the sake of change. Is the remake as good as the original? Not really, but it does have the virtue of being in color. This new Psycho is good for taking a stroll down memory lane. I found myself remembering certain scenes from the original as I was watching this new incarnation. If you hate Black & White movies, then go see this new Psycho. If you are not concerned about the color, rent the original. While this new Psycho is a fairly good movie, the best thing about it is that it will bring a whole new audience to the original 7/10 Reviewed December 5, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Halloween: H20 - 20 Years Later (1998)

Starring - Jamie Lee Curtis; Adam Arkin; Josh Hartnett; Michelle Williams & Adam Hann-Byrd Director - Steve Miner MPAA - Rated R for terror violence/gore and language. Good old Michael Myers is back to instill his usual brand of terror on Halloween night. Unlike the previous 2 dozen sequels (at least it seemed like that many), this latest installment has some real actors involved. At the head of that list is Jamie Lee Curtis who became a star after starring in the first Halloween and its first sequel as Laurie Strode, Michael Myers' sister and the object of his obsession. Of course obsession in Mike's case means that he wants to kill her. Joining Curtis this time out are Adam Arkin (from TV's Chicago Hope) and Michelle Williams (from TV's Dawson's Creek). It must have seemed like a reunion of sorts for Michelle Williams, since the executive producer of Dawson's Creek, Kevin Williamson, also had a hand in the making of Halloween: H20. By now people are starting to realize that Kevin Williamson's involvement in a movie tends to mean that a quality project is going to appear on the screen. With such horror films as Scream, Scream 2 and I Know What You Did Last Summer under his belt, Kevin Williamson knows a little something about horror films. A fact that is fairly evident in the latest Halloween movie. Gone are the no-plot, mindless, badly acted sequels on the past few years, Williamson and company have managed to breathe new life into a very tired horror series that by rights should have been killed off years ago. It's a credit to all of those involved in H20 that it makes you remember just why the original is considered to be the classic that it is today. And speaking of classics, no review of H20 would be complete without the mentioning the inclusion of Janet Leigh in a small but memorable role in H20. For those of you who are less knowledgeable out there in movie land, Leigh starred in psycho and was the one who ended taking that ill-fated shower at the Bates motel. She also happens to be Jamie Lee Curtis' mother. I only mention this because most of the fairly young audience that I screened the film with completely missed the very clever psycho references that Leigh made. Anyway, on to the plot -- as everybody already knows, Michael Myers is the masked knife wielding psycho who seems to be on a fairly relentless quest to kill off all members of his family. (As a bit of trivia, the mask that Myers wears is a William Shatner mask painted white -- which may explain all of the bad acting in the past several sequels.) Although just how relentless that murderous quest is seems to be questionable. This latest Halloween film seems to ignore the events of the last 3 or 4 sequels where Myers has killed off half of the Midwestern United States. It seems to suggest that Myers hasn't been heard from since the events of the first two movies. But in other ways it doesn't, since Curtis's character supposedly changed her name and went into hiding sometime after the events of the first two movies -- giving way to explain why she wasn't around for the last 3 of these movies when Myers was trying to slice and dice her daughter. At any rate, good old Mike, after all these years has finally figured out where his sister Laurie's location and he is coming over for a family reunion. Since Laurie Strode and Mike last exchanged pleasantries (in the form of Laurie blowing him up in Halloween 2), Laurie has changed her name, and is a divorced mother of one son (which doesn't explain her daughter who Myers terrorized throughout Halloween 4 and 5) and she is a teacher at a private school in California. It seems that the majority of the student body is going off on a little field trip that will leave the gated campus largely deserted over the Halloween weekend. Gosh, that's convenient. Also hanging out on the campus are Strode's son and his girlfriend, as well as another young couple who are playing hooky from the field trip. Oh yeah, Uncle Mike shows up too, just in time to show off his own brand of trick or treating. You can probably figure out the rest. But let's just say that Jamie Lee Curtis shows us that even after twenty years she can still take on masked killers with the best of them. My complaints with this movie are small ones. Unlike the Scream films, the characters in this movie don't appear to have watched that many horror films, so as a result, when Myers appears wielding some large weapon, they tend to be your typical dumb horror film characters -- meaning they run upstairs as opposed to running out the front door. My next beef is the whole timeline thing. While I understand that the producers would love to forget the last few movies, it tends to be a bit confusing for those of us who actually sat through all of them. (What can I say? I have no life.) I guess my biggest disappointment was sadly one that could not have been prevented. Donald Pleasence, the only bright spot in all of the Halloween films passed away after the filming of the last Halloween movie, so Dr. Sam Loomis was not around to save the day as he was in the earlier 6 films. Although as a sort of tribute to him, they did use his voice in one of the opening scenes of the film as they were recapping the Halloween story for those that may not have seen Myers and company in twenty years. H20 is the best Halloween since the original. 7/10 Reviewed August 9, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

The Matrix (1999)

Starring - Keanu Reeves; Laurence Fishburne; Carrie-Anne Moss; Hugo Weaving & Gloria Foster Director - Andy Wachowski & Larry Wachowski MPAA - Rated R for sci-fi violence and brief language. Let me first say that the conditions that I was forced to watch The Matrix under were less than ideal. So I have tried to be as fair as possible considering that my viewing experience was significantly less than ideal. I watched The Matrix in a theater that is in serious need of upgrades at the best of times. Under no circumstances, should it have ever been allowed to show a big budget special effects laden film like The Matrix. This theater, owned by the parent company of one of Hollywood's biggest studios, hasn't even graduated into stereo sound yet. The mono sound that the audience was subjected to sounded as if it was coming out of a speaker that was many years past mandatory retirement age. In other words, the sound sucked. As someone used to digital sound in a movie theater, bad sound doesn't do anything to add to a film. I'm not even going to go into the horrible splicing job that the projectionist did putting this film together. There, I've had my rant, now on with the regularly scheduled review. Which sadly won't include commentary on the film's sound which I'm assuming was spectacular, but I'm just guessing. My guess on the sound seems like a fairly solid one considering the visual quality of The Matrix. It is nothing short of stunning visually. Sadly, the rest of the film, while pretty good, doesn't quite measure up to the obvious effort that was expended on making this film look so darn good. The Matrix has at its core a good concept, although it strays into the confusing side more often than I would have liked. Keanu Reeves plays a computer hacker who is drawn into the frightening realization that reality is just a hoax. It turns out that that many years ago the world was devastated by some sort of disaster. Now machines run the planet and humans spend their lives in a sort of incubator, plugged into a computer network. The computers are generating a virtual reality world which is a representation of the Earth before it was destroyed. The population of the planet never realizes that their entire life is a hoax and that they really spend their entire lives as comatose. That is except a small band who have discovered this horrible secret and have escaped their virtual prisons. They now spend their lives combating the computers in an effort to expose this lie. Reeve's character, Neo, is recruited by this band of rebels led by Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne). Newcomer Carrie-Anne Moss and one of Hollywood's most underrated actors, Joe Pantoliano, join Fishburne in the band of freedom-fighters. The action sequences are nothing short of spectacular. This can be attributed as much to the amazing special effects as to many of the actor's extensive pre-production training in martial arts. This lends itself to some of the best martial arts sequences that you are ever likely to see in a film. When you add this to some of the wild effects in the computer generated world, it all adds up to an eyeful. As I already said, the visuals far outpace the rest of the film. Acting in The Matrix is not bad, but it certainly isn't real good either. Keanu Reeves gives his usual fairly emotionless performances. Although to his credit, it is one of his better performances. Laurence Fishburne on the other hand often seemed to forget that he was in a sci-fi action film. More than a few times he delivered his lines as if he thought he was performing in some sort of Shakespearean drama. Joe Pantoliano was a little under used in this film but he made the most with what he had. Carrie-Anne Moss turned out a surprisingly good performance for this her first feature film role. It's nice to see that she was cast as much for her talent as for her breathtaking looks. You have to give all of the main actors a healthy dose of credit for the work that they obviously put into the physical training for their roles in this film. It was clear that no small effort went into getting the moves down perfectly for the fighting sequences. I also put much of the blame for the somewhat strained performances in The Matrix on the dialogue, which was terrible at times. In more than a few places it got way too existential for my liking and at other times it was just plain weird. It almost seems as though the writers were having a difficult time trying to figure out how to explain the concept for the movie. So they decided to make the dialogue as obtuse as possible so that no one could figure out what the heck they were talking about; thereby covering up any leaps of faith that they may have had to make in the departments of logic and believability. My other major complaint with The Matrix was with the very unsatisfying ending. The setup for it was hokey and frankly used in many a bad film before. The ending itself was just plain strange. The main reasons to recommend The Matrix are the visual effects and computer animation which make this a real treat to watch. While the rest of the film (acting, dialogue and to a degree plot) detract from the high production values, they don't detract enough to prevent me from recommending The Matrix as a fun way to spend an evening. 7/10 Reviewed April 4, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

The Island Of Dr. Moreau (1996)

Starring - Marlon Brando; Val Kilmer; David Thewlis; Fairuza Balk & Daniel Rigney Director - John Frankenheimer MPAA - Rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence, horror and gore involving mutant creatures. The Island Of Dr. Moreau has gotten a lot of bad press, most of it undeserved. It centers on a man named Douglas (David Thewlis), a survivor of a ship lost at sea, he is rescued by a fishing boat. This particular boat is carrying another passenger, a guy by the name of Montgomery (Val Kilmer), who offers to help Douglas. The fishing vessel is heading to the remote island where Montgomery works as a scientist, and he offers to let Douglas stay there until help arrives for him. It turns out the island is a research station run by the once famous Dr. Moreau (Marlon Brando), who had dropped out of site years ago. It seems that Moreau has been doing genetic experiments, namely blending human DNA with that of animals, in order to create a more perfect being. Well, he hasn't been real successful up to this point, and the results of his work roam the island. These half human half whatever (depending on the individual) are wild and kept in line only by their fear of Moreau's henchmen. To make a long story short, Moreau loses control over these creatures, and the results are not pleasant. Marlon Brando, after you get over the shock of is enormous size, shows just why he is one of the world's greatest actors. His part is not huge, but when he is on camera he can hold your attention. (I was left thinking what a shame it is that this talent has been left largely wasted these last few years, partly due to his living as a recluse, and of course partly due to the fact that he appears to never leave the buffet table.) Val Kilmer's character, Montgomery, had absolutely no redeeming qualities. You pretty much root for this guy to get knocked off from the word go. David Thewlis puts on a fairly good performance as the man who is basically in the wrong place at the wrong time. Fairuza Balk, one of the most underrated actresses in Hollywood, does a great job as Moreau's tormented daughter. Although some of the movie's best performances come from the many actors who are buried under piles of makeup as the creatures; which is a real credit to both actors and writers as they don't get a great deal of meaningful screen time. The creature makeup and effects are amazing - this was not a low budget production. As genetic experimentation becomes more and more prevalent in the scientific community, the creatures that populate this island don't seem all that far fetched. Of course the interesting thing is that The Island Of Dr. Moreau was actually written a century ago by H.G. Wells. This is a good film, it's not for everyone, and a bit gory in places, but it makes a great alternative to a traditional horror film. 7/10 Reviewed January 03, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain