TMG Reviews

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

2004-03-17T16:49:00.000-04:00

Starring - Patrick Stewart; Jonathan Frakes; Brent Spiner; LeVar Burton & Michael Dorn Director - Jonathan Frakes MPAA - Rated PG for sci-fi action violence, mild language and sensuality. Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) and the rest of the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise are back for their third outing in the ninth film based on the 1960's series, Star Trek. Gone are Kirk, Spock and McCoy and in their wake in the very able and very talented cast from Star Trek: The Next Generation. As usual, a crisis is brewing and it is up to the crew of the Enterprise to make the galaxy safe again. This time out The United Federation of Planets and an alien race led by F. Murray Abraham are trying to move some colonists off a planet against the colonist's will. It turns out that this planet is the fountain of youth and the Federation and their alien buddies feel that is should be used for the good of everyone and not just a few hundred colonists. Of course Picard feels that this sort of treachery is wrong, so he disobeys direct orders and vows to help protect the colonists. Insurrection is a lighter movie than the last two Star Trek films. The film focuses on the lofty question of whether the rights of society as a whole outweigh the rights of a small group. In this respect it gets back to the roots of Star Trek by disguising social commentary as science fiction. It doesn't do a bad job, other than it tries to inject too much humor into the story line. Many of the jokes are your typical inside Star Trek-Fan-Only jokes, while many of the others just fall flat. The other criticism that I had with the story was that it ignores common sense. There are only a few hundred people on this whole planet, why do they have to be moved? The explanation is that the planet has to be bombarded with deadly radiation so that this fountain of youth effect will be strong enough to help heal F. Murray Abraham's aliens who number only a couple of dozen. So the basic story line is bad enough in that we have a few hundred being booted out for a few billion, at least that's plausible. But in reality we have a few hundred being moved for the benefits of a few dozen, which makes no sense whatsoever. The other little hiccup in logic is the inclusion of Worf (Michael Dorn), the trusty Klingon. Worf was on Star Trek: The Next Generation, so they want to include him in the films. No problem so far. Worf is now a character of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, so the writers have to find a way to have him show up. In the last Star Trek movie, First Contact, the included Worf in a credible fashion, in this one, the writers are so lazy that the completely gloss over why he is even in the movie. What little explanation they do give is so small that you would have missed it if you weren't hanging on every word on the screen. My minor problems with the movie aside, Star Trek: Insurrection does have an overwhelming number of good points as compared to its bad ones. While many of the jokes do miss the mark, many are pretty good, even for non-trekkies. The special effects are among the best for the Star Trek series. The action is plentiful and well done. This is a very good-looking movie. It should come as no surprise to anyone who ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation that the acting is first rate. It is very obvious that these actors have been working together for over a decade. They interact with each other with a skill that few other ensemble casts can muster. Most Star Trek fans probably will not be disappointed with this latest film in the series. If you've always hated Star Trek, there is nothing here that is going to change your mind. Star trek: Insurrection is not the best film in the series, but it is good enough to dispel the long standing tradition of the odd numbered films in the series being far inferior to the even numbered ones. 7/10 Reviewed December 11, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1997)

2004-03-17T16:48:00.000-04:00

Starring - Renee Zellweger; Matthew McConaughey; Robert Jacks; Tonie Perensky & Joe Stevens Director - Kim Henkel MPAA - Rated R for demented mayhem and torture, and for strong language. There is a rule when it comes to movies. A sequel is never as good as the original. There are very few exceptions to this rule, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation is not one of them. Now if you also take into consideration that the original Chainsaw Massacre was a REALLY bad movie, and that this isn't even the first sequel to it, you have a recipe for a very painful viewing experience. Don't be fooled by the presence of up and coming talents Matthew McConaughey (A Time To Kill) and Renee Zellweger (Jerry Maguire). They made this movie before they were stars. Judging by their performances they also made it before they took any acting lessons. It's a wonder they ever worked in Hollywood again after appearing in this turkey. Apparently the producers of this film realized just how bad it was, because it sat unreleased for years until someone decided that they might be able to capitalize off the success of McConaughey and Zellweger. Apparently the two young stars were none too happy about this thing ever seeing the light of day. And I don't blame them, they would have been better off if this had been some sort of porno flick starring the two of them. Unfortunately for them it is a horror film in which Zellweger plays your typically stupid horror film character. While McConaughey plays a guy who wears a mechanical brace on his leg that he controls with a television remote control. (Hey, don't say I didn't warn you.) To make matters worse, Leatherface, the chainsaw wielding maniac, who was never the scariest of psychopathic killers at the best of times, has now become a full blown cross-dresser, and spends the entire movie in drag. There is a plot to this movie but it isn't worth mentioning. Let's just suffice to say that a group of teenagers are in the typical wrong place at the wrong time and are left to the mercy of remote control man (McConaughey) and his lipstick wearing chainsaw revving half-witted sidekick. Man, I can't get over just how bad this movie is. This film has absolutely no redeeming qualities. Even the obligatory topless babe shot wasn't enough to hold my interest for more than 2 seconds. The writing is bad, the direction is even worse, but both of those things look good in comparison to the acting. This is the sort of movie that they should make people in prison watch. A guarantee you, if criminals thought that they would be subjected to this film they would never break the law again. 1/10 - Bad; bad; bad. Reviewed November 17, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

2004-03-17T16:47:00.001-04:00

Starring - Mike Myers; Heather Graham; Michael York; Robert Wagner & Rob Lowe Director - Jay Roach MPAA - Rated PG-13 for sexual innuendo and crude humor. I'll have to say that I thought that Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me was better than the first one. Although, to the credit of the original, it seems to be getting funnier each time I see it. I'm guessing that this one might play the same way. Austin Powers (Mike Myers) is still adjusting to the 90's when something evil happens. Dr. Evil, that is. Evil (Mike Myers) and Mr. Bigglesworth (Evil's hairless cat) return to Earth from their cryogenic sleep chamber on board their Big Boy satellite. Evil now has a plan to stop Austin Powers for good. His right hand man, Number 2 (Robert Wagner) has had a time machine built for Dr. Evil. Evil plans to use it to return to the 1960's and steal Austin Powers' mojo. And he is taking along some help. While Dr. Evil was in cryogenic sleep, his henchmen have cloned him. His clone is not quite the perfect match -- he is only 1/3 Evil's size. But even with his short stature, Mini Me (Verne Troyer) is a force to be reckoned with. So Evil and Mini Me go back in time where they hook up with a much younger Number 2 (Rob Lowe) and steal the mojo with the help of a disgruntled Scotsman by the name of Fat Bastard (Mike Myers). Austin must then return to the '60's to retrieve his mojo with the help of '60's secret agent Felicity Shagwell (Heather Graham). I was very disappointed in the somewhat cheesy way that Elizabeth Hurley was dealt with in this movie. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be funny but it really didn't work for me. She had about two minutes of screen time and her scenes were pretty much the weakest points of the movie through no fault of her own. As in the first one, Dr. Evil steals the show, although, Fat Bastard is pretty good too. Felicity Shagwell comes a close second to the two evil Myers characters. Heather Graham is a very groovy, and a more than adequate replacement, for Hurley in both the looks and talent departments. Also, like the first one, Robert Wagner does a great job. As does Rob Lowe, playing Wagner's younger self. I wouldn't be surprised if this performance by Lowe resurrects his career. My sense is that fans of the old James Bond films will catch a few more of the jokes here than the rest of the audience. There are a lot of very subtle little things geared towards them that I really appreciated. Some of the humor, especially surrounding Fat Bastard, was downright disgusting. But I must admit that it was among the funniest in the film, and I laughed along with everyone else in the theater. At times I get the impression that Myers finds something that works and milks it a bit too much. The strategically placed object to disguise nudity worked really well in the first film. So instead of coming up with something more inventive, he based to whole opening sequence around the hidden nudity. It was funny, but just a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. Especially considering how much thought was put into the trailers spoofing the other movie of the summer of '99 -- The Phantom Menace. One sequence that I really enjoyed has a scene involving Dr. Evil's spaceship, which was in the shape of a part of the male anatomy. The descriptions used by people on the ground as they looked up at it flying through the sky were hilarious. Then of course, we have Mini Me (Vern Troyer), Dr. Evil's clone. He combined with Evil to come up with some great scenes. The interaction between Evil and his son Scott (Seth Green) also worked just as well in this film as it did in the original. As with the first, the writers played off the fact that Evil was just slightly behind on the progress that has been made during his 30 years of hibernation. But this time they added to it by having Evil screw up in the '60's by using '90's expressions with the 60's characters that he was trying to interact with. The movie was stolen by Myers playing Evil as he tried to be the hip villain but just usually ended up showing how square he really was. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged should easily rank as one of the funnier films of the year. The movie was groovy baby, yeah! 8/10 Reviewed June 28, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

There's Something About Mary (1998)

2004-03-17T16:47:00.000-04:00

Starring - Ben Stiller; Cameron Diaz; Matt Dillon; Lee Evans & Chris Elliott Director - Bobby Farrelly & Peter Farrelly MPAA - Rated R for strong comic sexual content and language. There's Something About Mary is, by far, the funniest movie that I have seen this year. It is also one of the funniest films that I have ever seen, period. A fair warning to all of you out there who are easily offended -- stay far away from this movie. Some of the scenes in this baby would make a sailor blush, although that same sailor would probably be falling off his seat laughing as he was watching. Mary centers on a one-time high school geek played by Ben Stiller who wants to be reunited with the girl of his high school dreams, Mary (Cameron Diaz). He enlists a sleazy investigator (Matt Dillon) to find her. This is the story of his adventures trying to woo the girl of his dream. That is a major simplification but if I told you any more, I'd have to kill you. All right, maybe just a little more -- Stiller sends Dillon down to Florida where Mary is now living to find out what her life is like. Specifically, he wants to know whether she is still single or not. When Dillon's character gets down there he falls hopelessly in love with Mary too. So it then becomes a contest between Stiller and Dillon as to who will win Mary's heart. (My guess is that they are going after that body too.) The jokes are nonstop in this film, and much of the comedy is on the slapstick side. I guarantee you that if you wait to watch this movie on network television you will miss the best scenes in the movie. They will surely edit out possibly the two funniest scenes ever put to film (namely Ben Stiller having a problem with his zipper and Cameron Diaz's hair gel). Every performance in this film was a great one. I've always though Diaz was great, but I've never been a huge fan of either Stiller or Dillon (all though his stock rose considerably after Wild Things). I have to say that after this film, I'm a fan of both actors. The physical comedy was choreographed perfectly and I really don't think that the writers could have fit one more funny moment into this film. It was simply great from start to finish. My advice -- There's Something About Mary should only be seen in its original uncut version. Any other way would ruin one of the funniest films you are likely to see in a long time. 9/10 Reviewed September 23, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

As Good As It Gets (1997)

2004-03-17T16:46:00.000-04:00

Starring - Jack Nicholson; Helen Hunt; Greg Kinnear; Cuba Gooding Jr. & Skeet Ulrich Director - James L. Brooks MPAA - Rated PG-13 on appeal for strong language, thematic elements, nudity and a beating. Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt both won Oscars for their performances in As Good As It Gets, and Greg Kinnear was nominated for his performance as well. For a movie that received such attention at the awards ceremonies, it was certainly a heck of a disappointment. As Good As It Gets was marketed as sort of a romantic comedy, but this movie was short on comedy and the romance was the pits. Nicholson plays an obsessive-compulsive writer who, to put it bluntly, is obnoxious. He falls in love with his waitress at the local restaurant (Helen Hunt), who just happens to have a gravely ill son. Throw in to the mix Nicholson's gay next door neighbor (Greg Kinnear), who Nicholson's character takes great delight in tormenting, and you have the basis for a movie that isn't that great. It's certainly not worthy of all the critical acclaim that it has received. But then again, what do critics know? Adding to the intricate plot twists of the movie (I'm being sarcastic here, just in case you missed it), Kinnear's character gets beaten up when he walks in on burglars. So by some miracle of modern cinematic genius, Kinnear, Hunt and Nicholson go off on some road trip so Kinnear's character can go beg his parents for money to tide him over until he recovers from his injuries. It sounds stranger than it actually is, but it really isn't significantly better. If it were anyone else other than Jack Nicholson playing the role of the obsessive-compulsive belligerent lead character, I will go out on a limb and say that this movie would have crashed and burned within the first ten minutes. But since it is Jack, no matter how unlikable the character is, you still have to begrudgingly be rooting for him. Nicholson injected enough humor into the part to prevent me from hating the character. As for Helen Hunt, I have no idea why she ever won an Oscar for her performance. Her acting abilities are not bad, but the character was so whiny that I kept wondering what the heck Nicholson's character saw in her. Next to Nicholson, Greg Kinnear gave the most solid performance in this film, although even he was also a little on the whiny side. Cuba Gooding Jr. should also be mentioned as one of Kinnear's gay friends. Cuba stole every scene he was in, including those that he shared with Nicholson -- no small feat. Aside From the good performances from Nicholson, Kinnear, and Gooding, there is really no other reason to recommend that people actually sit through As Good As It Gets. The love story isn't that compelling. I never cared if Nicholson and Hunt ever got together. On top of that, Nicholson mellowed far too quickly for my liking. At the first of the film he was just plain obnoxious, towards the end he was almost likable which seemed to be just a little too convenient for my tastes. As Good As It Gets ranks as one of the bigger disappointments in recent years. 6/10 - Based solely on the performances of Nicholson, Kinnear and Gooding. Reviewed February 18, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Teaching Mrs. Tingle (1999)

2004-03-17T16:45:00.000-04:00

Starring - Katie Holmes; Helen Mirren; Marisa Coughlan; Barry Watson & Liz Stauber Director - Kevin Williamson MPAA - Rated PG-13 for thematic content, violence, sexuality, language and some teen drinking. There was a time when I thought Kevin Williamson was pretty much invincible when it came to churning out quality material. I'm not sure if the man has just overextended himself, or he has reached the end of his brilliance. Either way, Teaching Mrs. Tingle marks the end of his current string of excellent movies that he has been responsible for writing. With Teaching Mrs. Tingle, Williamson takes on the role of director as well as his normal role of writer. It almost seems that the two jobs were just a bit too much for him. While his directorial debut is a competent, if unremarkable effort, the screenplay is, at best, just slightly above average. And at times it borders on bad. The story is a fairly ridiculous one, and the only thing that saves it is that the characters are pretty good. But the true reason that this movie doesn't die completely is the fine cast of actors that have managed to save this film. Katie Holmes plays Leigh Ann Watson, a very bright girl from an under privileged family. Her only hope of ever getting out of her small town is to become valedictorian of her high school graduating class. That way she can score a big scholarship, which will be her only ticket to university. Sound familiar to any of you? It should. This is almost the exact same character that Holmes plays on Dawson's Creek -- a character that Kevin Williamson created. I guess Kevin should get some credit for not ripping off somebody else's characters. At least he had the decency to rip off his own work. Anyway, Leigh Ann has one obstacle in her quest for her scholarship -- her history teacher, Mrs. Tingle (Helen Mirren). Tingle is like every bad teacher you've ever had all rolled into one. Tingle finds herself in the position to ruin Leigh Ann's plans to better herself; and seems to take a great deal of glee doing it. Actually, the reason that Tingle is going to ruin Leigh Ann is fairly legitimate, but Williamson is hoping that you will look past that minor inconvenience and just focus of the fact that Tingle is a first class bitch. So Leigh Ann and her two friends, Jo Lynn (Marisa Coughlan) and Luke (Barry Watson), decide to try to talk Tingle into giving dear sweet Leigh Ann a second chance. But in the end they end up holding her hostage in her own home. Unfortunately they aren't quite prepared for dealing with Mrs. Tingle. I'm not sure if this idiotic plot line was supposed to serve as the basis for some sort of dark comedy, but it didn't work for me. As dumb as the story was, I have to give Williamson credit for his characters. The interaction between Tingle and her young captors was excellent. It was just too bad that Williamson couldn't have found a better way of making this story happen besides this very lame impromptu kidnapping. While Katie Holmes and Barry Watson were the obvious audience draws in this film, the real star is Helen Mirren. This woman plays her character to the hilt. The best part of the movie was watching Mirren's Tingle play with her captor's minds. Everyone in this film is great. That also includes Michael McKean and Jeffrey Tambor in what amounted to glorified cameos. All were good, but all could have been better if they had had a bit more to work with. I never really got over the feeling that Holmes was just repeating a recycled script from Dawson's Creek. Williamson may have been doomed to fail on this movie. The film's release came around the same time as the Columbine High School shooting in Colorado -- prompting the producers to change the title of the film from Killing Mrs. Tingle to Teaching Mrs. Tingle. I'm sure that little marketing problem didn't help the film's chances at the box office. Then we have the fairly schizophrenic way in which this movie was directed. Parts of it almost seem to be played for pure comedy, while other parts are a failed attempt at the darker side of humor. Then we have the director himself. For an open homosexual, his direction certainly seemed to show a preoccupation with Katie Holmes' breasts. Not that I'm complaining, it just seemed a bit strange. (I guess if you have to be preoccupied with something; it might as well be Katie Holmes' chest.) High marks to the cast for keeping this sucker from going completely in the crapper. With most of the praise leveled squarely at Mirren. If she hadn't been so much fun to watch, I'm sure that I would have dozed off. Williamson's characters were good; it's just that the situation that he put them in took away from any positives that he brought to the table. My advice is to skip Teaching Mrs. Tingle and check out another of Williamson's far superior efforts. Keep an eye out for Holmes' future work. She hasn't found the right film yet, but when she does, I guarantee you it will be something to see. 6/10 Reviewed December 21, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Sudden Death (1995)

2004-03-17T16:43:00.000-04:00

Starring - Jean-Claude Van Damme; Powers Boothe; Raymond J. Barry; Whittni Wright & Ross Malinger Director - Peter Hyams MPAA - Rated R for a substantial amount of strong violence, and for language. The Muscles from Brussels is back. This time good old Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a fire marshal who just happens to be assigned to check the arena for fire violations before an NHL playoff game. Now this normally would not be much of a basis for a movie. (Not even a Van Damme movie.) If you throw in the fact that the Vice President of the United States is going to be in attendance at this game, and then add a few terrorists to the whole mix, you may have the ingredients for a half decent little action thriller. Maybe. Powers Boothe plays Joshua Foss, a terrorist who decides that he wants a little cash. He figures the best way to do that is by taking over the private box that the Vice President is watching the game from by using men with big guns. Just to make sure he has everyone's attention he wires the whole arena with explosives. If anyone tries to get in or out of the arena, they are in for a little surprise. Now back to our hero. Well good old Jean-Claude's character, Darren McCord, has taken his two kids to see the game while he does whatever it is fire inspectors do during a hockey game. As bad timing would have it, he manages to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and it is up to him to single-handedly save everyone in the building, including the Vice President, assorted dignitaries and his two kids. The burning question here is -- Gee, will he manage to do it? Well, I'm pretty sure that you can take a wild stab at that one. Maybe I'm being a little hard on the plot line, but it deserves it. As original as this idea is, and to the writers credit it is an original idea, they just take it waaaay over the top here. I'm not going to give anything away but let's just say there is really no need of our intrepid fire marshal getting into hand to hand combat on the peak of the roof of the stadium. All right, I've made my cracks. If you can get by the total lack of believability in the plot you will find Jean-Claude giving one of his best performances to date. (Let's face it; if you enjoy this type of film you realize that in most cases plot is an afterthought at the best of times.) We still aren't talking a possible best actor nomination here, but his acting skills do seem to be getting better. Powers Boothe is great as the villain. While he is truly evil, somehow you have to like him. It's a shame Boothe isn't more widely recognized for his work, or for that matter given better roles, since he is always a lot if fun to watch on screen. I've got a few other beefs with this film. One of them is a subplot involving how Van Damme's character came to become a fire inspector. As a firefighter a child died as he was trying to save her, and he hasn't been the same since. I really don't know why this story line was included in the film. Perhaps it was to make him more sympathetic and make us root for him against the bad guys all that much harder. Although I was left asking why are they wasting my time on this crap? In the end I would say that I would probably recommend this film to Van Damme fans or to those who just love action flicks regardless of the questionable writing. To everyone else out there, I would have to say that there are better Van Damme films out there. If you are in the mood for the "one guy takes on a bunch of terrorists" theme -- rent the original Die Hard. 5/10 - Not bad, but not great. Reviewed February 18, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Goldeneye (1995)

2004-03-17T16:39:00.000-04:00

Starring - Pierce Brosnan; Sean Bean; Izabella Scorupco; Famke Janssen & Joe Don Baker Director - Martin Campbell MPAA - Rated PG-13 for a number of sequences of action/violence, and for some sexuality. This latest film in the 007 series finds the actor Pierce Brosnan in the title role of the British secret agent. If a person were to compare Brosnan's portrayal of Bond to that of his predecessors, the most accurate description would be to say that Brosnan is a cross between Roger Moore and Sean Connery. Brosnan has the serious side that Connery brought to the character. Happily, the element of campy humor that was present when Moore played the Bond has returned. This is a welcome change from Timothy Dalton's brooding incarnation in the previous two movies. The premise of Goldeneye is simple. The Goldeneye is a killer satellite left over from the cold war era that gets stolen by the usual collection of villains that are always present in a good Bond flick. This includes one of the most original "Bond girls" in a long while, played by the beautiful Famke Janssen. Her outstanding trait is her ability to kill men using her thighs. (Enough said) And while on the subject of female cast members, British actress Judi Dench has taken over the role of "M", Bond's boss. As with all Bond films, Goldeneye has its fair share of nifty spy gadgets and car chases (and tank chases), enough to satisfy this James Bond fan anyway. Unlike the previous Bond outing, this one never leaves you with the feeling that the writers were struggling with the script. All in all a solid value for your entertainment buck, and probably reason that producers have signed Brosnan to star in the next bond film. Bond fans will love this movie, and even folks who don't normally like James Bond films are bound to have a good time as well. 8/10 - Lots of fun. Reviewed September 10, 1997 by Joe Chamberlain

The Bone Collector (1999)

2004-02-22T01:36:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:35:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:34:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:34:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:33:00.002-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:33:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:33:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:32:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:28:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:27:00.002-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:27:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:27:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:26:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:24:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:24:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-22T01:22:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:23:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:18:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:18:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:17:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:17:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:16:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:15:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:14:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:13:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:13:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:12:00.001-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:12:00.000-04:00

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)

2004-02-21T23:11:00.000-04:00

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

The Blob (1988)

2004-02-21T23:10:00.000-04:00

Starring - Shawnee Smith; Donovan Leitch; Ricky Paull Goldin; Kevin Dillon & Billy Beck Director - Chuck Russell MPAA - R The Blob is the remake of the 1960's classic (a term that I use very loosely to define the original) about a really mean glob of goop that takes out anything that gets in its way. Now the original version has the virtue of cheesy special effects which give it a kind of nostalgic campy feel. The fact that Steve McQueen was the star of the film doesn't exactly hurt it either. Fast forward to the late '80's -- Steve McQueen isn't in the remake (this might have something to do with the fact that he had been pushing up daisies for years). Nor are there any Hollywood heavy hitters in the lead role. That is unless you count Matt Dillon's brother Kevin as a Hollywood heavy hitter. The other thing that works against this new Blob is that special effects technology has improved dramatically since the original. The only things you need now to have great special effects in a movie are deep pockets. It looks as if the produces of the new Blob had a couple of holes in their pockets. The special effects in this movie are cheesy, like the original's. Unlike the original, they don't look campy, they just look cheap. One bright spot in the movie from a purely sexist point of view is Shawnee Smith. She is very attractive and can actually act, which is more than I can say about some of her costars. In terms of plot, a little ball of pink goop falls from the sky. Seems this goop was an experiment that was being housed up on a satellite. Anyway, the pink stuff has a taste for humans. The more people it absorbs, the bigger it gets. And it isn't the friendliest goop on the block either. Anyway, it attacks this little town and it's up to the attractive local teenage population to stop it. Not really, but that is how it seems. This version attempts to recapture the camp of the original. As I've already said, this new version of The Blob comes off more as cheap, badly acted, and badly written than campy. In the years since this film was made none of the cast has gone on to greatness; although, star Shawnee Smith had a very tiny role in Armageddon. The reason that we have never heard of any of them again is quite simple -- they all stunk out loud. Although some of the film's smaller roles are filled with some actors that, while not big stars, are doubtless people that you will recognize from their supporting roles in other movies and TV shows. It also appears that the producers of The Blob tried to compensate for the lack of a special effects budget by making the scenes in which the Blob makes meals of the townsfolk as gory as possible. Sadly, it doesn't work very well. If you want to see a big ball of goop terrorize a town, then I would say that you should skip the remake and rent the original. (Although that isn't so hot either.) This newest version is seriously lacking in any redeeming qualities. 2/10 Reviewed November 18, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade (1989)

2004-02-21T23:09:00.001-04:00

Starring - Harrison Ford; Sean Connery; Denholm Elliot; Alison Doody & John Rhys-Davies Director - Steven Spielberg MPAA - PG-13 How do you make an Indiana Jones film even better? Add Sean Connery to the cast. With the one two punch of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, it is pretty darn difficult to come up with a bad final product. When you add Stephen Spielberg as the director and George Lucas as producer and one of the writers, all the elements are there for a spectacular film experience. Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade does not disappoint on any level; other than the fact that this has long been reputed to be the last film in the series. One can not be just a little sad that this much talent may never collaborate again to make another one of these films that really represent why people love going to the movies. This time out, Indiana's (Ford) father, Henry Jones (Connery) is working for a wealthy collector who is financing his life long quest for the Holy Grail. The Nazis, who are also interested in the Grail, are in competition with Jones. (I guess they are still ticked off over that whole Lost Ark thing.) Anyway, Jones goes missing. So son Indiana travels to his fathers last known location, Venice, to try to find out what happened to his father and also see if he can't complete his father's search for the Grail. He travels with longtime friend, Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliot), and the hook up with the elder Jones' assistant, Dr. Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody). Together the three search Venice for clues to the location of the Grail. Jones eventually finds his father who joins the group on the quest for the Grail. As usual, Indiana's adventures are never dull, and this time he has to deal with Nazis, rats and a high speed boat chase on the way to his goal of the Grail. Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade is very well written and lives up to the first two films. No disappointments here. The film opens with a flashback sequence with Indiana as a boy and explains many of the reasons that Indiana is the man he is. Last Crusade is frequently funny; which is a tribute as much to the interaction of the leads as it is to the sharp writing. Harrison Ford and Sean Connery are perfectly cast as the father and son who don't always see eye to eye. Throw in the supporting cast of Denholm Elliot and John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), both returning to their roles from Raiders Of The Lost Ark and there are more than a few light moments intertwined with the seemingly nonstop action. Like the previous films, Stephen Spielberg gives us a film filled with elaborate stunts and the sort of settings that can only be found in an Indiana Jones movie. There is virtually nothing wrong with this movie from a technical standpoint. Last Crusade has stood up well in the 10 years since it first hit the big screen. It is easily one of the finest action/adventure films ever made. This film also compares very well to the first one, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, which in my opinion, is quite possibly the best film ever made. 9/10 Reviewed March 16, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

The Mummy (1999)

2004-02-21T23:09:00.000-04:00

Starring - Brendan Fraser; Rachel Weisz; John Hannah; Arnold Voslo & Kevin J. O'Connor Director - Stephen Sommers MPAA - Rated PG-13 for pervasive adventure violence and some partial nudity. Brendan Fraser stars in this remake of the 1930's Boris Karloff classic. This new mummy is not only a tribute to the original but it is very blatantly paying homage to Raiders Of The Lost Ark as well. Brendan Fraser is no Indiana Jones, but he comes pretty darn close. I'll admit right off the bat that I wasn't expecting a whole lot out of The Mummy. I figured on a few nifty special effects and not a whole lot else. I was in for quite the surprise. The Mummy is a whole lot of fun, and will probably rank as one of my favorite movies of the year. Fraser plays a former soldier turned fortune hunter who, in no small way, resembles a certain character that Harrison Ford made famous - although, Fraser's character doesn't have a bullwhip. Rick O'Connell (Fraser) is one of the few people who has ever seen the Lost City of the Dead in Egypt. It is reported to contain an immense treasure and volumes of great knowledge. He is hired by a librarian (Rachel Weisz) and her brother (John Hannah) to take them to the city so that they can try to find its hidden treasures. Once there they run into a bit more than they bargained for. They inadvertently bring back to life a mummy which has been sealed in the ancient city along with a very bad curse. Basically, once this mummy gets reawakened he isn't a real nice guy. And once he gets up to full strength he will be able to control the world. By the way, the way he gains strength is to replace the long rotted parts of his body with new flesh from living victims. The mummy has as his command the power to create plagues of biblical proportion, such as locusts, making the water turn to blood and fireballs falling from the sky. All and all, he isn't the sort of fellow that you want to be enemies with. The plot of the movie is a little on the popcorn side of things. It is your typical light summer fare. This is not a difficult movie to follow, yet on the other hand there are enough spills, thrills and one-liners to keep the audience thoroughly entertained throughout the movie. I was not really expecting a whole lot in either the dialogue or acting portions of this movie. On both counts I was happily wrong. This isn't Oscar-caliber dialogue mind you, but it is witty and often pretty funny. I found most of it was designed to give the movie that Indiana Jones feel. Even in the worst of situations, someone seemingly had a wisecrack. The acting was very impressive. Brendan Fraser has never really been in a movie that ever really impressed the heck out of me. This time he did. Fraser comes off as a young Harrison Ford in this movie. He might not have quite as much talent as Ford, but he certainly has the charisma and screen presence to make up for it. Quite honestly, he is no slouch in the talent department either. Rachel Weisz does a fine job as the take charge librarian who eventually falls for Fraser's character. The actor who I enjoyed the most was John Hannah as Weisz's somewhat roguish brother. His character was pure comic relief, and Hannah delivered all the way. Arnold Voslo was also good playing the mummy; although his scenes were somewhat limited because of the nature of his character. The reason Voslo's scenes were limited was the fact that for a good portion of the movie, the mummy was purely a computer generated character. He was more or less a walking skeleton with a little rotting flesh on him. Although there was more and more meat on him as the movie progressed and the body count mounted. The CGI Mummy was probably the most impressive CGI character that I have ever seen in a movie. I would say it will be a long time before the effects were surpassed if it weren't for the fact that Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace wasn't being released a week and a half after this film. The mummy itself wasn't the only impressive computer generated horror in this film. Special effects wizards also used computers to generate a very impressive killer windstorm as well as the mummy's undead henchmen. One of the neatest touches was the CGI flesh eating beetles -- I'll say no more. If, when you think of The Mummy, you picture a slow moving creature wrapped in gauze chasing people at speeds approaching 1/4 of a mile per hour, you are in for a shock. This new Mummy is slick, scary and a whole lot of fun. The Mummy might not go down as a "classic" like the original (although it wouldn't surprise me if it did), but it will provide you with one of the most enjoyable movie experiences that you are likely to see in a summer film. 9/10 Reviewed May 10, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Lost In Space (1998)

2004-02-21T23:08:00.001-04:00

Starring - Gary Oldman; William Hurt; Matt LeBlanc; Mimi Rogers & Heather Graham Director - Stephen Hopkins MPAA - Rated PG-13 for some intense sci-fi action. Lost In Space is the updated remake of the campy 1960's television program. While it certainly is anything but campy, it is a worthy successor to the original series. Unlike the series, the film version of Lost In Space is big budget with top notch special effects. None of the aliens made from tinfoil that were so common from the series show up here. Lost In Space boasts an A-level cast including Gary Oldman as the evil Dr. Smith, William Hurt as Professor John Robinson and Matt LeBlanc as Major Don West. Unlike TV show remakes from recent years, Mission: Impossible comes to mind, Lost In Space doesn't turn familiar characters into something that you don't expect. The good guys from the series are still good and the bad guy, namely Dr. Smith, is still bad; although, if I had one complaint about the movie it would be with the character of Dr. Smith. While Gary Oldman does do a good job, the character of Smith is a little too nasty. I suppose times change, and the bad guys have to get a little more menacing. Maybe part of my problem with Dr. Smith was that Jonathan Harris wasn't playing him. Harris was the main reason to watch the series and nobody, not even Gary Oldman, could properly replace him as Dr. Smith. The same can not be said for the other characters in the film; all of the current actors more than adequately filled the rolls of their 1960's counterparts. Lost In Space, in addition to keeping to the story line of the series also paid homage to it in other ways. These included cameos from some of the original stars of the TV series; Dick Tufeld, who was the voice of the Robot in the series, also voices the Robot in the film. You should also pay special attention to the booster rocket that carries the updated Jupiter 2 from its launch pad on Earth. As for plot, it is the mid 21st Century and Earth is doomed to extinction from the pollution and abuse of the past centuries. John Robinson and his family are chosen to go to a new planet and ready it for colonization from the people of Earth. Something goes horribly wrong on the Robinson's journey. A terrorist stowaway, Dr. Smith, sabotages the mission and the whole bunch of them find themselves lost in some uncharted region of space. This new region of space is not without its dangers, including large killer spiders and some sort of phenomenon which seems to be affecting time itself. As I mentioned, the main reason to watch the television series was for Dr. Smith. While Gary Oldman's Smith can't compare to the original, he is still the most fun to watch. While his portrayal of Dr. Smith is far more evil than the TV version, the film version of Smith still takes the same joy at being bad. You have to love somebody that takes such pride in their work. As for the rest of the cast, while they are not standouts like Gary Oldman, they all do an excellent job. But what else would you expect from William Hurt? Hurt and the rest of the cast deserve credit for even being noticed in Lost In Space. It would have been very easy for all of them to fade into the background of Oldman's over the top performance and of the spectacular special effects. Not to mention the very cool updated Robot. Lost In Space is a whole lot of fun. Whether you were a fan of the TV series, or had never heard of it before, this is a thoroughly enjoyable movie. Although I must admit, fans of the series will get a little extra out of this updated version of Lost In Space with all of the references to the original series scattered around the film. 8/10 Reviewed October 10, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)

2004-02-21T23:08:00.000-04:00

Starring - Jennifer Love Hewitt; Freddie Prinze Jr.; Brandy; Mekhi Phifer & Muse Watson Director - Danny Cannon MPAA - Rated R for intense terror violence and gore, strong language and some drug use. I have to admit that I avoided going to see this film in the theater. Quite frankly, while I am a fan of Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts, I don't think that they should be the entire selling feature of a movie. That is how it seems to be in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. The more accurate title might have been I Still Know What Jennifer Love Hewitt's Breasts Did Last Summer, since they appear to be the stars of the show. And very impressive stars at that... But, I digress. Of course the other obvious flaw in the title of this little gem is the fact that the events referred to in the title actually happened two summers before this film takes place. So I don't think that it requires some sort of advanced university degree to figure out that the title really should be I Still Know What You Did Two Summers Ago. Either the producers think that the audience that is stupid enough to pay to watch this thing will miss this small point or maybe they aren't real adept at reading a calendar. This second option holds some appeal for me since it is fairly obvious that they aren't real adept at making movies either. If this were some B-grade straight-to-video knock off that had at its core a bad story, dumb villain and an abnormal obsession with Ms. Hewitt's breasts, I'd say, "OK, I'll happily sit here and watch her breasts for a couple of hours". The fact is that this is a sequel to one of the better horror films of the past few years, so I expected a little more. (Story wise, not breast wise.) If you are beginning to think that I might have some sort of obsession with Ms. Hewitt's chest, it's really not so - although I am an admirer. It seems that this film is truly based around her chest. All of the publicity shots from this film inevitably show her in some low cut number. And she always seems to be a little damp. Every time this turkey gets a little slow (which is all too frequent) the camera inevitably pans over and focuses in on her chest. I kid you not. It almost makes me think that the producers knew that what they had on their hands film wise wasn't what you'd call a masterpiece. So they figured that the only way that they were going to get anyone in theaters was to pander to the lowest denominator -- over-sexed teenage boys. My guess is that this group accounted for the majority of tickets sold during I Still Know's theatrical run. Gone is the clever Kevin Williamson script from the first film. In its wake is every tired and overused horror film cliché from the past twenty years. I guessed who the killer was the first time that that person was on camera, and I'm not exactly a rocket scientist. I'm not even going to get into the ending of the first film that, without giving it away, didn't exactly seem to lend itself to a sequel. No matter, here we are again and Jennifer Love Hewitt is back at university a year after most of her friends were killed by a hook-wielding fisherman. She has finally getting a little good luck in her life. Her roommate (Brandy) wins a radio contest and the two roomies, with two guys in tow, head off on a free weekend in the Bahamas. Of course, the hotel is on a small and mostly deserted island (how convenient) and a hurricane is just blowing in as they arrive (you can't make a formula horror film without high winds and rain). Sorry if I spoil any surprise kids, but guess what? Our old buddy the hook-wielding fisherman turns up on the island with them and starts slicing and dicing people one by one. The only positive thing that I can say about this movie is that at least this time the killer fisherman, who I have long considered to be one of the dumbest slasher film killers ever (he would be the dumbest if it weren't for Leatherface) is at least dressed somewhat properly here. Since they are in the middle of a hurricane, his black rain hat and slicker don't look too out of place. Unlike in the first movie when he seemingly wandered around unnoticed in the middle of a hot sunny day wearing the same ridiculous getup. Acting wise -- let's just say everyone avoids embarrassing themselves. Not much else can be said for the cast. Holdovers from the first film Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Jr., proved in the original that they are talented actors. Unfortunately, the script of this latest film doesn't give them any material to enforce that. In the end, this is a B-grade slasher flick from the word go. If it wasn't for the fact that it is the sequel to the very clever I Know What You Did Last Summer and for the fact that it boasts Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Jr. in the cast, this film would wind up collecting dust on the shelf of your local video store. Sadly, it is very obvious that Hollywood hot shot Kevin Williamson was not involved in this project to give it the same depth that he injected in to the first one. 6/10 - 4 for the movie and 2 more for Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts. Reviewed April 18, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters (1994)

2004-02-21T23:07:00.001-04:00

Starring - Donald Sutherland; Eric Thal; Julie Warner; Keith David & Will Patton Director - Stuart Orme MPAA - Rated R for violence, sci-fi gore and brief language. Donald Sutherland stars in this story of aliens trying to take over the Earth. They have landed in a small town and they are taking over the bodies of the town's folk by attaching themselves to their backs and sticking a probe into their brains. Even worse, they are rapidly spreading to the neighboring communities. So it's up to Andrew Nivens (Donald Sutherland) and his son Sam (Eric Thal) to stop them before the entire United States ends up as the puppets for these aliens. Also along for the ride for the required amount of sex appeal is Julie Warner playing a brilliant scientist who eventually falls for Sutherland's son. Even in the brief overview I gave of this movie, you may be able to glean that it is a formula film right from the opening credits. It's sad to say, but I don't think that the writers had one original thought when they wrote this movie. I can't think of a single plot point that I hadn't seen in some other movie. Anything that was even the slightest bit original was so predictable that you almost knew what was going to happen without even giving it any thought. Having said all that, the writers did manage to use some decent plot points from all of the movies that they had obviously watched, so the movie wasn't a total disaster. It's just not something that you should sit down with expecting to be overwhelmed by all of the creatively ingenious ideas; because it isn't going to happen. The acting is passable at best, on all counts including Sutherland. In Donald's defense, he didn't have a great deal of material to work with. He was playing the uncaring S.O.B. in this movie, which is a role that he has played many times before with much greater success. Julie Warner was also a disappointment since I had been very impressed with her in Doc Hollywood. The only others worth mentioning were Richard Belzer (Homicide: Life On The Street), and his character only said a few dozen words. Keith David also had a small role, but as usual, he made the most of it. The Puppet Masters is just your typical cookie cutter horror/sci-fi flick. There was absolutely nothing remarkable about it. But it was just good enough to keep my interest through the whole movie. Although, I can't say that I would rush out to watch it again any time in the near future. 5/10 Reviewed December 23, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

2004-02-21T23:07:00.000-04:00

Starring - Liam Neeson; Ewan McGregor; Natalie Portman; Jake Lloyd & Pernilla August Director - George Lucas MPAA - Rated PG for sci-fi action/violence. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... I have to admit that when those words appeared on the screen, my heart skipped a beat, even if only ever so slightly. By the time the opening setup credits had finished, I was all set for a good time. After seeing Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, I was left wondering if I had seen the same movie that many film critics had seemingly taken great delight in eviscerating in the weeks leading up to its release. I certainly didn't experience the colossal disappointment that many a critic were predicting that fans would suffer. Nor did it appear as though anyone else in the sold-out theater where I saw The Phantom Menace was overly underwhelmed; at least, not judging by the applause that erupted when the film's end credits started to roll. Although, I suppose that could have been from just being relieved that the worst 2 hours of their lives was now over. Call me crazy, but I don't think so. Let me set the record straight on some of the more prominent criticisms of this film. 1) That director George Lucas went a little crazy on the computer generated aspects of the film. To be honest, the CGI was so subtle that I hardly noticed most of it. Since 95% of the scenes were in some way digitally enhanced, you would expect that it might get a little overwhelming. Much of it involved scenes where some element of the background had been enhanced in some small way. As for the big scenes such as the dramatic battle between the Gungans and legions of battle droids, the digital effects were so well done that I didn't even notice that everything on screen was CGI. Criticism number 2 -- that the story was seriously lacking. Admittedly The Phantom Menace is a setup for the next two films. But the way in which Lucas sets up these cliffhangers that will be resolved in the next films is brilliant. There are also more than a few winks and nudges directed to those who are diehard fans of the movie. 3) The computer generated character of Jar Jar Binks is really annoying. At first he kind of is a bit, but I found that he grew on me as the movie progressed. He also had some of the funniest lines in the film, provided you could understand them. Of my complaints that is the biggest. Jar Jar's whole race spoke in a backwards dialect that had its funny moments, but in most cases you really had to work to make out what they were saying. 4) Jake Lloyd, who plays young Anakin Skywalker, can't act. There are a few brief moments in the film where it is painfully obvious why Lloyd has gained the nickname of Mannequin Skywalker among some. To be perfectly honest, he wasn't half bad in most of the movie; which is a credit to Lucas for keeping Lloyd's dramatic scenes to a bare minimum. But I certainly won't miss Lloyd in the next film. To be quite frank, I found most criticism directed toward this film was blown way out of proportion. I guess that is in keeping with everything surrounding The Phantom Menace. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, for those of you who are just emerging from your caves, is the first in a trilogy of prequels to the original Star Wars saga. This trilogy concerns how young Anakin Skywalker eventually grew up to be the evil Darth Vader (the father of Star Wars' Luke and Leia). The Phantom Menace begins with a trade dispute between the Trade Federation and the planet of Naboo. The Trade Federation sets up a blockade of Naboo to force them into submission. The Galactic Republic dispatches two Jedi knights, Qui-Gon Jin (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), to try to settle the dispute. Once there, the two Jedis realize that there is something more sinister going on that just a trade dispute. The mysterious Darth Sidious (even more mysteriously uncredited) is secretly pulling the strings of the Trade Federation armies encircling Naboo. He orders his men to commence the capture of the peaceful planet. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan manage to rescue the ruler of Naboo, Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman), from the clutches of the Trade Federation's army, and whisk her off to the planet of Coruscant where she can plead her planet's case before the ruling Republic's Senate. On their way, their ship experiences engine trouble and they have to land on the desert world on Tatooine for repairs. There, Qui-Gon and Amidala meet a young boy named Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) who seems to have a great connection with the Force. The rest of the film is more of less the Jedi's and Amidala's attempts to free her planet. Much of The Phantom Menace is a setup for Episodes II and III. A good portion of the movie is spent introducing the characters and their forthcoming intertwining relationships which we all know will eventually happen. At least those of us who have seen the first three films know what is going to eventually happen. Episode I gives us a sneak peak of sorts into what we know these characters are to become. For instance, we get the first hints of the romance that is to blossom between the Anakin and Amidala (Luke and Leia's parents). We also start to see the rise to power of the Senator from Naboo named Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) who would later become Darth Vader's master, Emperor Palpatine. We also have the first indications from the Jedi council, headed by Yoda (Frank Oz) and Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) that while Anakin may be strong with the Force, his future might be less than rosy. All of this, and other subtle hints, will be to the great delight of Star Wars fans. Those who have never seen the original trilogy or, haven't seen it in a while, may miss out on some of the more subtle comments and hints. Lucas seems to have made The Phantom Menace as a teaser of sorts for what is to come, and in that respect he has done it brilliantly. The hints and anticipation about what is to come has left me wishing that I didn't have to wait three more years to see the next chapter. Aside from the setup for Episodes II and III, The Phantom Menace does stand up on its own. The plot may be a bit light in places, but I certainly never noticed. I was so caught up in the spectacle of it all. Visually, The Phantom Menace is one breathtaking movie. The computer technology available today has allowed Lucas' technical wizards to create whatever magical worlds that Lucas can dream up. Particularly staggering were the capital city on Naboo which featured grand waterfalls and ornate architecture. The underwater sequences involving Jar Jar Binks' totally submersed home are as stunning as anything you are ever likely to see on film. And of course, the final battle involving the thousands of battle droids is something that never could have been created without the use of computers. As for the acting; I've already said my piece on Jake Lloyd. Liam Neeson displays the same abundant talent in this film as he did in Schindler's List. He, along with Natalie Portman, is the heart of the movie. Portman is incredible as the young Queen with the weight of an entire planet on her shoulders. I feel obligated to note that when you take away the Queen's strange outfits and even stranger makeup, Natalie Portman is absolutely stunning. I realize that she was cast for her enormous talent as much as anything else, but her classic beauty made me think that she was born to play a queen. I was a bit disappointed that Ewan McGregor and Samuel J. Jackson didn't have bigger roles in this film. I was especially shocked at how little screen time McGregor got. But both be and Jackson gave great performances in their roles. I also would have liked to see a bit more of Darth Maul (Ray Park) who was other character that fit into the under used category. The cast as a whole was an amazing one especially considering most of them were acting with blue screens and not real actors at any given time. And even those that weren't quite what they should have been (anyone who sees the film will know who they are) didn't detract from the movie. In fact, very little detracted from the movie; and if something did, you could be sure that some other nifty thing would come along to take your mind off any little bumps in the road. George Lucas threw enough small touches and tiny details in to make up for any deficiencies that may have arisen. Sure there were things that probably could have been done differently. I've never seen a perfect movie yet, so I didn't expect this one to be flawless either. Lucas has made a fun little movie that all ages will be able to enjoy. It may not be quite as good as Star Wars, but it certainly stands up well to The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi. I only had one major complaint as I walked out of this film -- that I have to wait 3 more years to see the next one. That's the sort of complaint I wish I had with every film. 10/10 - Well worth the 16 year wait. Reviewed May 19, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Titanic (1997)

2004-02-21T23:06:00.000-04:00

Starring - Leonardo DiCaprio; Kate Winslet; Billy Zane; Kathy Bates & Bill Paxton Director - James Cameron MPAA - Rated PG-13 for disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language. So the question is -- is this the greatest movie of all time? Well, it's certainly the most successful. Maybe not the best movie of all time in my books, although I would have to say it comes pretty darn close. That's quite an admission coming from me, since I've never seen a love story that I didn't hate or fall asleep before the 1 hour mark. Titanic is just that a love story, even with the multimillion dollar sets and special effects, it is just a movie about the love two young passengers have for one another. I will have to admit, as love stories go; this was a very compelling one. Certainly, the best one I've ever seen. Although I still can't figure out what all the excitement is about regarding Leonardo DiCaprio. I guess I would have to be a teenage girl to figure out that one, but I digress. I went to see titanic not for the love story (I planned on tolerating it) but for the special effects. Believe it or not I actually found my cold-hearted self actually enjoying the romance between Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet). While, as I've already said, I don't see what the fuss is over Leo, after seeing this film I couldn't imagine it being made with actors other than DiCaprio and Winslet in the lead roles. A fact that I think speaks volumes about their performances. There was truly no doubt, in my little mind at least, that by the end of the movie the characters of Jack and Rose were deeply in love. Heck, I actually even started to care about their romance. (I think I'm getting too soft.) But I didn't go to see this movie for the romance, I went for the special effects - I wanted to watch the damn ship sink. Now to get off topic for just a second, I was one of those who asked the burning questions before the movie came out. Who in their right mind spends 200 million dollars to make a film? Better yet on a film that everybody knows the ending to? If you are crazy enough to spend such huge amounts of cash, why wouldn't you cast some big name actors in the lead roles, so we the audience would have some reason to go? A whole lot of people asked those same questions. If they are anything like me, after seeing Titanic they had to ask themselves -- Why would I have ever asked such stupid questions? Why? Well, because critics are not filmmakers, and while we like to comment on films, and are relatively knowledgeable on the subject, for the most part we don't know as much as the people who make them. This is abundantly true with regard to Titanic's director James Cameron. The same man who many considered would be run out of Hollywood just a few short months before the film opened, is now being recognized as being among the greatest directors of all time. I really don't think that anyone can say enough about the job that this guy did. This brings me back around to the reason I went to see this film -- the special effects. The movie opens with breathtaking shots of the real Titanic on the bottom of the Atlantic, shot specifically for this film by director James Cameron. Although that almost pales by comparison to the special effects used during the last half of the movie as the ship is sinking. The 200 million dollar price tag is certainly evident on the screen. Both in the long shots where we get to see the great ship break up, and in the interior shots that were done in giant flooded tanks. If, like me, you go to Titanic for the special effects, I promise you will not be disappointed by anything that appears on the screen. A funny thing happened as I was watching the Titanic in its final minutes above the water. As much as I was in awe of the effects, and the complexity of the production, something else happened. An eerie feeling came over me. Unlike other disaster movies, this one really happened. All too often, when we think of the real Titanic sitting there on the bottom of the ocean, we forget something. Oh, we remember the tragedy of the situation and that hundreds of lives were lost, but most of us never stop to think what it must have like to be there on that ship as it was going down. James Cameron has captured those last moments, in a way that will make you think wonder why you never thought about it like that before. As spectacular as the special effects were, they could not overshadow a simple love story and the tragedy associated with one of the worst disasters of all time. A truly remarkable film, it is no wonder that so many people have gone back to this masterpiece several times. 10/10 - One of the greatest films ever made -- I would give it a higher rating if I had one. Reviewed March 4, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

2004-02-21T23:05:00.001-04:00

Starring - Patrick Stewart; Jonathan Frakes; Brent Spiner; LeVar Burton & Michael Dorn Director - Jonathan Frakes MPAA - Rated PG-13 for some sci-fi adventure violence. Star Trek: First Contact is the eighth movie in the series based on Gene Roddenberry's TV show from the sixties. It is the second movie featuring the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation. First Contact is one of the best movies in the series, and it seems to hold up the tradition of the even numbered movies being far superior to their odd numbered counterparts. Unlike the other films in the series, this is the first one where no members of the original cast of Star Trek appear. The exception is Majel Barret, as the voice of the Enterprise's computer. In this latest installment, the crew as forced to travel back in time to prevent the Borg (more about them in a second) from changing the course of Earth's history. It seems the Borg want to prevent the first warp flight. For those of you out there that aren't familiar with the Borg, they are half biological, half mechanical beings that assimilate other races and transform them into Borg. This is usually not a pleasant experience, what with all the mechanical parts being implanted into the victim. As far as villains go, since being introduced on Star Trek: The Next Generation, the Borg have become on of the most popular villains in Star Trek. The special effects in this latest effort are among the best in a Star Trek film. Equally impressive are the sets for the new Enterprise. In the tradition of the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation, the main cast does their usual superb job. The "guest stars" of the film include Alice Krige as the Borg's queen, and James Cromwell as Zefram Cochrane, the man who is to make the historic first warp flight. Cromwell, in my humble opinion, steals every scene he is in. As usual, there is the normal humor associated with Star Trek, although most of it is inside jokes that would go right over the head of non Star Trek fans. Star Trek: First Contact is a great film that both diehard Trek fans and your average movie patron will enjoy. 7/10 Reviewed January 27, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers (1988)

2004-02-21T23:05:00.000-04:00

Starring - Donald Pleasence; Ellie Cornell; Danielle Harris; George P. Wilbur & Michael Pataki Director - Dwight H. Little MPAA - R Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers picks up where Halloween II left off. (Halloween III had absolutely nothing to do with the Michael Myers character -- proving once again that movie producers are not all rocket scientists.) Anyway, it's years after the events of that infamous Halloween night (Halloween & Halloween II) when Michael Myers went on a murderous rampage and killed pretty much everyone in sight in the small town of Haddonfield Illinois. We all thought good old Mike was stopped for good at the end of Halloween II. But it's the movies, and more specifically a movie about a bloodthirsty mass murderer, so we all know it pretty much takes a howitzer to the head to stop them. For those who missed Halloween II, here's the scoop -- Myers' longtime psychiatrist, Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) seemingly blew himself and Myers up to end Myers' killing spree. It ended up only scarring Loomis and putting the evil Mikey in a coma for a decade. Well, Halloween is rolling around once again, and it's time for Mikey to get up and go trick or treating again. This time he's off to a family reunion. Seems he has a niece living in Haddonfield and, as is his custom, he pretty much is forced to try to do anything he can to kill her. Like his last murderous rampage, the body count rises fast and furious as Mike knocks off anybody who happens to get within two feet of him. Unlike the first two Halloween movies, Halloween 4 has an actual budget -- at least in terms of production values anyway. The budget was obviously not used to go after the best Hollywood had to offer in terms of acting talent. With the exception of Pleasence, most of the actors seem to have been cast for their good looks as opposed to their acting skills. If you've ever seen a slasher flick, that shouldn't come as much of a surprise to you. Michael Myers again dons his Captain Kirk mask painted white and his overalls. (At least they didn't have to splurge on the wardrobe budget.) Although much to my dismay, unlike the earlier films, there were no gratuitous nude scenes. If it weren't for the enormous body count, this would be a PG movie. But there is that body count, and most of the deaths are pretty violent. I actually enjoyed Halloween 4. I really can't figure out why though. There is nothing about it that really sets it apart from any of the other cookie cutter slasher films. Perhaps I was just happy to see Michael Myers, one of my favorite horror film characters, return after all those years. It's good for a couple of hours of mindless entertainment, if nothing else. 5/10 Reviewed October 30, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Daylight (1996)

2004-02-21T23:04:00.001-04:00

Starring - Sylvester Stallone; Amy Brenneman; Viggo Mortensen; Dan Hedaya & Jay O. Sanders Director - Rob Cohen MPAA - Rated PG-13 for disaster-related peril, death and destruction. At first glance, Daylight would seem like your typical disaster movie. On second glance it looks that way too. Although, as typical disaster movies go, Daylight isn't that bad. Admittedly, it seems to rip off a great deal of its plot devices from disaster flicks of days gone by (think Poseidon Adventure). But the decent dialogue and surprisingly good acting make up for the "haven't I seen this scene somewhere before?" feeling that creeps up all too often during the film. Sylvester Stallone stars as the recently fired head of New York's Emergency Response team. By sheer luck, he is in the right place at the right time when disaster strikes the unaware inhabitants of this little film. "What disaster is that?" you ask, as you inch ever closer to the edge of your seat. Glad you asked. Through a whole sequence of entirely probable events (about as probable as hitting the lottery) a large explosion takes place in the Lincoln tunnel running under the Hudson River in New York City. The explosion results in the tunnel collapsing at both ends, which causes not only massive loss of life, but traps a dozen people inside the wreckage of the tunnel. Good old Sly, who is only feet away from entering the tunnel when it collapses, offers his services to the rescuers, who gladly accept it. Sly then enters the tunnel through a vent shaft (think Judge Dredd) which he can only go in, and not out off, and proceeds to try to rescue those trapped inside. So begins the fun, but the fun has to be quick, because this tunnel has started to spring a leak. The acting is about what you would expect of a Stallone movie. Not superb by any means, but far above some of his other films (think Judge Dredd again). Daylight's acting is probably average, or a little above, in terms of this sort of genre, starring this particular star. Amy Brenneman is the only actor of any note, and she does a pretty good job as Stallone's reluctant helper. Oh yeah, Stallone's real life son, Sage, is in this too. Sage -- nice name. I guess it could be worse; he could have been named nutmeg or parsley. Note to Sage - you are still young. Go to school and get a good education -- you don't have a future in acting. The plot runs along the same lines as the acting -- interesting, but predictable. This is mostly due to the fact that it was pretty well recycled from a dozen other action flicks. The biggest problem with a film of this nature is that they try to cram too many things into the movie. As soon as the cast clears one seemingly impossible hurdle, another one seems to pop right up, even worse than the last one. I realize that it wouldn't be much of a movie otherwise, but it does make the movie a bit predictable. Adding to the predictability is the cast of characters, which of course, has to include at least one or two difficult people who want to do things their own way and think the qualified guy (in this case Stallone) doesn't know what he is doing. Why is it in disaster movies we can never have everyone agree with each other and all work together? Would this be too much to ask? Can't we all just get along? Special effects weren't bad - but I've certainly seen better. Some of the scenes, while fun to watch, were such blatant rip-offs that you had to wonder if scripts from old movies were just copied verbatim. Especially all of the scenes that involved anything underwater (the tunnel, of course, starts to flood). I really expected Gene Hackman, Roddy McDowell and Ernest Borgnine to appear at any minute -- I wasn't sure if I was watching Daylight or The Poseidon Adventure. I suppose if you have to rip off a movie for good ideas, The Poseidon Adventure is a good one to use. The underwater sequences (aside from the deja vu) were very well shot and worked fairly well. They were the best part of the movie by a long shot. Better than average the Stallone flick. I realize that's not saying much when the man has Judge Dredd on his resume. But certainly not up to the standards of Cliffhanger. Daylight is a fun movie, and as long as you aren't expecting a whole lot you might even be pleasantly surprised. 7/10 Reviewed February 20, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

The Mask Of Zorro (1998)

2004-02-21T23:04:00.000-04:00

Starring - Antonio Banderas; Anthony Hopkins; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Stuart Wilson & Matthew Letscher Director - Martin Campbell MPAA - Rated PG-13 for some intense action and violence. The Mask Of Zorro is by far the best movie of the summer of '98. While Armageddon and Deep Impact wowed audiences with spectacular special effects, no other movie was as much fun as Zorro. I've never been a big Antonio Banderas fan - actually to be perfectly honest I've never thought that he could act his way out of a paper bag; but maybe in retrospect that's because he has never had the right roles. There is no doubt that he was very good in The Mask Of Zorro. It takes real talent to shine when you are acting next to Anthony Hopkins in a movie. Hopkins plays Zorro, who, after being imprisoned by the Spanish government escapes to try to make contact with the daughter (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who was taken from him many years ago when she was just an infant. Now, many years later she is all grown up. And may I be the first to say WOW! Catherine Zeta Jones has got to be one of the most beautiful women that I have seen in a movie in a long time, and unlike some of the other lovely starlets that populate today's movies, Zeta-Jones is actually a very good actress. But I digress. Hopkins meets up with a thief (Antonio Banderas) who has a score to settle with some of the same people that Zorro does. Since Zorro is now in his late 50's, he really can't don the mask anymore, so he sets out to train Banderas' character to replace him as Zorro. Going into much more detail would probably ruin the movie, but let's just say that tons of sword fighting and other assorted action abound in this movie. I was very impressed with Banderas' performance. He was charismatic and funny, and if he can continue to find roles as good as The Mask Of Zorro, he will undoubtedly become one of Hollywood's biggest stars. As usual, Hopkins gave a tremendous performance, and manages to make a role his own to the point where you could never imagine another actor playing that role. I can't say enough good things about The Mask Of Zorro. It was funny; well acted; great sets; the fights were well choreographed and Catherine Zeta-Jones, well, I could go on for hours about her. Do yourself a favor. Go see this movie. 9/10 Reviewed August 17, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Crash (1996)

2004-02-21T23:02:00.000-04:00

Starring - James Spader; Holly Hunter; Elias Koteas; Deborah Unger & Rosanna Arquette Director - David Cronenberg MPAA - Rated NC-17 for numerous explicit sex scenes. Strange, disturbing, and weird are all words that would make apt descriptions of Crash. Simply put, Crash is a movie about people who become sexually aroused over car crashes. Both being a participant in them, and even viewing such carnage is a turn on. James Spader stars as a man who has a very open relationship with his wife (Deborah Kara Unger). They share stories of their extra marital sexual exploits with each other as a way of turning the other on. Nice. Anyway, good old James Spader is driving down the highway and loses control of his car, running into a car carrying Holly Hunter and her husband. The result sends Hunter and Spader's characters to the hospital and the husband to the graveyard. Both Hunter and Spader suffer crippling injuries but one thing leads to another and they end up meeting and having sex in the back of a car. Sure, makes sense to me. Every woman would just rush right out and do the nasty with the guy that just killed her husband. I might add that this is the point were the movie completely lost me. Hunter draws Spader into a world populated by weirdoes who get off on watching car wrecks and who seem to enjoy the pain associated with these car crashes. Especially if the injuries sustained are permanent. Spader brings wifey along for the ride too, and it just keeps getting stranger and stranger. The only way to sum up the plot of this movie is that most people will want to stop watching it before the halfway point. Those that actually make it through the whole movie will be left shaking their heads. The acting is, I guess, what you would call decent. To be honest, the whole thing is just so weird it was really hard to tell. One standout in this otherwise cave of weirdness is Deborah Kara Unger, who purrs her way through her dialogue. While Unger may not qualify as drop dead gorgeous, she certainly has the exotic good looks to cause a traffic accident. (Sorry, bad joke.) In all seriousness, she was, at least for this male reviewer, the high point of the movie. Which compared to the rest of this film, isn't exactly a big feat. Crash is not for the easily offended. Actually, Crash might even offend the not so easily offended. At the very least, it will leave you scratching your head. Not so much at the fact that people would get sexual gratification at a car crash. We all know that the world is filled with weirdoes. What you will be left scratching your head over is the fact that somebody would actually make a movie about this subject matter. Director David Cronenberg leaves little doubt in my mind that he is now the undisputed king of strange movies. Here's a piece of advice Dave. I think it's time for you to change careers. Hopefully your new one will keep you far away from movies -- making theaters a lot safer for everyone. 5/10 - And the only reason that I'm rating it so high is for the "wow, what the heck were they thinking" factor. Reviewed July 5, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Dante's Peak (1997)

2004-02-21T23:01:00.000-04:00

Starring - Pierce Brosnan; Linda Hamilton; Jamie Renée Smith; Jeremy Foley & Elizabeth Hoffman Director - Roger Donaldson MPAA - Rated PG-13 for disaster related peril and gore. Pierce Brosnan stars as volcano expert Harry Dalton who works for the US government's geological department. He is sent into the quite town of Dante's Peak when geological readings indicate a higher than normal level of activity around the dormant volcano on which the small community is built. When Harry arrives, he also notices a variety of other factors which lead him to believe that Dante's Peak may have some very big problems on its hands in the not too distant future. Harry tries to warn the mayor (Linda Hamilton) and town council of the impending danger, but is over ruled by his boss who prefers to take a wait and see approach to the possible problem. Of course, in the end, Harry is proven right, and the volcano awakens with some of the best special effects that movie producers can buy. While the special effects are great, Dante's Peak is more about the story leading up to the impending disaster than the disaster itself. This is not to say that when the volcano eventually erupts that the producers don't milk it for all it's worth. Now at this point, there is probably some fool out there thinking "gee thanks for spoiling the movie for me by telling me that the volcano blows". To that guy I say -- "Hey moron, what did you think was going to happen in a movie about a volcano? That they were going to spend a pleasant day looking at it while eating a picnic lunch?" Although I guess that kind of is a small problem with movie like Dante's Peak -- you pretty well know from the get go that massive property damage is going to occur at some point in the film. While most of the movie takes place before the actual eruption, there is enough tension in the air to keep the audience interested. I really didn't notice that the movie isn't filled with high-end special effects. And towards the end of the film when the computer-generated lava rears its ugly head, it makes the wait well worth it. I think a good deal of credit for the tension should go to the amazing score of the movie. I don't think it would be possible to match up a score to a movie better than what was done in Dante's Peak. When we do get to the eruption, the volcanic effects are impressive and very realistic. Pierce Brosnan does a great job in the leading man role here, although this should come as no surprise to James Bond fans. An impressive supporting cast backs up Brosnan and Linda Hamilton. Most of whom are relative unknowns, but they all do a very solid job. There will be no doubt in your mind that this is what it feels like to be in the midst of a volcanic event. My hat goes off to director Roger Donaldson for the film's impressive realism. This was the first of 1997's two lava movies, the other being Volcano. Of the two, Dante's Peak has the stronger story and is just a tad bit more on the realistic side. While it might not have the dizzying number of special effects that populated Volcano, I think it is fair to say that Dante's Peak's effects budget was put to slightly better use, by concentrating on making the volcanic activity look more realistic as opposed to simply over the top. Good movie -- well worth checking out. 8/10 Reviewed February 14, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

The Relic (1997)

2004-02-21T23:00:00.001-04:00

Starring - Penelope Ann Miller; Tom Sizemore; Linda Hunt; James Whitmore & Clayton Rohner Director - Peter Hyams MPAA - Rated R for monster violence and gore, and for language. Penelope Ann Miller and Tom Sizemore star in this formula monster flick set in a museum. Miller stars as a museum curator in the insect department; while Sizemore plays a Chicago homicide cop. One of Miller's colleagues has sent an artifact back to the museum from Africa. He has packed it in palm leaves, which just happened to be infested with something. On the way back to Chicago by freighter, that something begins to get a bit bigger and mutate. It eventually kills everyone on board the ship. When the ship finally arrives in Chicago the killer creature moves into the museum; which, conveniently enough, has a large, dark labyrinth of chambers and tunnels. Just the place for a killer mutated whatever to hide, and that much more difficult for the police to track it down. Of course, the cops don't know they are on the trail of a giant killer monster, they think that the deaths on the ship are the result of a serial killer. Add to that the fact that the museum is just days away from hosting a big fundraiser that will inevitably lead to a veritable smorgasbord of human entrees for this big ugly monster. The whole cast is just going through the motions on this one. They seem to instinctively know that this isn't a great movie, but rather a pretty formula one at best. Not even the amazingly talented Linda Hunt distinguishes herself in this one. The Relic does have its share of scary moments. Most of the scares come from the search for the monster in the tunnels under the museum. I'll have to give the writers credit for setting this film in an old museum, since the nooks and crannies can make for pretty frightening terrain. The rest of the writing is pretty much your typical horror film stuff. With the characters doing the exact opposite of what normal people would do in this situation. Most people, when they thought that a killer was on the loose in a museum, would stay they heck away from it. Not these geniuses. They are all hell-bent on throwing a mighty shindig. The creature's special effects are nothing special either. It's nothing that we all haven't seen a dozen times before in monster movies. The Relic is your average monster movie. Nothing about it distinguishes it from the rest of the pack. It probably will satisfy some fans of this genre, but most will be left pretty underwhelmed. 6/10 Reviewed January 30, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Halloween (1978)

2004-02-21T23:00:00.000-04:00

Starring - Donald Pleasence; Jamie Lee Curtis; Nancy Kyes; P.J. Soles & Charles Cyphers Director - John Carpenter MPAA - R I first saw Halloween when I was in junior high, which was more than a decade ago. To this day the theme song still gives me chills. By far, Halloween has the best soundtrack of any horror film ever made, with the possible exception of Psycho. Much like the other early slasher films such as Friday The 13th or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween wasn't made on what you would call a big budget. Unlike the other films of that era, Halloween had one extra thing going for it, director John Carpenter. Carpenter makes use of what limited money he had, down to the last penny. That is not to say that Halloween always looks great, but in the places where the shoestring budget shows itself it only adds to the charm. Carpenter probably also saved money in other areas -- not only did he direct the movie, but he wrote it, and composed all of the music. Fortunately for we the audience, Carpenter excels in all three areas. The other leg up that Halloween has on the other early slashers is its cast. Sure it has its share of acting class failures, but they aren't bad enough to detract from Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence. Young Michael Myers, at the age of nine, decided to give new meaning to trick or treat on Halloween night by killing his sister with a butcher knife. He is confined to a mental hospital where he is placed in the care of Doctor Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence). 15 years to the day that he killed his sister, Michael escapes from the institution to return to his hometown of Haddonfield and resume his killing. He is pursued by Dr. Loomis and the local police, but before they can catch him he resumes his love for large cutlery by using it on some of the local teen population. One of the locals who run into big Mike on Halloween is Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) who happen to be baby sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time. It should come as no surprise that mayhem and carnage ensue. As I said, the budget wasn't big, so don't expect Star Wars quality production values in this film. With most of the cast (or if you prefer, victims in waiting) the acting is passable. Pleasence does a great job at being creepy, and Jamie Lee Curtis, even with the bad seventies hair and the bell bottoms is a hottie. She also does a pretty good job in the acting department, considering that this was her first role. The story is pretty good considering this is a slasher flick. It is even more interesting if you also watch the sequel that gives a bit more of the back story. No review of Halloween would be complete without the requisite fun fact about this movie. Take a good look at Michael Myers white mask that he wears throughout his killing spree. You may just notice that it is actually a William Shatner (that's right Trekkies, good old Captain Kirk himself) Halloween mask painted white. Other fun bloopers include the fact that the film is supposed to be set in Illinois but all of the cars have California license plates. I would recommend Halloween to anyone who wants a good scare, despite the fact that it looks very dated in places. One other recommendation that I would make is that if at all possible watch Halloween and its sequel at the same time as they take place within hours of each other. 7/10 - I'd rank it higher if the production values had been better. Reviewed January 01, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)

2004-02-21T22:58:00.000-04:00

Starring - Harrison Ford; Karen Allen; Paul Freeman; Ronald Lacey & John Rhys-Davies Director - Steven Spielberg MPAA - PG In My humble opinion, Raiders of The Lost Ark ties Star Wars as the best movie of all time. If that doesn't give you a hint as to the contents of this review, nothing will. It's 1935, and Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is a professor of archaeology. Only, that's his day job. Jones is a globe hopper who has a unique talent for acquiring rare antiquities. Jones' talents come to the attention of U.S. Army intelligence, who just happen to require a little assistance. It seems that Adolf Hitler and his Nazis have set out to recover the long lost Ark of the Covenant. The Ark, according to the bible, was the container in which the Ten Commandments were housed. According to legend the Ark will bring incredible power to those who possess it. Jones, always up for a challenge, agrees to try to find the Ark before the Nazis do. I'm not going to bother giving a synopsis of the rest of the movie, because 99% of the people reading this review will already have seen the movie. As to the other 1%, trust me when I say that nothing I could write here would ever do this movie justice. Raiders is the classic action adventure, there has never been anything like it before, and nothing since has ever measured up to it -- including its two sequels. Harrison Ford is perfect as the adventurer who completes his goals no matter what it takes. The rest on the supporting cast do a fantastic job, including John Rhys-Davies as Indiana's Egyptian connection Sallah and Paul Freeman as Belloq, the French archaeologist who heads up the Nazi team searching for the Ark. The only weakness in this movie comes from the casting of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood, Jones' former flame and current partner in his quest for the Ark. Not that there is anything wrong with Allen's acting, I've just never felt that she was right for the part. Oh well, if that is my biggest complaint about a movie I'm doing OK. I could rave on and on about this movie for hours, but in the end I would probably be just preaching to the choir. If you are one of the very few people who have never seen this film, do yourself a favor and watch it. I guarantee you will not regret it. 10/10 - Possibly the best film ever made. Reviewed December 05, 1997 by Joe Chamberlain

Fright Night Part II (1989)

2004-02-21T22:57:00.000-04:00

Starring - Roddy McDowall; William Ragsdale; Traci Lin; Julie Carmen & Russell Clark Director - Tommy Lee Wallace MPAA - R It is with some sad irony that I screened Fright Night Part II on the day that one of its stars, Roddy McDowall passed away at the age of 70. McDowall was one of the most talented and prolific actors in Hollywood, having a career that spanned over 60 years and appearing in more than 100 films. Fright Night Part II probably will not be counted among his more memorable roles. This is really sad considering how good the first Fright Night film was. William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall both reprised their roles as the somewhat reluctant vampire killers who seem to be the only ones that realize that vampires walk among the general population. It has been several years since Charlie Brewster (Ragsdale) and B-movie actor turned late night horror film host, Peter Vincent (McDowall) came face to face with a real live vampire who just happened to be Charlie's next door neighbor. Charlie and Peter won that battle, but apparently even vampires have relatives who get pissed if you kill members of their family. Apparently Charlie's former bloodsucking next door neighbor had a sister who was none too pleased to find out that some kid and an aging actor staked her sibling. So she decides to exact a little bit of revenge. This ends up forcing Charlie and Peter to battle the forces of darkness yet again. One of the things that made Fright Night such a success was Chris Sarandon who played Charlie's stylish next door neighbor with a taste for blood. Fright Night Part II tries to duplicate that modern style but it falls short. While they are stylish, the vamps in this film just don't have the personality of the undead in the first film. With the exception of a werewolf who adds some much needed comic relief to a few of the scenes. One bright spot, speaking from a strictly sexist point of view, is Traci Lin, who plays Charlie's very skeptical girlfriend. It's really a shame that her career hasn't been better since she made this film. Ragsdale does a fair job in this film, but doesn't give nearly the performance that he did in the original. Roddy McDowall makes the most with what he is given, which unfortunately isn't much which is a shame because his character was a lot of fun in the original movie. I guess I would have to say that the first film was a superior product in every way. The original always left you feeling danger was lurking right around the corner; Part II had more of the feel of a music video. Unfortunately, that's never a good thing for a horror film. Another minus for Part II was the traditional scenes that leave the audience on the edge of their seats waiting for something to jump out of a shadow where very rare. For that matter, they were almost nonexistent. If I was going to watch a horror film, this would be far from my first choice. The first Fright Night, on the other hand, would be right up near the top of my list. If I was in the mood for a Roddy McDowall film I'd probably head to the science fiction section of my local video store and rent Planet Of The Apes. Either way, Fright Night Part II would most likely not enter into the equation. 4/10 Reviewed October 03, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

2004-02-21T22:56:00.001-04:00

Starring - Heather Donahue; Michael C. Williams; Joshua Leonard; Bob Griffin & Jim King Director - Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sánchez MPAA - Rated R for language. To all of those "respected" critics out there who used words and phrases like "terrifying", "bone chilling", "the scariest movie ever" and other such expressions which lend themselves well to a movie advertisement, I have only one question. Is this the first horror movie that you have ever seen? Obviously for those of you who found it so terrifying, your only previous "horror" experiences must have come courtesy of old Scooby-Doo reruns. I guarantee you that if you had ever set foot in the horror section of your local video store you would have realized that this was far from a scary movie. But I guess for some people, jumping on the old "Blair Witch Bandwagon" was more important than writing a credible review. This movie ranked a 3 out of 10 for me. And to be honest, none of that is for the scare factor in this movie. For those of you that have been living in a cave the past little while, here is a recap of the basic plot of the movie. The story goes that three documentary filmmakers went out into the Maryland woods looking for evidence of a local legend. This legend is a ghost known as the Blair Witch. The filmmakers went into the woods never to be heard from again. But, some time later, their equipment was found -- including their cameras and all of the footage that they shot before vanishing. This film has been compiled into the movie we now see as The Blair Witch Project. I'll say right off the bat that this is a very cool idea. So much so, that some people actually believed that this was real documentary footage that they were watching in theaters. This is of course due, in no small part, to the incredible marketing that this movie got. The hype that surrounded this movie, specifically over the Internet, before it opened was nothing short of a phenomenon. Considering that this movie was reportedly made for something in the 40 thousand-dollar range and grossed hundreds of millions in theaters, the marketing campaign would have to be classed as an unqualified success. Sadly, like many things in life, just because there is a huge amount of hype, doesn't mean that there is actually anything good behind that hype. The Blair Witch Project does not even come close to living up to its advance word. Leaving me to wonder who exactly it was that had all these glowing things to say about the movie. Regardless, I'm glad I didn't actually pay to see this thing in a theater. I'm even happier that when I saw it on video, I didn't pay for that either. About the only part of this movie that even got close to what I would call eerie was the final sequence in the movie. I'm certainly not about to spoil the ending, but suffice to say that if you feel the urge to abandon ship halfway through the movie you won't be missing anything. That also goes for the "newly discovered footage" which has been tacked on after the credits in the Home video versions. What a waste of about 5 minutes that was. The scariest part of the movie is the now famous close-up shot of star Heather Donahue looking into the camera and saying how scared she is. It is only scary because we get an extreme close-up view up her nostrils. There should be a law against such things. Then we have the much-publicized camerawork that reportedly made some people physically ill in theaters. Sorry, don't buy it. Sure the angles were herky jerky, but there was nothing present that would make anyone ill who was not already suffering from an acute case of the stomach flu. I expected the lousy camera work and the black and white photography going in, so that, for the most part, didn't annoy me. But there were parts that did qualify as downright frustrating. In one scene "the witch" leaves a bundle of sticks with something inside it. Donahue's character opens it and goes into hysterics. The camera focus is so fuzzy that we can only see that whatever it is looks to be bloody, but nothing more. So we have no idea why she is so upset. The scares are like this the whole movie. The actors are running around terrified, but we, the audience, never quite get why they are so upset. They get all terrified when a pile of stones appears outside their tent. Weird, I'll grant you, but I would have been a little more unnerved if someone had been hurling them at my tent and not piling them outside it. But nobody said that these characters were that bright. They hear strange noises in the middle of the night. (Noises in the woods -- go figure.) They run off blindly into the woods and sit in the dark. Call me crazy, but if I think something might potentially attack me, I've got every light available on. I'd have the whole place lit up like Christmas tree, not sit around in the dark waiting for whatever it was to sneak up on me. This also leads to the added annoyance of having protracted sequences where the screen is totally dark with the characters whispering back and forth to each other -- very annoying. One nice touch was the fact that there was no soundtrack to this movie, which did give it more of an "authentic" feel about it. I almost wonder if a little mood music might not have improved things. I have to give the actors credit. There was very little script involved in the making of this movie. The three were sent out into the woods where they would be left notes as to the basic that their characters were to perform. The rest is improv. And considering what they had to work with, I think that they did a hell of a good job. To be fair, considering that the three actors not only were the cast, but also doubled as the crew, the film turned out pretty well. I'm certainly not faulting the ingenious ideas or methods used in the production of this film. What I am faulting is that this movie is billed as a horror, but it just isn't scary. Not in the least. The Blair Witch Project may make for an interesting topic for discussion in some university film class, but it sure won't make you spill your popcorn while you are jumping out of your seat. I think my brother summed it up best as the end credits started to roll. He said: They shouldn't be giving us the credits; they should be giving us an apology. Truer words were never spoken. 3/10 - For the concept; the marketing; and the acting. Reviewed November 8, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Caddyshack (1980)

2004-02-21T22:56:00.000-04:00

Starring - Chevy Chase; Rodney Dangerfield; Ted Knight; Michael O'Keefe & Bill Murray Director - Harold Ramis MPAA - R I remember really enjoying this movie when I saw it years ago. I guess my memory really sucks. There is very, very little that is funny in Caddyshack. The laughs are few, and far between, and what there are really aren't that great. Caddyshack, as the name implies, more or less centers on one young caddy working at an exclusive country club. Michael O'Keefe plays said caddy. Why they cast this unknown, fairly untalented actor in the lead role is completely beyond me. The movie doesn't seem to have a real plot, just a series of scenes that are little more than opportunities for the rest of the cast to mug at the camera. The only real story, if you can call it that, was a subplot involving the mentally disturbed greens keeper, Bill Murray, who is having his own private little war against a gopher who is ruining the course. Most of the marginal laughs come from Rodney Dangerfield and Ted Knight mugging and overacting for the camera -- with painfully limited success. Bill Murray is slightly amusing in places, but fairly wasted. The biggest waste of all is Chevy Chase, who didn't even crack a smile on my face with his character's lame Zen-like approach to golfing. There are a few decent scenes involving the interaction between Dangerfield and Knight, but they are far too infrequent to carry the movie. I guess that's what you get for basing a story around an unknown kid. I'm not sure what the writers of this thing were thinking of, but I really think it was something far removed from comedy as they were putting pen to paper. Nothing about this movie works. It wouldn't have taken a genius to figure out that this thing wasn't going to fly. Most of the scenes just couldn't possibly be funny. It's as if the writers where off in their own little brain damaged world. I'm sure scenes involving Chevy Chase and his oneness with the golf ball were supposed to be funny. In reality, they were painfully embarrassing to watch. There is a scene at the club pool where all the caddies go wild for the "hot babe" of the movie walking by in her bikini. Olive Oil would have filled out this swimsuit better than this girl. Everything about this movie was just completely implausible as far as the comedy was concerned. Maybe if you were drunk out of you mind or high off some sort of illegal narcotic this thing might be funny. But for the rest of us, stay the hell away from Caddyshack. 3/10 Reviewed June 20, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

John Carpenter's Vampires (1998)

2004-02-21T22:54:00.001-04:00

Starring - James Woods; Daniel Baldwin; Sheryl Lee; Thomas Ian Griffith & Maximilian Schell Director - John Carpenter MPAA - Rated R for strong vampire violence and gore, language and sexuality. John Carpenter's Vampires was not what I expected. I expected a run of the mill vampire film with an OK story and a few scares. Well, there were no real scares in Vampires but the story was first rate. While there were no scenes that made the audience jump in their seats, there were a few that kept them hanging on the edge of them. John Carpenter's Vampires is about vampire hunter Jack Crow (James Woods), who works for the Catholic Church in their bid to rid the Earth of the undead. A creative idea in itself, but when you add to it the fact that assisting him in his job are a bunch of mercenaries, also on the church's payroll, you have the makings of a great story. Throw in the fact that that the Catholic Church has very strong ties to the most powerful vampire on the planet and you have yourself the formula for a hit movie. I'm forced to confess that even though I'm a James Woods fan, I wasn't completely sure that he could pull off the part of an action hero. But upon further reflection, who better to cast as someone who does battle against the undead than the man who plays some of the nastiest villains in film. After seeing this film I can think of no other actor in Hollywood who could have done a better job than Woods. I can think of no other director than John Carpenter, Hollywood's king of horror, to make a vampire film this much fun. Unlike most vampire films, the vampires don't live in mansions or wear expensive suits. They live in abandoned barns and farm houses and are seriously lacking the style of the traditional vampires that appear in most films. This more down to earth feel was a refreshing change and part of the reason that I enjoyed the film as much as I did. This is not a commentary of the overall look of the film, which was well done and really changed the way I look at vampire films. As expected, special effects now play a big role in vampire films, as well as makeup effects, and Vampires doesn't disappoint in either case. The production values for Vampires are high from start to finish (quite a difference from the film that made Carpenter's career -- Halloween). Carpenter also gives this movie more than just a bit of tension. The scenes where Woods and company are actually in the act of hunting vampires are as intense as anything that you are ever likely to see in a horror film. I never go into a horror film expecting Shakespearean quality performances from the cast. James Woods excels playing the typical ill-tempered character that he has built his career on. The rest of the cast including Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee and Tim Guinee fill their roles nicely but none really stands out from the crowd. Thomas Ian Griffith, playing the vampire leader, brings with him a slightly over the top performance which makes him a lot of fun to watch in the role. Vampires brings some new twists to the traditional vampire movies of days gone by. All add to the film and breathe new life into a genre that has seen little action over the past few years. Along with 1998's other big vampire film, Blade, special effects are used to great advantage and with considerable success. Which I hope will assure that there are more vampire films coming down the pipe in the near future. 7/10 Reviewed November 1, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Tarzan And The Lost City (1998)

2004-02-21T22:54:00.000-04:00

Starring - Casper Van Dien; Jane March; Steven Waddington; Winston Ntshona & Rapulana Seiphemo Director - Carl Schenkel MPAA - Rated PG for adventure violence. The only two really good things that I can say about Tarzan And The Lost City are as follows: Jane March was very cute as Jane, and the movie was thankfully under 90 minutes in length. If you haven't already figured it out, I didn't like this movie very much. The plot was boring and contrived to the extreme. Tarzan (Casper Van Dien) has now left the jungle and living in civilized society. He is just days away from his impending marriage to Jane, played by the aptly named Jane March. Back in his former home of Africa, a group of looters has found the key to locating a lost city. (Mind you I never really figured out why they actually wanted to find this city.) Anyway, Tarzan's old jungle friend appears to him in a vision. Tarzan realizes that he must return to Africa to help stop the bad guys from finding the lost city. He leaves Jane (his first mistake, in my opinion) and travels to Africa. Of course, Jane is hot on her ape man's heals. The two of them are reunited in Africa where they do battle with the bad guys. Sound like a dumb explanation of the plot? It's actually an improvement over the real thing. The acting is just plain awful. I'm not quite sure what Casper Van Dien was doing in this film, but it wasn't acting. Jane March wasn't a heck of a lot better, but at least she is easy on the eyes. Compounding the bad acting was the fact that in many places the dialogue had obviously been re-recorded, and I've seen better dubbing in some old Bruce Lee movies. Added to the sound problems was the cinematography. This film was filled with beautiful African scenery. But the panoramic scenery shots looked overexposed to me. Quite frankly, I think you could probably do a better job capturing the beauty of Africa with a camcorder than this bunch did with professional film equipment. Then we have the special effects. "Special effects in a Tarzan movie?" you are no doubt asking yourself? Yes friends, the writers injected some very out of place supernatural elements into the story. Probably for the sake of using CGI, since it did nothing but hurt the story. In most parts, they weren't bad, just nothing special, and more than a little on the hokey side. This changes when we get to the ridiculous climax of this movie. The grand finale's special effects went right into the toilet at that point. It almost looked like they had run out of money. These effects were of noticeably lower quality than those in the rest of the film and looked like something in an amateur video production. I took one lesson away from watching Tarzan And The Lost City -- ape men and bones that morph into skeletal warriors don't mix. Stay far away from this version of Tarzan. 4/10 - Skip it. Reviewed May 7, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Payback (1999)

2004-02-21T22:53:00.000-04:00

Starring - Mel Gibson; Gregg Henry; Maria Bello; Deborah Unger & David Paymer Director - Brian Helgeland MPAA - Rated R for strong violence, language, and drug and sexual content. In the grand scheme of Mel Gibson movies, Payback was better than Conspiracy Theory, but not as good as Braveheart or Lethal Weapon. In other words, it's a decent couple of hours of entertainment, but 20 years from now if they compile a list of Mel Gibson's greatest hits, Payback probably won't be on it. Gibson plays a crook who gets double crossed by his partner after they heist a payroll. Mel's partner needed the money to pay off a mob debt. So he puts a couple of bullets in Mel, leaving him for dead, and goes on to pay off his creditors. But, Mel isn't dead (it would be a real short movie if he was) and he certainly isn't happy. To make matters worse, he wants his money back and is willing to go to any lengths to accomplish this feat. His ex partner has already used it to pay off the mobsters, so Mel goes after the mob to get it back. Payback is often a very violent film. To its credit, there are a few scenes that could have been very graphic, but the director (I'm not sure which one -- more about that in a second) made the choice to let the audience use their imagination instead of subjecting us to the usual gratuitous gore found in many films. The film appears a bit disjointed in places, which is understandable considering producer/star Gibson wasn't thrilled with how the film turned out and wanted parts of it re-shot. When the director refused, another one was brought in to do the re-shoot. So as a result while the final product is apparently better than the original (although personally I would love to see the original version for comparisons sake) it does get a bit of a choppy feel to it towards the end. It's always tough to make a film where the main character is a villain, unless that person has some redeeming qualities. In this case, Gibson's character has few redeeming qualities. But hey, it's Mel, so even when he is killing people in cold blood we are still rooting for him. My guess is that if that you put some other Johnny Bananas actor in this role the audience would not be quite as responsive. Gibson is Gibson, whether he is playing a suicidal cop or a stone cold killer, he does a good job. He almost guarantees that no matter what else happens in the rest of the movie at least the audience is going to get one good performance. This time out Mel is surrounded by a good supporting cast, including Maria Bello (as his love interest), William Devane and Kris Kristofferson (as mod bosses). The man who steals the show and unfortunately doesn't have a real big part is James Coburn (as yet another mobster). If I had one big disappointment in this film, it would be that Coburn didn't have a bigger role. In the end, Payback is a fairly solid action thriller, just not in quite the same league as some of Mel Gibson's other work. 7/10 Reviewed February 5, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Blazing Saddles (1974)

2004-02-21T22:52:00.001-04:00

Starring - Cleavon Little; Gene Wilder; Slim Pickens; Harvey Korman & Madeline Kahn Director - Mel Brooks MPAA - R I'm giving this stinker 0 out of 10. Normally, the worst that I would ever rate a movie would be 1 out of 10. But the total waste of time that is Blazing Saddles is, compounded by the fact that this movie is incredibly offensive, helped me come to the big goose egg. I'm not sure what the hell Mel Brooks was thinking when he made this thing, or if he was even thinking at all. Maybe in Mel's little mind a horse being knocked unconscious because of a punch to the face is funny. In mine, it's not. Or maybe Mel graduated from the Spike Lee School Of Filmmaking. Because only the self-righteous Lee uses the N-word more often in his films than Brooks did in this one. At least Lee has the smarts to realize that nobody is going to find that term amusing. Brooks bandies it about like he figures the audience will be rolling in the aisles every time they hear it. Wrong Mel! I would call you a boob Mel, but that insults breasts everywhere. This idiotic attempt at a comedy centers on the evil Lieutenant Governor's (Harvey Korman) attempts to clear out a town so he can buy up the land cheap and sell it to the railroad. He sends his goons to run the townsfolk out; but the town appeals to the governor (Mel Brooks in one of many uninspired, and unfunny roles) to send them a new sheriff to protect them. The governor pawns the task off to Korman's character Hedley Lamarr. (I can tell you are rolling off your chairs right now just thinking of all the humor in that name.) Lamarr decides to send the town a black sheriff (gasp) in the hopes that the town will be so disgusted at the prospect of a black man living among them that they will all just leave. Hold on, I've got to stop while these gales of laughter pass. It's just too funny. Racism passing as humor -- gosh why didn't anybody ever think of that one before? Oh wait, I think somebody might have -- they are called the KKK. I'm not calling Brooks a racist - but I am calling him an insensitive bastard who wouldn't know what was funny if it hit him over the head. But I digress. Anyway, the black sheriff rides into town amid a flurry of townsfolk using the N-word. Golly, will the hilarity just never end? He ends up joining forces with a drunk (Gene Wilder), who happens to be the former fastest gun in the West. Together, they save the day from evil. Not one person in this movie gives a decent performance. Wilder looks like he is recovering from a head injury for most of the movie, and Korman looks embarrassed to be a part of the movie. OK, he really didn't -- but he should have. The films star Cleavon Little goes along with the black jokes as if they were discussing the time of day. I did not laugh once during this whole sorry experience. I admit to starting to snicker on a couple of occasions. Actually, the end started to look as if it was going to have some promise, but alas, it ended up being as crappy as the rest of the movie. I can say with full confidence that Blazing Saddles has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Mel Brooks would be doing the world a favor if he burned every last copy of this film. 0/10 Reviewed July 27, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Go (1999)

2004-02-21T22:52:00.000-04:00

Starring - Katie Holmes; Sarah Polley; Suzanne Krull; Desmond Askew & Nathan Bexton Director - Doug Liman MPAA - Rated R for strong drug content, sexuality, language and some violence. When I sat down to watch Go, I must admit that I was expecting yet another in a long line of teen-oriented movies which have been popping up recently; that is to say long on style and very short on substance. At first it seemed as though that was what I was in store for. The movie started out a little on the slow side (read lame). The director seemed more interested in showing off music video style camera work than actually trying to tell a story. Happily, the movie steadily improved to the point where it ended up being a very good film. Due in no small part to its excellent young cast (some of whom, I had never heard of before). Go is basically three intersecting stories. They all start at more or less the same point and then later converge in much the same point. All work very well on their own and the fact that they all combine in the end is simply icing on a very pleasant cake. There are no predominant stars in Go. All of the cast have pretty decent sized roles. If I had to focus in on a few as the main leads Sarah Polley, Katie Holmes, Scott Wolf and Jay Mohr come to mind. Polley and Holmes play supermarket check out girls who are approached by soap-opera starts Wolf and Mohr who are looking to score a few drugs for a party that they are having. Polley and Holmes then try to procure the drugs for the two actors but things don't go exactly as planned. This is a gross simplification of the plot of the movie but to explain it in any greater detail would risk spoiling it. It would also take a couple of paragraphs. Acting wise, Go is almost without fault. With the exception of one minor character who got on my nerves a bit, the cast is amazing. Many will be familiar with Scott Wolf from TV's Party Of Five. Anyone that has watched TV's Dawson's Creek is no doubt familiar with the talent of Katie Holmes, who ranks very high in my book as one of Hollywood's most talented young stars. To hear US film critics talk; Sarah Polley has just magically appeared out of nowhere. Canadians have been aware of Ms. Polley's considerable talent for quite some time, so it comes as no shock to anyone that she gives a standout performance in this her first major American film. I'm guessing that those same critics forgot her performance in the Academy Award-nominated The Sweet Hereafter in 1997. My only complaint was with some of the bad camera work in the early part of the movie. To be honest, I don't think it really improved all that much as the movie went on, but the story was so compelling that the poor direction wasn't such a major issue. It's sad that Hollywood seems to thin that the only way to keep a young audience's attention is to direct a film like a music video. Herky jerky camera moves works well in a 3 minute music video, but it gets real old real fast in a feature length movie. Go is cleverly written and frequently funny, although some of the scenes do miss the mark. I would say that Go is certainly the smartest movie that I have seen in 1999. It will probably rank among the best of the teen-type films released this year. If nothing else, it gives stars Sarah Polley, Katie Holmes, Scott Wolf and the rest of the very talented cast a showcase for their ample acting abilities. 8/10 - Clever story and cast, only detracted from by the director's MTV-style camera work. Reviewed April 12, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

A Bridge Too Far (1977)

2004-02-21T22:51:00.001-04:00

Starring - Dirk Bogarde; Paul Maxwell; Sean Connery; Ryan O'Neal & Gene Hackman Director - Richard Attenborough MPAA - PG (Previously rated R prior to appeal.) Just a perusal of the amazing all-star cast of this movie and you can probably get a pretty good sense of what you are in store for. The cast includes Sean Connery; Gene Hackman; Robert Redford; James Caan; and Anthony Hopkins, just to name a few. It is truly an ensemble piece. While Connery probably ends up with the most screen time, all of the main actors pretty much share the spotlight in this World War II epic. In fact, the cast is listed in alphabetic order in the credits. So my definition of the leads is an educated guess. A Bridge Too Far is based on the true story of an allied operation towards the end of the Second World War. The Allies decided to capture several of the bridges crossing the Rhine River in Germany. Once captured, they felt that the German industrial heartland would be easily overtaken which would mean a quick end to the war. Unfortunately, almost nothing went as planned and this operation turned into one of the biggest disasters for the Allies during the war. As a bit of a historical note -- more Allied soldiers lost their lives during the botched attempts to take the Rhine bridges than perished during the D-Day attack at Normandy. A Bridge Too Far is certainly the type of movie that would be considered an epic. It seems to have a cast of thousands and the battle scenes are grandly staged and quite realistic. While realism is a big part of this movie, none of the scenes contain the graphic horror that is now common in today's war films. To a man, the cast of this movie is magnificent. A Bridge Too Far almost has an edge of your seat quality to it. You never know what is going to happen next in this movie. I always seemed to get the distinct impression that whatever was going to happen, it was bound to be bad for the Allies. The total disaster that seems to have befallen the Allies at every turn is staggering. A Bridge Too Far has the sort of plot that if you didn't know it was based on a true story; you would probably think it was too unrealistic. The movie has such a large cast that it is truly surprising at just how well developed these characters actually are by the end of the film. I could feel for all of them, especially since the disastrous results of this operation would have been considerably worse if it weren't for the skills of those actually on the battlefield. I can't say enough about this movie. Acting, writing, and directing are all simply amazing. Combine that with the fact that this is based on actual events, and you have a very riveting 3 hours. I was sort of surprised that the movie was as long as it was. It went quicker than most 90-minute movies -- certainly a testament to the fine writing and acting. Well worth checking out if you can find it at your local video store. 10/10 Reviewed April 28, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

The Blob (1958)

2004-02-21T22:51:00.000-04:00

Starring - Steve McQueen; Aneta Corsaut; Earl Rowe; Olin Howlin & Alden 'Stephen' Chase Director - Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & Russell S. Doughten Jr. (Uncredited) MPAA - Not Rated Cheesy. That one word could serve as my whole review for The Blob. I can't figure out if that cheesy quality was intentional, or if the filmmakers actually though that this film would scare audiences back in the 1950's. Quite frankly, I don't care how it was received in the 50's, this is the late 90's and the only thing that scares me about this film is that I might actually have to sit through it again some day. The only real high point of the movie is that it stars a young Steve McQueen. Which is the only reason that I would ever recommend anyone actually watch this movie. It is proof that even big stars had to start somewhere. A glob of goop falls from the sky in an asteroid. The goop is alive and it's nasty and hungry. And it particularly has a taste for human flesh. It eats people by dissolving them, and the more people it eats, the bigger the big glob of goop gets. It attacks some of the local teens, including McQueen's character. But no one believes them until it's too late, and the goop is so large that it threatens to destroy the whole town. I don't expect the same level of special effects here that I do from a film like Armageddon. But at least the producers could have made a little more of an effort with the limited resources that they had back when this film was made. I could never get over my feeling that I was watching actors running around and screaming as Jell-O was terrorizing them. Quite frankly, I almost expected Bill Cosby to end up being an evil mastermind controlling the creature. But I digress. Acting abilities don't seem to have been a big consideration for the producers when they cast this turkey. It's not that the actors are bad; it's just that I thought I was watching a rerun of the Andy Griffith show. Everyone had that gee whiz sort of attitude. I don't know if everyone in a small town in the fifties had that goofy attitude, but I would have hoped that someone would have gotten slightly pissed off when this overgrown reject from the dessert menu started destroying their town. Alas, that was not to be. I prefer to eat Jell-O to watching it star as the lead in a motion picture. This is a movie that deserves to be in the cooking section of your local video store as opposed to the horror section. The best thing about this movie was its very corny (but kinda catchy) opening theme song. When the best part of the movie occurs in the first 3 minutes, it's usually a good idea to avoid it. 5/10 Reviewed September 21, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Vegas Vacation (1997)

2004-02-21T22:34:00.000-04:00

Starring - Chevy Chase; Beverly D'Angelo; Randy Quaid; Ethan Embry & Marisol Nichols Director - Stephen Kessler MPAA - Rated PG for sensuality, language and thematic elements. Vegas Vacation is the fourth film starring Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo as the heads of the hapless Griswold family. As with the other three films, their two children, Rusty and Audrey, are played by a revolving series of actors. This time Ethan Embry and Marisol Nichols fill the roles. Also back, is Cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid), the slob relative who seems to bring problems wherever he goes. In Vegas Vacation Clark Griswold (Chase) decides to take the family on vacation to Las Vegas so that he and wife Ellen (D'Angelo) can renew their wedding vows. It is at this point when comedy is supposed to ensue. Apparently the filmmakers thought that putting the Griswolds into Las Vegas would be so funny on its own that they wouldn't bother to write any jokes into the script. At least that's the way it looks when watching this turkey. About half way through Vegas Vacation I began to have serious doubts as to whether there would actually be a single laugh in the entire film, since there had been none up to that point. By the end of the movie I had actually snickered a couple of times, and I had smiled at a couple of gags. I might add that none of the funny (and I use the term loosely) moments came as a result of anything Chase, D'Angelo or Quaid were involved in. They might as well have stayed home for as much as they contributed to this film. The two best things in this movie were Ethan Embry and Marisol Nichols as the Griswold kids, who manage to have a couple of their own adventures. Rusty becomes a Vegas high roller, providing most of the film's best moments. Every time Chase and Quaid were involved in a gag, it just made it more and more apparent that they should have stopped this series after the third film. Which brings me to the best moment of the film -- the Griswolds are driving down the highway and Holiday Road (the theme from the original Vacation) begins to play. Christie Brinkley and her red Ferrari (also from the first movie) drive by. It was a cute moment, but all it really did was remind me just how funny the first film had been, and just how far that this series has fallen. 3/10 - Which may be too generous. Reviewed February 25, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Urban Legend (1998)

2004-02-21T22:33:00.000-04:00

Starring - Jared Leto; Alicia Witt; Rebecca Gayheart; Loretta Devine & Tara Reid Director - Jamie Blanks MPAA - Rated R for horror violence/gore, language and sexual content. I didn't go into Urban Legend expecting a whole lot. I figured that I was about to see your standard slasher film that would be watchable but certainly not something that was going to be very memorable. Well, I was very happily proven wrong. Apparently, films such as Scream; I Know What You Did Last Summer and Halloween: H20 have raised the bar when it comes to the quality of the once low budget, poorly acted slasher film. Don't get me wrong, Urban Legend still has its share of blood and guts which it relies of quite heavily in places for shock value, but the writing and acting are surprisingly pretty good. Continuing the trend of the afore mentioned Scream, Urban Legend doesn't take itself too seriously and pays homage to some of the horror films that have come before it. Much like Scream, it also pays tribute to pop culture with a number of inside jokes. So enough analytical stuff, what's the movie about? Like all good slasher films, Urban Legend has a killer who takes pride in his work. This particular homicidal maniac has decided to pattern his killing spree after popular urban legends. He recreates them in a particularly ghoulish and bloody way, much to the dismay of the students at a small New England university. Now I certainly wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't mention that Urban Legend doesn't have too many real scary moments. In most cases you can figure out what is going to happen before it actually does -- although, surprisingly, that fact doesn't really take too much away from the movie. The young cast is first rate. Alicia Witt plays a college student around whom most of this killing seems to be centered; Rebecca Gayheart is her best friend. Both actresses do a good job in their first major starring roles. They are joined by none other than Robert "Freddy Kruger" England as a professor who teaches a course on urban legends. Rounding out the cast is Joshua Jackson from TV's Dawson's Creek. Much of what makes the cast look so good is the first rate writing. While it is not up to the quality of Scream, it is certainly a far cry from the Halloween and Friday The 13Th movies of days gone by. Urban Legend also is a very nice looking film; it doesn't have the claustrophobic feel of some older horror films. Urban Legend is far from the scariest film that you will ever see, but it does have its moments. If you are in the mood for edge-of-your-seat terror, this isn't the film that is going to give it to you. If, on the other hand you are interested in watching something a little lighter, with a few scary scenes mixed in, Urban Legend should fit the bill nicely. 7/10 Reviewed October 12, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

2004-02-21T22:32:00.002-04:00

Starring - William Shatner; Leonard Nimoy; DeForest Kelley; James Doohan & George Takei Director - Robert Wise MPAA - Rated PG for sci-fi action and mild language. (2003 Director’s Edition DVD.) (Previously rated G in 1979.) This is the film that Star Trek fans waited for ten years for. They were so thrilled that Paramount made the damn thing that fans went in droves to see it, and made it a hit. At least that's my theory, because nothing else about this movie could explain its success. I could be being a little hard on this film -- for its day the special effects were amazing -- possibly the best that had ever been in a film. The problem is that it's now 20 years later and the special effects don't stack up quite as well today, so this film needs a little more to hold an audience. Unfortunately, it doesn't have it. Now before I get thousands of angry letters from Star Trek fans, I have to point out that I am a big fan of the series. As a matter of fact, I still remember going to see Star Trek: The Motion Picture when it was released back in 1979. I, like everyone else in the theater was thrilled with the movie. That was then, and this in now. I usually like to judge films on their own merits, but it is extremely hard to do so when dealing with the Star Trek franchise. It seems as though you can turn on your TV any hour of the day and catch a rerun of the original series or one of its spin-offs. So Star Trek: The Motion Picture almost has to be judged by the quality of the writing that has come before and after it. Even in comparison to the sequel, Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, which is arguably the best of all of the Star Trek films, Star Trek: The Motion Picture pales in comparison. I was shocked as I screened this movie in order to review it. I hadn't seen it in several years and I was astounded as to how draggy it was. From the extended sequence of music before the opening credits, to the long flyby shots of the Enterprise as Kirk sees it for the first time this movie gives boring a new definition. To be fair, the Enterprise flyby shots were included to give millions of Trekkies the chance to see the restyled Enterprise and marvel at what ten years of special effects advancement and many millions of dollars can do in terms of a facelift. Unfortunately, after almost twenty years of these movies we all know what the Enterprise looks like, so it just amounts to extra minutes of pointless nothingness. I'm not even going to get into the Klingons, who ten years earlier had looked like humans who hadn't bathed in a few months and then go from that into having a spiny ridge down the center of their heads. I guess the make-up artists were so concerned with impressing the audience that they forgot to bother watching the original television series. OK, on to the plot. A huge cloud is heading towards Earth, wiping out every thing in its path and the only vessel that can reach it in time is the newly refitted U.S.S. Enterprise. Star Fleet gives command back to James Kirk (William Shatner) and he and the gang go off to save the galaxy. Another thing that I should point out is that the first half of this movie is just like one big reunion show with the typical "Hi, how are you? How long has it been?" Now that was fine and dandy when the movie first came out, since fans missed the characters, but it's kinda monotonous now. One high note of this movie is that William Shatner gives one of the most understated performances of his career -- this isn't saying that he still doesn't give overacting a whole new meaning at certain points, just that he keeps it to a minimum. Of course many might argue that it is just that quality that made Bill Shatner the star he is today. The plot is weak, and the movie is slow to the point of tears at some points in order for director Robert Wise to get in as many special effects shots as he could. It is obvious that the producers figured that between the spectacular special effects and the reunion aspect of the movie, the audience wouldn't care if there was a plot. I'm not going to gripe anymore about this movie -- did I mention the uniforms? They all look like they are wearing pajamas. I'm not saying that this is a bad movie, although, it is far from being a good one. It's just that the years have not been kind to it. Combine that with the fact several of its sequels have been many times superior (Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home) and you get the feeling of being a little cheated by people who made a name for themselves because of the top notch writing so long associated with Star Trek. If you are a Star Trek fan who wants to get a little nostalgic, it's not a bad choice. If you aren't interested in nostalgia, or not a particularly big Star Trek fan, do yourself a big favor and watch Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan -- a better film (albeit darker) in every respect. 5/10 - No where near as good as some of its sequels. Reviewed June 12, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Scream (1996)

2004-02-21T22:32:00.001-04:00

Starring - Neve Campbell; Courteney Cox; David Arquette; Jamie Kennedy & Rose McGowan Director - Wes Craven MPAA - Rated R for strong graphic horror violence and gore, and for language. Scream is the movie that breathed new life into the genre of film that was rapidly on its way to a very painful extinction. Namely, the teen slasher film; not only is Scream stylish, and incredibly smart, it also has a budget comparable to about 20 typical slashers combined. Scream centers on Sydney Prescott (hottie Neve Campbell), a high school student in the small town of Woodsborrow. Sidney has a little problem, there is a serial killer on the loose and she is his next intended victim. But Sidney and her friends aren't about to be the typical horror film victims in waiting. Oh no. You see they've seen all of the horror films so they know what not to do. They realize that there are rules to a horror film and if you don't follow the rules, they will be carrying you off in a body bag at the end of the movie. The problem for Sidney and her friends is that the killer appears to have seen all the same movies that they have. In a sense, Scream spoofs the rest of the genre, because the characters know that typical horror film characters are stupid, so they just don't do what typical victims in waiting do in a horror film. And even when Scream does give us some of the typical ingredients of normal horror films; it does it with a wink and a nudge. Almost as if to say, "it wouldn't be a horror film without these clichés". Scream's success is accomplished by the fact that the characters in this movie actually have personalities. Not something usually encountered in your typical horror film characters. At least you don't normally find well-rounded ones anyway. (We're talking personalities here, not silicone implants.) This film also gets credibility from the fact that it has established stars in it -- albeit not huge stars. But Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox have both been quite successful on television. And just for good measure, director Wes Craven throws in a couple of cameos from Drew Barrymore (E.T.) and Henry Winkler (yes, The Fonze) to add to the star quality of the film. Star power aside, two unknowns really steal the movie. Jamie Kennedy plays a video store clerk who has seen every horror film ever made. He spends most of the movie referencing old horror movies for the best ways to avoid becoming a victim of the killer. The other scene-stealer is Matthew Lillard. The only way to describe Lillard is that he reminded me of a young Michael Keaton. His part might be relatively small, but he has some of the best scenes in the movie. Admittedly, this might not be the scariest film that I've ever seen, but what it lacks in chills, it makes up for in style. The fact that this movie doesn't resemble the typical low-budget-cookie-cutter-slasher counts for a great deal in my book. Add the fact that we have a director and actors that actually know what they are doing, and Scream is in a class all by itself. It's very rare that I will walk out of a theater and really be struck by just how good a movie was. When I first saw Scream in the theater, I still remember thinking that this was one of the best films that I had seen in a long time. It is certainly the best horror film that I have ever seen. Admittedly, horror film fans will get more of the inside jokes, but even if you aren't a fan of Halloween or Friday The 13th, it should still be very entertaining. If you are one of the few that hasn't seen Scream, check it out. 9/10 Reviewed October 1, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Varsity Blues (1999)

2004-02-21T22:32:00.000-04:00

Starring - James Van Der Beek; Jon Voight; Paul Walker; Ron Lester & Scott Caan Director - Brian Robbins MPAA - Rated R for strong language throughout, sexuality and nudity, and some substance abuse. I didn't go into Varsity Blues expecting a whole lot. I'll have to admit that I'm not the biggest football fan in the world, so the whole premise of the movie wasn't at the top of my list as far as appealing story lines go. Having said that, I am a fan of Jon Voight, and I think James Van Der Beek is one of the more talented actors on television on one of the best shows on television (Dawson's Creek). So I wasn't real surprised that I enjoyed the performances of Voight and Van Der Beek, although Van Der Beek could use some serious practice on his southern accent. The part that did surprise me was that I actually enjoyed the rest of the movie. The fact that it included a scene in a strip bar and another scene with a girl wearing nothing other than whip cream probably didn't hurt. But the supporting cast was good, and the story line, while revolving around football, had enough extras to keep even those of us who avoid football telecasts at all costs something to enjoy. The basic premise goes something like this. The movie is set in typical small town Midwest America. The town is crazy over the high school football team, and even crazier over the local coach (Jon Voight), who the townsfolk consider to be a legend, even though he is the meanest S.O.B. to ever put a whistle around his neck. Van Der Beek plays a second string quarterback who never gets playing time and who takes the brunt of the coach's abuse. Like all good formula sports movies, the all-star quarterback suffers a season ending injury and Van Der Beek is called upon to lead the team into the state finals. Coach and new starting quarterback still don't like each other, which is where most of the conflict in this movie arises from. Thrown in for good measure are the teams off the field antics in what comes off as a rip off of Porky's with a higher budget. As I already alluded to, Voight and Van Der Beek do a good job in their roles. Voight is perfectly cast as the coach who only cares about winning no matter what the personal cost to his players. Van Der Beek, aside from the lousy accent, shows that his great performances on Dawson's Creek are not just a result of working with a talented cast and creative genius Kevin Williamson. Van Der Beek really stands out in this movie. It is a credit as much to his performance as to the decent supporting cast surrounding him. If Van Der Beek's performance in this film is any indication, he may be well on his way to a very successful career as a leading man in Hollywood. Let's face it Kevin Costner's missing in action English accent in Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves certainly never hurt his career. As long as Van Der Beek can avoid roles in movies involving post-apocalyptic postal carriers, or post-apocalyptic flooded continents, he should do OK. The supporting cast does their job fairly solidly, but none leap out as being overly outstanding. The interaction between Voight and his players and Van Der Beek's rise to become the town VIP and the problems that that cause him more than give the non-sports minded something to latch on to, even with all of the football. Add to that the performances of Van Der Beek and Voight, and you have a fairly entertaining couple of hours. 7/10 Reviewed January 24, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

Night Of The Living Dead (1968)

2004-02-21T22:30:00.000-04:00

Starring - Duane Jones; Judith O'Dea; Karl Hardman; Marilyn Eastman & Keith Wayne Director - George A. Romero MPAA - Not Rated It seems that something is happening to the East Coast of the United States. The dead are starting to rise again, and they are now flesh-eating zombies. Those that they kill quickly rise again to join their killers in their bloodthirsty exploits. This movie centers on a group of individuals who have sought shelter in an old farmhouse to get away from the suddenly walking dead. The group is now trapped in the house, which is surrounded by the walking dead. They then have to try to figure out a way to escape without becoming dinner to the ghouls. Having already seen the 80's remake of this movie, I'll have to admit that it took a bit away from the experience. Specifically, some of the scenes that probably should have been a bit more shocking weren't, since I had a pretty good idea at all times what was coming next. When I saw the remake, I really thought that the actress playing the character of Barbara was one of the least talented that I had ever seen. I was wrong. The original Barbara (Judith O'Dea) is ten times worse. And as bad as she is, the rest of the cast isn't a hell of a lot better. The possible exception is Duane Jones, who does a decent job surrounded by bad actors and dead people knocking at his door. Over the first half of this movie, I'll admit that I really had no idea why this movie has been so revered over the years. The acting isn't especially good, the photography is dark and grainy (at least the print I was watching), and there was really nothing particularly scary about what was taking place. Not to mention that the film was released in 1968, but it was still black and white. By the second half, the film started to show a few small, but critical differences, from its poor white trash remake. There are protracted scenes involving TV news clips with people trying to deal with the ghoul crisis. While they are a small part of the movie, they do add to it significantly. Although, they certainly do nothing to make up for the main of the movie, which involves this group stuck in the farmhouse. Maybe I'm the only one who ever thought of this, but these zombies are moving slower than a 90-year-old with a walker. Why didn't these people just walk right past them? I guess maybe that's why I don't make horror films. My IQ seems to be above the normal cut-off point for horror film writers. Anything above that of a cabbage, and you aren't allowed to write horror films. Sure, there are some very impressive exceptions, but the writers responsible for this movie sure aren't among them. After seeing this movie I have no idea why its writer/director George A. Romero has been so lauded over the years. If you are curious to see what the hype is about, check it out. If you are in the market for some scares, look elsewhere. 5/10 Reviewed July 12, 1999 by Joe Chamberlain

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

2004-02-21T22:29:00.000-04:00

Starring - Jennifer Love Hewitt; Sarah Michelle Gellar; Ryan Phillippe; Freddie Prinze Jr. & Bridgette Wilson Director - Jim Gillespie MPAA - Rated R for strong horror violence and language. I Know What You Did Last Summer comes from the same screenwriter who brought us last year's Scream. Jennifer Love Hewitt; Sarah Michelle Gellar; Ryan Phillippe and Freddie Prinze Jr. play two couples who are out celebrating the Fourth of July, and the beauty pageant win of Helen Shivers (Gellar). After a night of partying, they drive home along a deserted mountain road. On the way down the road, they hit a man. They decide their only way out is to dispose of the body. Although disposing of the body turns out to be more difficult than they had expected. When it is accomplished they swear never to speak of it again. At the end of the summer they all go their separate ways Julie James (Hewitt) is off to university and Helen is off to fame and fortune in New York. Over the course of the next year the two couples break up and the four friends loose touch with one another. That is, until Julie comes home from her first year of university and finds a hand written note waiting for her, stating simply -- I know what you did last summer. None of the four, whom have all returned home, have any idea who wrote the letter. Quite quickly all become convinced that they have a real problem. The note's author goes about terrorizing the four, as well as leaving the usual mounting body count in his/her wake. Like Scream, the writing is sharp, and most of the plot twists work well. As with Scream, screenwriter Kevin Williamson seems to be taking shots at the horror movie genre with blatant scenes like the female victim running up the stairs to get away from the killer when she should be running out the door. This brings me to the last 20 minutes of the movie. The audience that I screened the movie with laughed at many of the so-called scarier scenes at the end of the movie when the lead characters were in dire peril. This isn't a knock against the movie by any means. Nor am I suggesting that the movie is so bad that it is funny. The audience was laughing with the movie, and not at it. One gets the impression that the makers of I Know What You did Last Summer wanted the final 20 minutes of the movie to be a very clever send-up of horror flicks. If that was their intent, then they succeeded. My only complaint with the movie was the killer. When the killer's identity is finally revealed I was left asking -- huh? This could also be said concerning many of my fellow audience members. You actually have to think about it for a minute to figure it out, not normally a plus for a slasher film. Which is not to say that you will leave the theater confused, just having used your brain a little. The four main cast members were excellent, and as for Hewitt and Gellar, if their first major starring film roles are any indication, they should both have bright careers on the big screen ahead of them. This is especially true of Sarah Michelle Gellar, who will appear in Scream 2 at the end of 1997. 9/10 - Great flick. Reviewed October 23, 1997 by Joe Chamberlain

The Conversation (1974)

2004-02-21T22:27:00.001-04:00

Starring - Gene Hackman; John Cazale; Allen Garfield; Frederic Forrest & Cindy Williams Director - Francis Ford Coppola MPAA - PG If the conversation is not the worst film ever made, it comes real close. Which is strange, considering it was directed by Francis Ford Coppola (credited as Francis Coppola) and it starred Gene Hackman and a young Harrison Ford. This snoozer starts to go bad from the opening credits. During a long drawn out surveillance operation, we see a couple having a conversation but can only here bits and pieces, and really annoying sound effects in between. The only reason this was included was so that Coppola could show everyone what a brilliant filmmaker he is. Guess what Francis? It didn't work Hackman plays Harry Caul, a master surveillance expert. On one of his jobs, Harry overhears a conversation that could have serious repercussions to those involved. Harry then has to wrestle with his conscience about whether to turn the tape over to his employers or not. That's the plot in a nutshell. The idea for the movie itself is not a bad one, if done properly. It might have made a good episode of a half hour TV show, but not a full length feature film. It's just too long, and for no good reason. The movie ends up being a character study of Caul, and a bad one at that. We don't really know that much more about Caul at the end of the movie than at the beginning. For that matter, we really don't want to either. Harry Caul is one strange dude, not strange in the funny way but strange in a very distasteful way. This guy is WEIRD. Although he fits in well, everyone in the film seems to be a few cards short of a full deck. I'd say something about the lousy acting in the film, but the blame is less on the actors and more on Coppola's lousy script. The only thing that the actors should be questioned about is their judgment, as to why they got involved with this turkey to begin with. As for Francis Ford Coppola, he should stick to directing and leave the writing to someone who has a clue how to write a good script. I don't know how this film could have gotten any worse. I suppose it could have been longer... 0/10 - Quite possibly the worst film ever made. Reviewed December 28, 1997 by Joe Chamberlain

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

2004-02-21T22:27:00.000-04:00

Starring - Marilyn Burns; Allen Danziger; Paul A. Partain; William Vail & Teri McMinn Director - Tobe Hooper MPAA - Not Rated The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the original slasher films. Unlike the current crop of slasher films, like Scream, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a little more low-budget. Actually, that is an understatement. Chainsaw Massacre makes the original Halloween look as if it was shot on a budget the size of Titanic. This is one cheesy movie -- complete with cheesy camera shots, cheesy locations and even cheesier acting, if you can even call it acting. Even with that all said, Chainsaw Massacre wasn't as bad as I though it was going to turn out to be. I'm not sure whether it was the fact that I appreciated that it was one of the original classic slasher horror films, or if it was the fact that it was just so bad that it was almost good. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter. Chainsaw Massacre focuses on a group of teenagers out for a drive who go to explore an abandoned property owned by one of their parents. In the true tradition of horror films, this turns out to be a mistake. It turns out that this old house has some neighbors nearby who aren't that friendly. Among them is a kindly gent named Leatherface who has a tendency to cut people up with a chainsaw -- never an endearing quality in a neighbor. Anyway, you can undoubtedly figure out from the title of the film what good old Leatherface ends up doing to these poor unsuspecting teenagers. As I said, the acting, writing, camera work and just about everything else you can think of is so low budget that a kid with a camcorder could almost have done a better job. But that is sort of the sick charm of this little film. Although, Scream it is not. If you are interested in watching Chainsaw Massacre for nonstop terror, keep right on going past this title in the video store. On the other hand, if you are looking for a few laughs (albeit unintentional) and a kind of historical perspective on the genre, give Chainsaw Massacre a look. At the very least you will appreciate just how far these films have come over the years. 2/10 Reviewed October 04, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Psycho (1960)

2004-02-21T22:26:00.000-04:00

Starring - Anthony Perkins; Vera Miles; John Gavin; Martin Balsam & John McIntire Director - Alfred Hitchcock MPAA - R (1984 Re-issue.) (Previously rated M in 1960 and 1968.) Psycho is the Alfred Hitchcock film considered by many to be a masterpiece. When it was released in 1960 it was probably one of the scariest movies ever made. By today's standards it has a couple of shocking moments, but it certainly wouldn't be what I'd consider to be a real scary film. Since I'm judging Psycho by today's standards, it is for that reason that I wouldn't really recommend Psycho to someone who was looking for a real good scare. They won't find it in Psycho. Even the famous shower scene has lost its shock value. When Psycho was first released it had the virtue of never having been done before. Today there are very few people out there who haven't at least heard about the shower scene. As a result, when it happens, it isn't a real big surprise to anyone watching. As soon as Janet Leigh turns on the water in the bathroom, you know exactly what is coming next. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The aforementioned Janet Leigh plays Marion Crane. Marion steals a large sum of money from her employer and hops into her car and leaves town. She decides to spend the night in a lonely motel out in the middle on nowhere. It's the very deserted Bat's Motel run by the very odd Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and his mother. To be brief, Marion decides to go in for a shower after she settles into her room. Once she goes in, she never comes out again alive. The rest of the movie centers on Marion's sister, boyfriend, and a private investigator hired by her employer, trying to track down Marion, who has seemingly disappeared off the face of the Earth. And none of them get any help from Bates, although they all suspect that he knows a little more than he is willing to let on. While I wouldn't recommend Psycho for its shock value, I would recommend it on the basis that it is brilliantly made. Even though I'm not a big fan of black and white movies, visually it works very well. Add to that some of the best music found in a horror film, and you have a decidedly creepy, if not scary movie. The final reason; and the main one for recommending Psycho is the performance of Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates. It was probably the performance of his career. With the exception of Anthony Hopkins in Silence Of The Lambs, you will never find a more eerie personality on screen than Bates. Almost as soon as Perkins appears on screen, the audience knows that something just isn't right about this guy and he is bound to be trouble. For the sake of those 2 or 3 people that are just waking from a coma that they've been in since the early sixties, I won't go into any more detail about why good old Norm is as frightening as he is, let's just say his problems seem to run in the family. Psycho is a classic, and like many classics, I've found it to be just a little disappointing when compared to current films. The only reason to watch Psycho is for the haunting performance of Perkins, which is more than ample reason to plunk down a few bucks at the video store. As a personal note, the original is far better to spend your time and money on than the 1998 remake starring Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. 7/10 - Most of that due to Perkins' performance and Hitchcock's direction. Reviewed September 19, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain

Return Of The Jedi (1983)

2004-02-21T22:25:00.000-04:00

Starring - Mark Hamill; Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher; Billy Dee Williams & Anthony Daniels Director - Richard Marquand MPAA - PG Return Of The Jedi is the third installment of the Star Wars trilogy, and the second best of the three (Star Wars being the best). 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 a generator that is powering a shield protecting the Empire's new Death Star. Once the shield is removed 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, Especially the scenes on the Endor moon involving the Ewoks. The Ewoks, by the way, 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. A minor complaint, but one point 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. 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. 10/10 Reviewed October 27, 1998 by Joe Chamberlain