Reviews
The Mummy (1999)
Fun Action Film!
Before I posted my review of this film, I read all the other comments here. And the one thing that struck me as a common feature was "plot holes". I must question - do you people even KNOW what a "plot hole" is? Perhaps the story-line in this film was weak, but there were no plot holes - it was a cohesive story with every event discussed. Were there a few "leaps of faith"? Sure, but then again, we are talking about resurrecting the dead here!
I am a Brendan Fraser fan. His range is incredible. His goofiness in films like "George of the Jungle" and "Dudley Do-Right" is endearing. Yet, as shown in films like "Gods and Monsters", he can carry a serious film and be brilliant in it. In "The Mummy", Fraser now proves his talent in action/adventure films.
Considering that the very purpose of this film - much like the original - was to suspend belief, I thought this remake was one of the best action/special effects films of 1999 (far better than "Star Wars: Episode 1"). More importantly, of the recent "monster remakes" (Dracula, Frankenstein), I found "The Mummy" to be the best. The effects were astounding. I will say this - between the 1999 films like "The Matrix", "The Mummy", "Star Wars: Episode 1" and "The Haunting", the effects films of 2000 and beyond have quite a feat to overcome to appear fresh. Besides the astounding effects (which put 1998's "Godzilla" to shame), I felt that this film did have a story that was not only humorous, but upbeat. There were a few scenes that created surprise (and if you were a child, you could have been scared - I heard as much from the children in the theater), but mostly the film was fun to watch. The acting was perfect given the simplicity of the story.
Of course, this brings me to the story. Was it too simple? In many ways, yes, and this would be the film's only shortcoming. The "romance" story was very simple, but then, that was not the main plot. There were some historical inaccuracies and character development was limited. Of course, this whole adventure was supposed to take place over a series of days, not weeks, months or years. Therefore, we learned all that was needed given our brief involvement as spectators in these character's lives.
I have since purchased the DVD version of this film and watch it at least once a week. The DVD is filled with all sorts of "goodies" that make this film even more fun.
If you want a fun action film, "The Mummy" is it. If you want a "brilliant" story, then wait until the end of the year when the studios release their Oscar winner-wannabes. But for early summer fun, this film was perfect.
Rating: 3.5 stars out of 4
The Dark Side of the Sun (1988)
For Brad Pitt Fans Only
One can immediately tell that this film was made very early in Pitt's career and it makes one appreciate how far Brad Pitt has come in his acting ability.
For those who love Pitt simply for his looks, sorry, but we don't even get to see him, in the flesh, for the first half of the film. Pitt's character has a skin disorder that makes him sensitive to all light. Outside, he wears a complete leather suit that covers all of his body (barring eyes and breathing holes). Inside, he sits in near complete darkness. Pitt's character tires of living this type of life and decides to risk death by walking outside without his leather protection. At this point we get to see a young Brad Pitt act, which isn't all that well. The improvement one sees in Pitt's acting ability becomes very clear when one compares Pitt's performance in Dark Side of the Sun to films like 12 Monkeys or Se7en.
Dark Side of the Sun is not a horrible film, it just has a very simple story. Boy is ill. Boy lives life as best he can. One day, boy meets girl. Boy decides to risk death for girl. Not much else really happens that makes this film stand-out from this cliche story-line. If it had just a bit more character development so that we might actually feel something for Pitt's character or his ever-loving father, the film might have been more interesting.
Considering this is Pitt's first film, he's not that bad. Even at this early stage, it's difficult to take one's eyes from the screen whenever Pitt is present. Pitt has a very strong screen presence that has helped make him a star. But sadly, I feel the film relied a bit too much on this weak story-line and on Pitt to carry the film.
If Pitt or anyone else were to do this film today in a more "Hollywood" style, it might actually be a good "tear-jerker". However, as is, I would state that this is a film best left for fans of Pitt. Anyone else would probably find this film poorly acted, written and directed. I give this film a 4/10.
Titanic (1997)
Worst Actor for DiCaprio in Titanic!
Many teenage girls, with too much time on their hands, apparently were furious with the Academy for not even nominating Leonardo DiCaprio for a Best Actor award. Well ladies, I can tell you why - he stunk! That year, people like Jack Nicholson and Matt Damon were nominated and for good reason, they know how to act.
The rest of the cast in Titanic was brilliant. They portrayed people from early this century. In contrast, DiCaprio came acted like some "aw shucks" kid from 1997. He didn't blend at all making his performance the weakest part of this film. Add that to a story that's been told a million times over, and Titanic becomes a weak movie overall.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
The best film ever made.
I love today's movies and today's actors. But if I were to name my favorite movie of all time, I would have to go back to more than 50 years ago to a film called "It's a Wonderful Life". This movie has become a holiday classic, but it's much more. A movie that makes us realize the value of life, family and friends transcends any season. This film could have come off as overly sentimental had it not been for the superb acting of what I believe is the best actor of all time, namely Jimmy Stewart. His performance, along with a brilliant Donna Reed, makes this a film for all ages and all times.