Monkey Bastard Reviews

Drugstore Cowboy (1989)

Afnóbrökur dawquase at the Halden. Then rewind.

[4 August 2004]

Gus Van Sant's "Drugstore Cowboy" was a fascinating viewing experience for Monkey Bastard. I found myself enjoying every second, and found myself annoyed with a million things. And still enjoying it.

The cinematography is stunning, it really captures that gray, damp, depressing atmosphere present in so many (if not all) parts of the north-west. The writing and a few of the performances bugged me however. A previous reviewer mentioned something about Van Sant "being stuck" with Matt Dillon and Kelly Lynch because they couldn't get anyone else. I could not agree more.

Dillon was as stiff as ever, thinking that a low, whispered voice will make his performance seem real and "gritty". It wont. The following is straight out of The Dillon 10 Steps To Acting Programme (TM) pamphlet:

Step 1: Take a sip of tea. Slurp loudly to show people that you are a wild and loose & goosey method actor. Make sure the audience understand the tea is hot. They saw you boil water ten seconds ago, but they are idiots so they may have forgotten. Remind them.

Step 2: Turn around in a slow, stiff manner. Look thoughtful.

Step 3: Put down tea on table.

Step 4: Turn back around. Stiffly.

Step 5: Clear throat. Think "realism".

Step 6: Frown and look brooding. The character is oh so tortured, remember?

Step 7: Wave hands around a bit. Y'know, like Chandler on "Friends".

Step 8: Stop waving. Don't wanna do too much. Gotta make it seem like it's all just coming to you right then and there, and that you're just mucking it up and improvising. You gotta make it look... uhhm... the word escapes me... I think the word is "spontaneous", but I'm not sure because I am a male bimbo. I went to the library to look the word up, but for some reason I couldn't find "spontaneous" under the F section so I got bored and read one of the magazines instead. It had a funny picture of a chimp smoking a cigar. Oh how I laughed. Chimps rule. Corona Light rules too. Damn now I'm thirsty. Wait, what am I doing in a library? Hey look, there's a picture of a funny chimp in this magazine! Huh-huh-huh-huh! Is this a library?

Step 9: Look up. Speak your line. Use a hoarse, husky voice and mumble a little bit. Just like that Brando Calrissian dude in that "Streetcat With Designer" movie.

Step 10: Make sure there is a fifteen second pause between each step. You need these fifteen seconds to remind yourself of your next line, because the Dillon mind is not complicated enough to harbor more than one thought at any time. Give the thought plenty of time to leave to make space for the next one.

Tada!

The only time I've enjoyed a Matt Dillon performance was in "There's Something About Mary", where his awkwardness worked as an advantage. Kelly Lynch didn't fare much better. I never believed Dillon and Lynch were addicts. Their acting just seemed like... well, acting (see the Ten Step Programme). I saw Dillon & Lynch running around playing addicts, much like a little children playing house. Sure they're cute as hell, but do you really believe for one second 4 year old Emma and 5 year old Timmy are mother and son? No. Lynch, much like Dillon, seems to think that uttering a line really slowly with a bored face will make them seem tough, arrogant and addict-like. They wont. It takes a real lack of talent to say the line "F**k you, a**hole" with no emotion what so ever. And no, it's not because she was playing an addict. It's because she doesn't know who to act.

I will have to blame some of this on the writing though. Why exactly does almost every line the name of the person the character is talking to? Sure, Bob. Yeah, Bob. Why, Bob? Where are you going, Dianne? Where are you going, Rick? Screw you, Gentry, Screw you, Bob. Dianne, take your coat off. Dianne, stay for a while. Dianne, you look good. Get in the car, Rick. Put this in the car, Nadine. You know what, Dianne? Tom, it's Bob. How much speed do you have, David? Nadine, do you know what you've done? No, Bob.

Who the hell talks like this? Makes you wonder if the writer has ever had one single conversation in his life. A little advice: the audience knows the names of the characters already, no need to say it over and over. It's only insulting and annoying. Why didn't the actors mention this to Van Sant? Why did they accept such shoddy lines? Didn't they realize how phony it sounded? If not, it only makes me think even less of their acting abilities. Heather Graham (who admittedly didn't have much to do) and James LeGros were a little better. Not much, but a little. Probably because neither had a lot of lines, they just had to stand there and look stupid. They did that well.

But still, I did enjoy it. Why? Because I had a lot of fun watching Matt Dillon's scenes and imagining how much better any actor in the world would have done them.

The Exorcist (1973)

Good? Definitely. Scary? Hell no.

[12 November 2003]

Let's just get one thing straight off the bat: I do not find The Exorcist scary in the least, and I'm getting pretty damn tired of being insulted for it. As if the people who aren't scared by "The Exorcist" and either immature, have no imagination and/or are completely dead inside, and we are adviced to go back and watch teen slasher flicks instead, since that's apparently "our type of films". Not everything is black and white, folks. I should know, I'm the king of the gray area.

Personally, I absolutely detest "Scream", "I Know What You Did Last Summer", "Urban Legends" and all of that mind-less, commercial, so-called horror movie crap. Just because "The Exorcist" doesn't scare me, doesn't mean I need half-naked teens with surgically enlarged bodyparts, knife-wielding murderers in raincoats, and tons of splatter and gore to please me. Nothing irks me more than barely dressed bimbos and there is nothing scary about blood and guts, to be honest it bores me to no end. Unless of course it's done deliberately OTT and tongue-in-cheek, like in "Braindead" and "Evil Dead 2", then it's absolutely hilarious.

Another argument often used is that we can't appreciate older films. That's a bunch of crap. Out of my collection of over 6.000 DVD's and VHS tapes, 85% of the movies were produced between 1920 and 1975, and over half of them were made in the 50's and 60's. Just because a film is old, doesn't mean it can't be scary. The scene in "Psycho" where Lila is sneaking around the Bates manor whilst Norman is in the motel only a few yards away down the hill always puts me on the edge of my seat. Or how about the horrific murders in "Peeping Tom"? Not to mention the slow-moving and ever-growing number of zombies in "Night Of The Living Dead", which still freak me out. And these are all movies that were made before I was born. Let's not forget the grainy, shadowy, high-contrast footage of Count Orloc in "Nosferatu". My grandparents weren't even born when FW Murnau made that one, and it's still one of the most frightening piece of cinema I have ever laid my beautiful blue eyes on.

Maybe I would find "The Exorcist" more frightening if I was religious. If I was catholic, I'm sure I would soil myself silly. But then again, many reviewers have said you need not to believe in God and the devil to be scared. Come to think of it, I don't believe in zombies and vampires either, but I still find them scary if it's done the right way, so I really don't know. All I know is, this film is not scary to me.

In my opinion, the Japanese and the Korean have totally taken over the horror genre, with films such as "The Eye", "Ring" (yes, I liked it better than the remake, feel free to send private messages explaining to me why I am a complete idiot - I promise to delete them as soon as I spot them), "Audition" (which admittedly was more of a psychological thriller), "Dark Water", "Kaïro" and "Ju-On". If I may say so, there hasn't been a truly scary, unsettling American horror/thriller since "Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer". "Se7en" had it's moments, and "Silence Of The Lambs" was kinda creepy towards the end with Buffalo Bill watching Clarice through the nightvision goggles, but the main reason I return to those two films over and over again is the tight story, the claustrophobic cinematography and the wonderful performances. Whether they're scary or not comes in second to me. Which is exactly my point (betcha didn't think I had one).

Alright, enough nagging. To round this review off on a positive note, "The Exorcist" a great movie. The whole setup and the perfectly balanced structure of the film make it a joy to watch. The opening sequence with Father Merrin (the majestic Max Von Sydow) in Iraq is superb in so many ways. Not much is said (and when something IS said, it's in Arabic), instead Friedkin devotes the first 10-15 minutes of the film to haunting images and music as a way to get us inside the head, or rather the heart, of Father Merrin. Then he disappears from the film for a good hour or so, and the focus changes to the parallel storylines of the torn Father Karras and his aging mother, and Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) and her 12-year old daughter (Linda Blair), until these three stories finally meet under horrific circumstances. Unfortunately, this pace and rhythm is completely destroyed in "The Version You've Never Seen", where additional (and superfluous) scenes have been added. Sure, the spider-walk scene and all that is interesting to see from a nerdy cineast POV, but they add very little, if anything, to the film. I would suggest to anyone who hasn't seen "The Exorcist" to firstly see the original 1973 version, and then move on to the aforementioned, newer version for it's trivia value, for that is the only value that version has.

The performances are great through out, in particular Von Sydow (who is always great, even in the suckiest of films), and Ellen Burstyn. The cinematography and the set design are flawless, especially Regan's room during the actual exorcism. And of course Mike Oldfield's haunting music. Sure, the special effects have dated and look cheap, but that has never gotten in the way of good storytelling.

I really like The Exorcist. I would even go as far as saying I love it, I've seen it fourteen times and I'm looking forward to the fifteenth. But I wouldn't call it a horror film. To me, it's always been a drama. But it's a damn fine drama, that's for sure.

8.5/10

Casino (1995)

A highly religious tale

[7 April 2001]

A three hour masterpiece, accused to be "GoodFellas all over again" by those who don't know any better.

The first hour seems almost like a documentary on how to become a proper gangster, while the last hour reminds me of a drama by Swedish writer/director Lars Norén.

But when it comes down to it, this is not just a story about gangster trying to make it big in Lag Vegas. It's much deeper than, and the metaphores are obvious. Martin Scorsese always uses religious elements, usually Catholic, in his movies to accentuate the story, but here he decided to go for the big one and tell the classical tale of God.

Yeah, you heard me. God. It's so obvious that it surprises me that no other reviewer has mentioned this. It's simple, DeNiro's character is God, trying to create order in this thing he has created, while Pesci's character is Lucifer, always rebellious, always trying to break free and create something of his own. Pesci's character is even named Nick, which is an old name for Satan.

Diner (1982)

My favorite movie of all time

[7 February 2001]

Whenever I need to be cheered up, I just pop my Diner tape into my trusty old VCR and Boogie, Eddie, Modell and the others take me away.

This is one of those rare movies that don't really have a plot, but somehow it works anyway, because of all the little things going on. Will Eddie's wife-to-be pass the football quiz? Will Boogie be able to pay his debt to Tank? Will Shrieve and Beth get their marriage back on track? Will Billy get the girl he fancies?

But the best things about the movie is all the things that have nothing to do with the "plot" at all, things that are obviously incidents and anecdotes from writer/director Barry Levinson's own life, which he chose to include. Either that, or he just found them amusing. Like Earl with the sandwiches. Or Methan walking around quoting his favorite movie. Or Boogie trying to get a girl to touch his pecker. Or Billy and Eddie watching an Ingmar Bergman movie. Or the hilarious roast beef sandwich scene.

All in all, a fantastic, funny movie which you must not miss.

Michael (1996)

Without exaggerating, the single worst movie ever made

[26 September 2000]

Why the hell would anyone make a movie like this? Don't they have any pride left in their puny little damaged-by-Holywood bodies?

A movie starring William Hurt and Robert Pastorelli, the two most boring actors in America who can't utter one single line without it sounding like they have a migraine. Then use a "hip" actor, like John Travolta who everyone thought was the coolest guy on earth after "Pulp Fiction". I did too, but after this movie I have lost all respect for him. Throw in a good looking woman, of the "old-fashioned girl kind". We don't want any slutty 90's women, no, use Andie McDowell, America's moral majority's own little chastity persona. And finally, throw in a cute little dog for good measure, and there you have it. A sentimental, moral, pathetic, ridiculous, silly, stupid, inane, infantile, boring, unbelievable, crappy, pseudo-sad piece of elk poo.

Oh wow, angel who curses, drinks and has sex! How daring! How brave! How controversial! Kiss my ass!

Sunset Beach (1997–1999)

So crappy you can't stop watching

[22 September 2000]

"Sunset Beach" must be the ultimate wet dream for every television network. To succeed in making a really cheap show by using repetitive storylines with the same things happening and the same lines being said over and over again, low production value and a chimp directing for a banana and fresh oranges. Yet at the same time won't let go of the viewers once they start watching the damn thing. It's scary, almost as if I've been hypnotized. I just have to see the next episode. Even though I am fully aware that nothing new will happen in the next episode. In fact, you won't miss anything by watching only one episode a week. But that's impossible. You must watch every single one of them. Somewhere in the back of your head there is a voice softly whispering: "Watch tomorrow's episode, something will happen... Watch tomorrow's episode, something will happen... Watch tomorrow's episode, something will happen..."

I mean, the show is sooooooooo slow. The timeline, like most soaps, is all hacked up. Sometimes it takes ages for two people to finish a single discussion which in normal life would take five minutes, while somewhere else in Sunset Beach their friends go through things that would normally take days. And all of these things are supposed to take place simultaneously? How does that work? It must be hell starting conversation on a Monday in Sunset Beach when you know you won't be able to finish it until next Thursday. Forget any form of social life. When you're busy talking to your husband for two weeks whether or not his ex-wife (who is supposed to be dead but got away with amnesia, a wet-look and a serious case of over-acting) should move in, you miss out on a lot of things. Like Sean Richards trying to be a gangsta rapper. Yeah, I bet mister Son Of A Wealthy Lawyer Who Has Never Experienced One Day Of Hard Labour In His Life knows what that's all about. "My daddy is a meany! He won't give me a new car, so I'm gonna hold my breath till my face turns as blue as a smurf and I die!!! By the way, make it a Pontiac this time. Okay, here I go (cue sound of spoiled brat inhaling)".

And most of the actors have played out their parts a long time ago and are no longer of any use, but they stick around anyway for some reason. Take Annie for example. Hasn't she been doing her scheming and plotting routine one or two times too many? And Ricardo, what kind of police officer is he? Is he the only cop in California or something? It wouldn't hurt the writers took their time to visit a police station to see what it's like. And then there's Doctor Estrada. I have no idea where she found her degree, but it wasn't in medical school, I can tell you that.

We also have Meg and Caitlin who don't have anything to do anymore. All they do is cry and whine and weep about their husbands. Olivia seems as though she cannot quite decide whether or not she should speak British or American English, so what we get is some half-assed efford somewhere in between. Same thing with Mrs. Torres. Sometimes her English is fluent, sometimes she has a Spanish accent. Make up your mind!

Aunt Bette is annoying, Emily is just as annoying (wonder where she gets it from?), Fransesca is just a pair of huge eyes, Sean only has one facial expression, Ben doesn't do more than wrinkle his eyebrows and look puzzled, Gregory wrinkles only one eyebrow before following it up with the puzzled look, Leo has no function whatsoever, Amy has five lines max and she doesn't hesitate when it comes to constant repetition of those five lines, and finally Cole, who has dimples. And what's up with that dog in the opening credits? What the hell is that doing there?

But I still can't help it. I must know what will happen in tomorrow's episode. Darn you CBS!!!

Event Horizon (1997)

It was ok.

[15 August 2000]

*SPOILERS*

Well it wasn't the best sci-fi/horror I've seen, but far from the worst. Something that a lot of people had problems with, are all the references to other movies within the same genre.

A crew goes away to check out a lost space ship (2001: A Space Odyssey). They have been sent there by the company, and they don't know what the mission is about yet (Alien). Only one person does know, he's the one everyone hates (Aliens). This person get possessed by the evil forces (The Shining), and goes to hell and then back again (Hellraiser). This person even uses the almost exact line ("Let me show you!") as Pinhead used in Hellraiser ("We have such wonderful sites to show you!").

Not very original, but I seriously think these things don't have to be ripoffs. My guess is that these things are simply hommages to the writer's, and possibly the director's, old favorite movies. Something Quentin Tarantino has built an entire career on. 2.5/5

Body Bags (1993 TV Movie)

Slightly above average

[9 June 2000]

*Possible spoilers*

A decent horror trilogy crammed into approx. 90 minutes. As the other reviewers have already mentioned, the first two were directed by John Carpenter (Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, Vampire and so on) and third one by Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Poltergeist).

The first one, "The Gas Station", is very cliché, a girl works her first night in a gas station located in an area where a serial killer is on the loose. It's not hard to figured out who the perpetrator is, no matter how hard Carpenter tries to lure us away from him by introducing a row of weirdo customers who we are supposed to think is the killer. But cameos by Evil Dead director Sam Raimi (employee of the month, nonetheless) and the mighty Wes Craven makes it enjoyable.

The second one, "Hair", is about a middle aged man (Stacy Keach) who is scared stiff (pun intended) of getting bald, and decides to go to a doctor (David Warner) who might be able help him with his problem. I didn't really like this segment, mostly due to the fact that I don't like Stacy Keach. I don't why that is, it's just something about his little smirk I can't stand (although he did do a great job in "American History X"). And David Warner plays the same character as always, so there's nothing new there. But at least it was a bit original and comic. Which was nice.

The third one, "Eye", is my favorite. A baseball player looses his eye in an automobile accident and gets a new one. What he doesn't know is that this particular eye comes from a crazy serial killer who was executed just a couple of days earlier. Which, as most sane people would predict, makes him go bananas. It's not very original (even "The Simpsons" used this idea in a halloween special a couple of years back), but thanks to Hooper's skillful direction, it turns out to be quite a thrilling segment. Mark Hamill of "Star Wars" fame gets a chance to show the world that he is in fact a great actor and it's a damn shame he doesn't get any good roles these days. And legendary model Twiggy who plays his wife, also does a good job. The only thing I didn't really like was that the big final scene takes place in broad day light, instead of at night which would have been a lot more effectful.

All in all, a watchable horrorflick, with interesting cameos by Charles Napier, Tom Arnold, and not to mention the directors themselves.

Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii (1972)

Good if you're a fan.

[26 May 2000]

Although I am a big Floyd fan, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. I mean, of course it was fun to watch the guys complain about the crust on the pie and see them during the recording of what would turn out to be their masterpiece Dark Side Of The Moon.

But I've always had a problem with Pink Floyd visualizing everything from their videos to the live performances. From my point of view Pink Floyd has always been a band which is best experienced by putting a record on in the middle of the night, closing your eyes and just letting the music take you away and let it form imaginative images in your head. And by portraying the songs in ways such as this sort of spoil that experience.

But hell, I shouldn't complain. The songs are impeccable, the cinematography is fantastic and the Pompeii settings are beautiful and moody, and the dog singing was really cool.

Who Am I? (1998)

Another tame one.

[5/10 · 18 May 2000]

Jackie Chan movies just aren't what they used to be are they? Without a doubt, "Who am I?/Ngo hai sui" is a good piece of work, better than most movies in its genre. But there's something missing. If you look at masterpieces such as "Drunken Master", "Operation Condor", "The Armour Of God" or any of the Police Story movies (except "First Strike", which was nothing compared to the previous ones) and you'll see something that the recent Chan films are lacking. They were a whole lot funnier to watch, they had more creativity, more originality. more playfulness, the fighting scenes were much more elaborate, and the stunts were even more dangerous.

I've been suspecting this for quite some time, so the last couple of days I've been watching several of the movies Jackie's done the five years, just to prove my point. "Thunderbolt", "Mr. Nice Guy", this one, "Rush Hour", "First Strike", and then I watched "Rumble In The Bronx" again just in case. And it was extremely obvious that Jackie Chan's movies just aren't what they used to be.

None of these movies are bad at all ("Mr. Nice Guy" was actually good even though it was directed by the awful Sammo Hung), and they're watchable and enjoyable and all that crap. But if you've seen some of his older movies, I think you'll have trouble watching this since (and I'm sorry to repeat myself all the time) they new ones aren't as good as the old ones. I've had my finger on the fast forward button constantly while watching the movies I just mentioned, because they were terribly boring at times. I've never had to fast forward through "Operation Condor", there's not a dead second in that movie.

So, if you haven't seen too many Jackie Chan movies and are determined to watch all of them, I'd advise you to start with his latest movies and save the good ones for later.

Freeway (1996)

Going to Nana's house...

[1 May 2000]

Oh my god. Words can not describe exactly how much I love this film. I saw it for the first time last night, luckily I taped it, and I watched it again three times today.

In the beginning we are introduced a bunch of character, although only one of them will remain in the picture. That is, of course Vanessa, played by Reese Witherspoon ("Election", "Pleasantville"), who is so adorable I could just lay down and die. Then there's her mother, played by Amanda Plummer ("God's Army", "Pulp Fiction"), her stepfather Michael T. Weiss ("The Pretender", "Days Of Our Lives") and her boyfriend Bookem Woodbine ("The Rock", "The Big Hit"). Who all do a great job, although they only appear in the movie for one or two scenes each. This is one reason I love "Freeway" so much: the supporting actors. We also bump in to two of my personal favorites, Alanna Ubach ("Clockwatchers", "Denise Calls Up"), and Brittany Murphy ("Clueless", "Girl, Interrupted"). The latter being absolutely flawless as a smack-abusing, paint-sniffing, lesbian weirdo. Plus, they're both really hot. Which is not a disadvantage in any way. And don't forget to watch out for Susan Barnes, the queen of cameos, as Mrs. Cullins.

Later on, enter Kiefer Sutherland as Bob Wolverton, a wolf in sheepish clothing. Since this is, sort of, a version of "Little Red Riding Hood", you need one of those. I used to like Kiefer quite a bit, but then I was unfortunate enough to watch "Frankie The Fly", and that was that. Mankind has seldom witnessed a performance which lacked so extensively in presence, credibility, and not to mention talent. But he actually does a good job here. There is hope after all.

And also: Watch Reese Witherspoon as she walks to the car with the basket in her hand, right after handcuffing the social service woman to the bed. She looks EXACTLY like Little Red Riding Hood did in the cartoon she and her stepfather were watching earlier. Very nice little detail there.

So, finally, all I can say is: if you haven't seen this film, do something about it. If you don't, you'll regret it.

Un chien andalou (1929)

Surreal to say the least.

[1 May 2000]

Acclaimed as a surrealist masterpiece, "Un Chien Andalou" aggressively disconnects itself from narrative flow. The creators of this short film. Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí, fully intended there to be no links between successive scenes. Fortunately this didn't inhibit their dreaming up of some of the most striking moments ever to be projected upon the silver screen. The opening focuses on a man (Luis Buñuel) stropping his cut-throat razor, honing it to a perfect edge. Stepping onto the balcony, he gazes at the moon. This celestial orb is instantly replaced with a woman and, enlarging rapidly, her left eye. The bare blade then descends on her unprotected pupil, a graphic incident.

Designed to shock, which it still does almost 70 years later, quick editing removes the image before it has time to fully sink in. Suddenly the viewer is faced with a nun-like figure weaving uncertainly down the road on a bicycle. There is no bridge to the previous horror, although this mysterious person does provide a number of objects which resurface at odd intervals. Later there is the unusual sight of a man (Robert Hommet) hauling two grand pianos, each stuffed with the putrefying remains of a donkey, as he trudges towards a cowering woman (Simone Mareuil). He is also unfortunate enough to have a hole in his hand, where the ants live. None of this is significant.

A marvellous aspect of something as wilfully bizarre as "Un Chien Andalou" is that almost any interpretation can be drawn from the images shown. Perhaps every single scene is random and unconcerned with any other, although Buñuel certainly seems to have included items which are present throughout the film. In some ways the repeated glimpses of these things in situations where they shouldn't be adds to the confused feel, enhanced by the off-putting and nonsensical time-markers deployed.

The eternal themes of life, death, lust and love are thrown up at various points, although there is no framework on which to attach these emotions. This is of no consequence though as Buñuel has already hurried onto the next sequence, violently cutting so that the desired woman becomes naked in a flash - a picture of what are ardent suitor really sees. "Un Chien Andalou" does not require such deep analysis though, being much more a film which should be purely experienced. It achieves that which Buñuel and Dalí aimed for and, with a live music accompaniment, is unstoppable.

The Disappearance of Finbar (1996)

Yuck.

[1 April 2000]

Irishmen drink booze, curse and play football, the Swedes drink moonshine, dance tango and take care of reindeer. Welcome to Prejudice County.

Sue Clayton film is nothing but a big messy pile of crap. It tries so hard to do something different, but fails to do anything at all. Weird occurrences and odd characters with a snowy Swedish backdrop are supposed to create some sort of surreal mood, but Clayton can't even pull that off. All we get an incoherent story about an Irish guy who runs off to Sweden. It would be nice if they put something worth the time and money into the film.

The movie had no meaning, no story, no interesting elements. For your own safety, and your kids', avoid this repugnant piece of bullpoo.

Standoff (1998)

It was ok, but could have been better with cast changes and more originality

[29 March 2000]

I kinda enjoyed "Standoff (1998)" even though it wasn't the least original. A bunch of FBI agents storm the headquarters of a deeply religious cult Waco-stylee.

But the operation - which we never see, only in flashbacks - goes wrong and two of the agents, played by Robert Sean Leonard and Dennis Haysbert, get away. Sounds an awful lot like "Reservoir Dogs (1992)" doesn't it?

They hide in an old house with the vicious trigger happy cult members lurking outside. Soon more people, a couple of other guys who are also fighting the cult, show up. They don't like each other at first, but they all have to work together to survive and fight enemy outside. Sounds an awful lot like "Night Of The Living Dead (1968)" doesn't it?

And in the basement of this house they find more people, who also hide from the danger outside. Gee, for some reason that's sound very familiar... I've heard that somewhere before, wonder what it could be... Oh yeah, it's "Night Of The Living Dead (1968)" again.

From there, more things happen, problems appear and everything seems hopeless. I can't go on about the plot without spewing spoilers all over the place, so I'll stop right there. Let's just say that if you've even seen only one film in this genre, doesn't really matter which one, you know exactly what's gonna happen and you won't find the ending the least surprising. I spotted that one coming casually from a mile away.

What I liked about "Standoff (1998)" was that I, in all its predictability, actually found it sort of exciting. It's like when you're watching a "Die Hard"-movie, you know exactly what's coming (that's about the only resemblance, but give me a break, it's just an example). You know Bruce Willis is gonna blow stuff up, start bleeding, get dirty and sweaty, spit out a decent amount of one-liners and, of course, save the world. But somehow it keeps you on the edge of your seat, anxiously awaiting whatever comes next.

What I didn't like was some of the acting, Zeke Clayton was nothing short of being one complete disaster. Cliché and stereotyped anyone? But he was probably told to act the way he did by writer/director Andrew Chapman (son of Michael Chapman, wow!) so won't blame him for this flat performance. And I've never liked Robert Sean Leonard all that much. He reminds me too much of Hugh Grant, and that's about as far away from a compliment you can ever get. They both have that nervous appearance with the stuttering and the blinking and all that. No hard feelings though, I'm sure they're both really nice guys, I just wouldn't mind if they would cast someone else instead.

You Only Live Twice (1967)

I expected more

[26 February 2000]

One of Sean Connery's worst Bond flicks. The problem with "You Only Live Twice (1967)" is that nothing happens. Nothing! Only when Donald Pleasence reveals his scarred face does the movie burst into flames. Pleasence' performance is impeccable, but I'm afraid it's hard to take him seriously after seeing Mike Meyer's parody of his Ernst Blofeld character.

The movie was way too long, I found myself fast forwarding through out the movie. Not a good sign.

If you want James Bond, go see "Goldfinger". If you want Donald Pleasence, go see "Escape From New York" or "The Great Escape". If you want spy action in Japan, go see "The Karate Killers". And if you want Blofeld like villains, go see the "Austin Powers" movies. It won't hurt if you skip this one.

Three Fugitives (1989)

Could it get anymore 80's that this?

[17 February 2000]

This is as 80's as it gets. One of my childhood movies that I (obviously) grew up with, and it's always been there. It's like one of those things your mom tells you when you grow up, you carry it with you constantly. This one is up there with "Tango & Cash", "Adventures In Babysitting", "Back To The Future", "Willow", "Roxanne", "The Princess Bride", and all the other great flicks from the late 80's.

In this remake of a French movie from 1986, Nick Nolte is released from prison, goes to a bank which Martin Short is robbing. At least he tries to rob it, everything goes down the drain and he takes Nolte hostage, and of course the cops think Nolte is the robber.

As I said, this is one of movies I grew up with and you always love your childhood movies, even though they might suck. And this movie really does suck. It's not nearly as good as the French predecessor, but I love it anyway. I can't help it. Sure, it's silly. It's laughable. It's way too sentimental. It's even pathetic at times.

7th Heaven (1996–2007)

I'd be better off without it

[5 February 2000]

This is a show that most people regard as being "moral" and "ethical". Where exactly is the moral in "7th Heaven (1996)"? What we have here is a show about the father of the family, he is (of course) the only one with a job. He supports the entire family, doesn't allow his daughter to date guys, makes all the money and all the decisions, while the pretty, blond little wife has to stay home all day and make sandwiches for the kids, cook dinner, clean the house, bake muffins and tilt her head and give her husband that adorable, innocent smile and a kiss on the cheek when he comes home after a hard day's work. What is this, the stone age?!

This show is just like "Little House on the Prairie (1974)". The only difference is that "7th Heaven (1996)" takes place more than a hundred years later. Did we never get any farther than this? This is the most unrealistic thing I have ever seen. A lot of tv-shows and movies are unrealistic (Terminator, Star Wars, Dead Alive, Rumble In The Bronx, I could go on and on all day), but there is a big difference: "7th Heaven (1996)" regards itself as being a so-called realistic show about a family living in a deeply religious little town. I mean come on, a mother who gets furious at her daughter for putting on make-up. She's 14 for crying out loud!!! Get real mom!

NOTE: I have nothing against religion and/or religious people, but is just too much for me to handle. If this is Seventh Heaven, I don't want to go there.

Thunderbolt (1995)

One of Jackie's worst

[2 February 2000]

I'm a die hard Jackie Chan fan, but "Thunderbolt" is, along with "Battle Creek Brawl/The Big Brawl" and "Cannonball Run" the worst of Jackie Chan's movies.

When you sit down to watch a Jackie Chan movie, what do you expect? Cunning stunts, cool fighting scenes, slapstick, silly comedy etc etc. There are two, maybe three fighting scenes in "Thunderbolt" and they're pretty good. But the stunts aren't much to cheer for, the only thing we get is crashing cars and car chases. Which I totally despise. And there aren't a lot of comedy either. The lack of comedy, that I can live with. Because after all, this is more of a serious film, which isn't a bad thing at all, since Jackie gets a chance to prove to everyone that he really can act and that he's not just a Cantonese Buster Keaton clone with a big nose.

The second thing I have a big problem with the directing and the camera work. Gordon Chan (a relative?) does a pretty bad job directing, using lots of close ups and fast cuts, which makes it hard to get a grip of what's really happening. He should take a close look at what Jackie did as a director, especially in "The Armour Of God" and "Operation Condor". Also, trying to make slow motion sequences by simply slowing down 24 frames/sec footage... Not a good idea. It'll look like crap, to be blunt. It would have looked a lot better with at least 48 frames per second.

This might seem very pedantic, but I'm afraid these little details ruined the movie for me, although the all the actors did great jobs. Sorry.

The Spy in the Green Hat (1967)

If you think Austin Powers is the best James Bond spoof, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[8/10 · 1 January 2000]

I'm a huge fan of "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.", both the classic TV-show and the movies. None of the U.N.C.L.E. movies are bad, but there's a couple of them which could have been a lot better. For example the last movie "How to Steal the World (1968)" which was basically just a couple of TV-episodes thrown together. It was terribly unfunny and the Robert Vaughn and David McCallum just seem embarrassed to be there. Then there's "Karate Killers, The (1967)" which was one of the funniest but with a very weak plot, it seemed as though they came up with a plot in five minutes which was merely content with laughable scenes and quirky situations.

"Spy in the Green Hat, The (1966)" on the other hand, is both exciting AND funny. Especially the scene where Napoleon Solo (Robert Vaughn) hides from THRUSH agents under a young woman's (the incredibly cute Letícia Román) bed and is caught by the woman's grandmother (Penny Santon), who is forcing Solo to marry the young woman. He successfully escapes, but is hunted by a legion of stereotyped Italian gangsters. Now that's comedy.

All the actors, including among others Janet Leigh and Jack Palance, give wonderful perfomances. Particularly Palance who probably is the only actor in the movie business who can overact in a good way.

The 60's in a nutshell, don't miss it for the world.

The Old Lady and the Pigeons (1996)

"They eat weird stuff, like horse. And donkey. And goat's cheese!"

[30 December 1999]

An absolutely splendid French short about a (to say the least) starving gendarme who discovers a lady feeding pigeons in the park and dresses up like a pigeon in a desperate attempt to get food. Strange indeed. Very nicely done, it really captures the atmosphere of Paris. Great animation, odd story, and the fat American tourists are just too damn funny.

Ruby Gentry (1952)

Heston deserves better than this.

[3/10 · 4 December 1999]

The only reason I rented "Ruby Gentry" in the first place was because the almighty Charlton Heston was in it, but not even he could save it. I got a little suspicious when I saw Jennifer Jones' name in the opening credits. After seeing her awful performance in "Duel In The Sun (1946)" just a few days earlier, I can honestly say she is not one of my favorite actresses, that's for sure. Her portrayal of a Mexican was the most unconvincing I've seen, apart from... well, Charlton Heston in "Touch Of Evil (1958)". Sorry Charlton, but you could never be a believable Mexican. Not even with a little moustache.

Anyway, "Ruby Gentry" reminded me a lot of "Gone With The Wind (1939)" for some reason. It's about a woman (Jones) marrying a man (Karl Malden) instead of the bloke she truly loves (Heston). I don't want to spoil it for anyone, so let's just say the movie is not nearly as good as the story and the cast might suggest. Let's go through the flaws, shall we?

Firstly, there's Jennifer Jones. Not a very good performance. Second, Charlton Heston's role. Letting him play such a one-tracked character is an insult to the greatest actor of all time. I don't understand how he could choose to do this movie. I don't know. He never gets a chance to prove his might, Heston comes off much better when he plays a more three-dimensional character, like he did in for example "Ben Hur (1959)". Finally, there's the finale. It's so boring and conventional I don't even want to talk about it.

Karl Malden, however, does an excellent job, but that doesn't help much. All in all, a movie that had great potential and a promising cast, but I'm afraid they screwed it up big time.