Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Pumpkinhead (1988)

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

Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls (1970)

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

Enemy Of The State (1998)

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

Friday The 13th (1980)

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

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

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

The Ice Pirates (1984)

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

Godzilla (1998)

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

Junior (1994)

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

Disturbing Behavior (1998)

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

The Postman (1997)

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

The Haunting (1999)

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

The Exorcist (1973)

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

Phantoms (1998)

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

The Waterboy (1998)

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

An American Werewolf In London (1981)

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

Return Of The Jedi: Special Edition (1997)

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

The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

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

Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1992)

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

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

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

Scream 2 (1997)

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