redcrossaint Reviews

Two for the Road (1967)

Defining the 60's

[10/10 · 18 December 2022]

Two for the Road (1967)

4/4

"Two for the Road" is one of the funniest movies about relationships that I have ever seen. It is insightful, humorous, and even accurate. It is also a screwball work of art. I loved watching this movie unfold. It made me laugh, it made me sad, and it didn't bore me at all. One of the things that also stands out more is the direction of Staney Donen, who remains one of the most capable directors in the way of a visual. This movie is filled with absolutely dazzling visuals. It's full of great music, also - another plus.

"Two for the Road" follows a couple, Joanna and Mark (Audrey Hepburn and Albert Finney), who have been married for ten unhappy years. In the film, we see them ten years before - meeting, falling in love, being together, and finally, getting married. Also on their trip is a couple with a particularly annoying child, named Ruthie. She is one of the funniest parts of the film.

The film is filled with wit, intelligence, and general humor. I loved watching the characters, and how the story unfolds. It's a fresh, original, 60's classic, complete with wonderful music, beautiful costumes, excellent performances, and eye-dazzling visuals and direction. I would highly recommend you see it.

Black Widow (1987)

The heiress, or the money she received after he *mysteriously* died

[9/10 · 18 December 2022]

Black Widow (1987)

3.5/4

"Black Widow" is a functional thriller, an entertaining motion picture, and a nicely constructed story. It has fascinating themes - it's smart, well-plotted, entertaining, and challenging. The two lead actresses, Debra Winger and Theresa Russell, are very good, and the supporting players of the cast lend a big hand.

"Black Widow" follows an ambitious and hardworking FBI agent, Alexandra (Debra Winger). After realizing there has been an unusual string of deaths of older, rich men and a disappearing wife for each of them, a woman named Catharine (Theresa Russell). Alexandra is the only one who really believes in the case, because, after all, none of the men were classified as a homicide. So, she takes the case upon herself, and follows her around different locations, eventually meeting her in Hawaii. It's there she disguises herself, and becomes friends with her. As the film goes on, it becomes more and more interesting as Alexandra learns more about Catharine.

The movie's biggest strength is that of the theatrically unpredictable and fresh Debra Winger and the refreshing Theresa Russell. Both are spectacular, and the movie is totally worth seeing it because of that. The director, Bob Rafelson ("Five Easy Pieces"), does a fine job building suspense and intrigue. It's a very Hitchcock-like thriller, and at a level with his style because of the superb performances of Winger and Russell. I'd say the film's only flaw is the storyline, which has been done before. But the rest of the film is truly great, right up to the very last twist - which is a good one.

Wonder Boys (2000)

School days

[9/10 · 23 November 2022]

Wonder Boys (2000)

3.5/4

"She was a junkie for the printed word, and lucky for me, I was her manufacturer" - Earl Tripp.

It's difficult to explain the plot of "Wonder Boys" - in some ways, it reminds me of Martin Scorsese's masterpiece "After Hours" in that it follows a complex anti-hero over a chaotic and all-over-the-place narrative, instead of one. Earl Tripp (Michael Douglas) is a conflicted college English professor, whose wife has just left him, while he sets up for a new chapter. Over the course of two nights, he becomes involved in one of his student's lives, James (Tobey Maguire), and meets up with his old friend and struggling publisher Terry Crabtree (Robert Downey Jr.).

"Wonder Boys" is an interesting, dynamic and character-based motion picture, and the characterizations are very convincing. Michael Douglas, Tobey Maguire, and Robert Downey, Jr. Are superb as the main characters; Douglas especially gives a great vision of his own character.

It is a wonderful film. Funny, witty and intelligent are also perfect words to describe it. Director Curtis Hanson works with a great screenplay and superb performances. His directing style is refreshingly subtle and laid back, which creates a comfortable environment and cozy moments within the characters and the film. It's rich and entertaining filmmaking, just as Hanson's "L. A. Confidential" was. It is also odd and eccentric, containing some true treasures such as Rip Torn as a more successful novelist in which Douglas hates, and Downey playing a wild editor. Maguire works well with the rest of the cast, too, and everyone has chemistry. I found the experience of "Wonder Boys" enriching and entertaining.

The only flaw with the film is that it's a little uneven at parts, sometimes too long. But I think that it makes up for it with its superb moments.

True Stories (1986)

David Byrne, a superbly gifted and talented performer

[9/10 · 23 November 2022]

True Stories (1986)

3.5/4

In "True Stories", David Byrne created a wonderful, completely original music movie that challenges the genre, while also creating a wonderful piece of entertainment. David Byrne's film shows a talent for comic timing and colorful moments with vibrant and even eccentric characters. That's another thing this film definitely is: eccentric, but in the best way, the odd, offbeat, and interesting eccentric.

"True Stories" is a movie about the strange, colorful characters of a small, musical, quirky Texas town, and a local parade, talent show, and celebration. But throughout the movie, we're mainly accompanied by the Narrator (David Byrne), and townsman Louis Fyne (John Goodman).

David Byrne characterizes his film as a "bunch of people in Texas", and in fact, it's just that. It's got a simple plot, but is uniquely colorful and vibrant from its opening. It's quite amazing to see a bustling 1986 Texas through a visionary like David Byrne's eyes. It's a truly cool movie, and David Byrne is brilliant in it.

Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)

"Grosse" mixes director George Armitage's original style with Cusack's own swift and original style

[9/10 · 24 October 2022]

Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)

3.5/4

"Grosse Pointe Blank" follows a professional assassin, Martin Blank (John Cusack), invited back to his hometown of Grosse Pointe from Los Angeles to his 1986 high school reunion, which puts him in some interesting circumstances with his old girlfriend, Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver) and puts him back together with old friends and faces.

"Grosse Pointe Blank" is a movie that beautifully mixes comedy with drama, and even a little bit of thriller with black comedy. There are a lot of vibrant characters in the film. It also has a great soundtrack and direction to go with its colorful characters, and it's done very well. I loved the whole feel of the film, too. It's amusing, and I'd say it's quite brilliant. It works on multiple different levels, as a genre piece for both different kinds of action, comedy and thriller, and a dashing dose of originality. I found it a marvelous entertainment; I love the whole film.

I would compare the film with a certain kind of "Pulp Fiction" and "True Lies" which are both great films of different genres and brilliance. But where this film most excels is director George Armitage, who gives the movie a wonderful, slick feel and a great directing job altogether, like he did with his previous film, "Miami Blues", seven years earlier. The screenplay is good, too, by Tom Jankiewicz, D. V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, and John Cusack, and contains some witty lines, such as a conversation between Debi and Martin (Driver and Cusack), which reads excellently, quoted: "Debi: I should have worn a skirt. Marty: I should have brought my gun. Debi: What was that? Marty: Should be fun!" I laughed very hard at this moment. But there is everything for great entertainment, and I enjoyed this film very much. I highly recommend the film. It's an original, bracing movie.

High Fidelity (2000)

A man of music and women

[10/10 · 24 October 2022]

High Fidelity (2000)

4/4

"High Fidelity" follows an obsessive music nerd, Rob, played by John Cusack. He is a compulsive list maker, and life is mainly made up of the (top five) loves of his life and a small record store he owns. He reminisces on those break-ups, while coping with a current break-up.

I found this film exhilarating. It's lively, energetic, and incredibly fun to watch. I loved watching it because of the rhythm it has, and the sheer construction; I wouldn't hesitate to call it a great film because of how entertaining it is. But my favorite part of the film, though, is probably stars John Cusack and Jack Black; I honestly think they give the movie a brilliant energy. They are superb, and a true standout.

One of my other favorite elements of the film is the plot, which makes for great comedy; Frears's direction makes it even better. He's, I think, incredibly underrated, and has made movies like the masterful "The Grifters" which is a triumph. "Fidelity" is also a great triumph, and a shimmering success. It's wonderful to watch unfold. I loved the experience; the music, the characters, the story, the direction, the dialogue, and of course, the actors.

The American President (1995)

Capra fantasy of the highest order

[9/10 · 11 October 2022]

The American President (1995)

3.5/4

"The American President" follows President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas), preparing for re-election. To help his campaign, he and his campaign bring in Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening), a small, mainly unknown and struggling environmental activist. At first, she's opposed to him, but eventually, he begins to fall for him, and slowly, she does, too. Their relationship is controversial, though, as it soon becomes a main perception of Shepherd, and it causes both ups and downs.

The story is very good. It's a great Capra-esque romance; it's an old fashioned sort of Hollywood movie that is as well made as the classics. I enjoyed their love story, and Fox's and Bening's chemistry is superb. The movie was written by the great Aaron Sorkin, and the screenplay is extraordinary. I loved his screenplay and vision very much.

The film was also directed by Rob Reiner, who is right at home with this sort of feel good material. It's well directed, and it even made me remember "When Harry Met Sally..." which is just as good. His lighthearted comic touch is perfect. But what is most shocking to me is this is the movie he made after the wretched "North" and shows me that he still had it.

This is a very good movie, entertaining and fantastical as it is well made and well done. I enjoyed it very much, because of Douglas, Bening, Sorkin's screenplay and Reiner's wonderful direction. It's a fun movie.

Rumor Has It... (2005)

If "The Graduate" was a sitcom

[5/10 · 3 October 2022]

Rumor Has It... (2005)

2/4

I can't say I liked "Rumor Has It..." per se, but I can say that I enjoyed it. It's pretty bad, all things considered, and I know that. But it exists in its own time capsule of a time 17 years ago that could never be replicated today. It was when sitcom material was all the rom-com rage in Hollywood, and a time where Jennifer Aniston could be engaged to Mark Ruffalo in a movie. On its own terms, it has bad dialogue, acting, and some pretty bland direction and storytelling from the incredibly talented Rob Reiner. But yet, on those terms, I didn't find it boring, probably because I enjoyed just how absurd of an idea this film possesses as its 'story' (set-up). But first, let me introduce you to the 'plot'.

"Rumor Has It..." follows a woman named Sarah Huttinger (Jennifer Aniston), who's engaged to Jeff Daly (Mark Ruffalo), and flies out to have Jeff meet her parents in Pasadena, California. While she's there, through a string of events and some old faces, she eventually stumbles upon the fact that her parents may have just been the inspiration for Charles Webb's 1963 novel "The Graduate" and the subsequent movie four years later. This causes her to eventually re-evaluate her whole engagement, and her life at home. The rest of the film centers mainly on her discovery and the subsequent drama as a result. It also has a superb cast - besides Aniston and Ruffalo, it also stars Kevin Costner, Richard Jenkins, Christopher McDonald, Mena Suvari, and Kathy Bates in a small role.

Jennifer Aniston in the film feels very at home, and I think she really carries the movie through. She's got a cozy feeling with the film, and she feels the most at home. Without her, I think this movie would have been abominable; it's not good, but it's not awful, thanks to her, and maybe even Ruffalo. The rest of the cast sometimes hits it; but other times it doesn't. The plot doesn't take us anywhere, and is a sitcom, if nothing else. Mainly, it's a set-up, a mini-punchline, and a dramatic aftermath that takes us through the back half of the movie. Seen as it was made in 2005, too, it's got a sappy, cheesy ending that frankly ruined the movie a little for me.

But in the end, I shall remember this film as a guilty pleasure; it's really quite bad, but it isn't boring or not even uninteresting, I would argue. I admit to liking the film, but not that much - it's ruined by no plot and some absurd assets.

Peter's Friends (1992)

Stuffy British reunion needed better material

[4/10 · 3 October 2022]

Peter's Friends (1992)

1.5/4

"Peter's Friends" follows a group of college students coming back together after 10 years at their friend Peter's family mansion for a reunion. Along the way, each finds that something has happened / changed in everybody, as they spend a weekend together and get to know one another once again.

Yuck. "Peter's Friends" is a bad movie from its opening to its final moments, a movie that's so full of itself that you can't help but sit there and wait (*patiently*) for the film to end. It's one of those movies that is a reunion story, and granted, there are some reunion movies done well, but this film is done poorly, and we hate each one of these characters that we get to know. One of the main problems with the movie is that it's absurdly manipulative and spends a ridiculously long time on the character's joy of seeing each other again, and presents awkward situation after another. There's a lot of predictable cliches, such as the person who everybody has not seen in a while and drastically changes, or the one who "hasn't changed" and the others who react. These are the kind of characters that mainly dominate the story, and it becomes excruciating after a while.

It relies on known cliches of British people, and thanks to Kenneth Branagh's wooden direction and the generally pedestrian screenplay, it ends up like every other reunion movie, and I just about wanted to check the boxes off on what was going to happen next.

One of the actually passable parts of the movie, though, is Emma Thompson. She's actually pretty good with her thinly written character, and she had me interested in her character and what was going to happen. The rest of the time, though, I was not as amused. It's just so weak, a major disappointment for sure, and an awkward experience. It reminds me of when you're talking to somebody at a party, but you and them don't talk for a little bit, leaving you feeling awkward and uncomfortable. That's a lot like this film. I also feel that it's a movie that would have better suited the theater, and should have been more thought out.

But what eventually made me angry at the film was the eventual coming out on Peter's part, where he reveals that he's actually gay. I feel it's a great addition to a movie in this sort of style, but it ruins itself and backfires when it's shrugged off and dealt with at a sitcom approach; it's something rare to find in movies in general, to see something like that, but it's handled poorly.

And as for the rest of the film, I found it very slow and uninteresting. It's stuffy, predictable and a general waste of time, even with the great Emma Thompson.

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Another Shakespeare-Branagh adaptation, this time very entertaining, too

[8/10 · 28 September 2022]

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

3/4

I usually don't like Kenneth Branagh, but I feel when he's working with Shakespeare that he does a great job. "Much Ado About Nothing" is Branagh's second Shakespeare adaptation, after "Henry V" of three years prior. But here, as not with the insufferable "Peter's Friends" or some of his other movies, Branagh is able to garner more interest and believability for us within Shakespeare. Sometimes I even wonder about Branagh's acting ability, which can vary from fantastic to mediocre. He's very good here.

But, this isn't a movie with just Branagh, you see - he got the big guns - Emma Thompson, Keanu Reeves, Michael Keaton, Kate Beckinsale and Denzel Washington to star alongside him. One of the best parts of the movie, even, is Branagh and Thompson, who are absolutely superb together. It is a singularly remarkable cast, especially with them, too.

Anyway, the film is exactly an adaptation of the play, which follows a group of people, gathering together a week before a young couple, Claudio and Hero (Robert Sean Leonard and Kate Beckinsale), get married. The gathering also inspires to set the known bachelor, Benedick (Branagh), up with a woman needing a husband, Beatrice (Thompson), who don't like each other at first, but grow to become aware of each other and the plan for them. Essentially, as with many of Shakespeare's works, there are all kinds of economies and all kinds of convolutedness going on.

For a little bit, I had a little trouble following the film, but I was always entertained and able to keep track. It took me a while to put all the pieces that I know together, but I found the experience tremendous anyway, and a superb story to tell. No doubt, the reason I was able to keep track was because of Branagh's screenplay, which is actually very nicely written.

Another thing that the film does so well is its absolutely breathtaking photography, which, for lack of a better word, is simply stunning. The score is sweeping, too, with great music accompanying the film as it plays beautifully and breathtakingly. But I think the reason I like the film so much is how everything comes together - especially the cast, which are very good together. Even with the Shakespearian dialogue and intricate plot, it represents fine entertainment, no doubt because it's pitched so warm and well-made.

Suburban Commando (1991)

6'7 space invader taking over

[5/10 · 26 September 2022]

Suburban Commando (1991)

2/4

Some movies could only be made within the barriers of somewhere around 1989 to 1992. There are some things that are instantly recognizable from different eras, like swing dancing or flappers from the 1920's, or post-war 1950's suburban homes. There is a movie that is instantly recognizable from 1991, too, a movie that stars Hulk Hogan, the famous (now infamous, with all that behind-the-scenes drama over the past years) wrestler, a fish out of water tale, and a campily entertaining screenplay and generally genial direction. That movie is "Suburban Commando" - and boy, is it recognizable from its era.

By the early 1990's, Hulk Hogan had reached superstardom. He was huge - and had already (or at least attempted to) conquer Hollywood two years earlier with the successful "No Holds Barred" which is also a movie that could only be made in 1989. He had tried to venture out into a real movie career; like Arnold Schwarzenegger (which this film actually has references to) or Chuck Norris, both professional athletes like Hogan before becoming massive movie stars. "Suburban Commando" was a genuine failure, however, and nothing really came of it. Hogan, you can tell, really wanted a movie career. Well, with this film, I don't think it's hard to see why he's not in a lot of movies.

"Suburban Commando" is your classic early 90's fairly tale. It literally opens on a direct copy of the original beginning of 1977's "Star Wars" which shows how desperate this film is. Hogan stars as a galactic hero who's just managed to save himself, but must escape, where he must go to earth. He remarks, "I hate Earthlings..." (while speaking English, of course). After landing in a random location, Hogan ends up with a common suburban family of two kids and a husband and wife (played by Christopher Lloyd and Shelley Duvall). In order to charge his spaceship, he must reside on Earth to wait for his spaceship, where he ends up living with the suburban family, and has a hard time fitting in with the "Earthlings" - which, to him, are quite bizarre creatures.

Nothing new here. The story is phoned in, really, and Hogan cannot act whatsoever, delivering a performance of "grrrrrrr" for just about the entire movie. I laughed a lot at him.

But, to be honest, this is a movie that is very obviously aimed at children, and is very appealing to children. I would be lying to say I didn't enjoy it in my own guilty pleasure kind of way. There are actually a few funny moments; for example, there are moments in Frank Cappello's script that are actually very witty, as in a scene where Hogan claims his lack of knowledge about the human kind and American culture comes from being French. A very funny moment; another comes from Hogan explaining his intergalactic duties to a next door neighbor who's a war veteran, to which he exclaims, "things certainly have changed since '44!" I liked this scene too. "Suburban Commando" is very much like a sitcom of the era, with some unoriginal ideas and laughable dialogue. But I enjoyed it enough to say that it's not really that bad - just mediocre, with some standout unintentional laughs.

White Men Can't Jump (1992)

Basketball con jobs

[9/10 · 26 September 2022]

White Men Can't Jump (1992)

3.5/4

This is a fun movie. I enjoyed it very much - it's on a level of its own in the sports movie genre, one where the filmmaking is superbly done, and the suspense is overpowering. This is the kind of project that relies on inherent chemistry between two stars, and here, Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes do truly have it.

"White Men Can't Jump" follows Sidney and Billy (Snipes and Harrelson), who are both incredibly talented at both basketball and hustling. After meeting at a little public basketball game with Billy beating Sidney, a complete stranger, Sidney meets Billy and forms a partnership with him in the hustling game. Along the way, they encounter all kinds of players, and even cons, while they also juggle the women in their lives, Gloria and Rhonda (Rosie Perez and Tyra Ferrell).

Rosie Perez, who I haven't really cared for in the past, is actually very good here. Her squeaky voice does kind of suit the character, and it works, I think. Snipes and Harrelson are absolutely superb on the screen. It's one of those movies where you're sitting on the edge of your seat for almost the whole movie to see what's going to happen next. It's complex storytelling, well-written, directed and crafted by director Ron Shelton (who wrote and directed "Bull Durham" just four years earlier). Shelton really takes advantage of his stars; his screenplay gives them something great to work with, too.

The only flaw I found with this otherwise incredibly fun movie were some pretty prevalent Black sterotypes. For example, one of the men that Harrelson and Snipes face off has to run off the court and rob a convience store because he doesn't have enough money to gamble with Harrelson and Snipes. Other than that, though, I found it a lot of fun to watch. I'm not that big a sports person, so when a love a sports movie, I really do. It's not perfect, but it's really good. I would highly recommend it.

The Batman (2022)

Brooding vision of good versus evil

[8/10 · 25 September 2022]

The Batman (2022)

3/4

One of the biggest movie events of the year is undoubtedly "The Batman" which has been out since March, and has not died down. Is it worth all of the hype? Well, yes, and no. Yes, because this film really does deliver; it's directed beautifully by Matt Reeves, who really keeps the suspense going. And no, because this movie is not perfect. But it is not boring, uninteresting or slow. For 176 minutes, which is a little long, I was never bored.

The plot is mainly of all the other Batman films, that classic story element of good versus evil. This time, Batman is back in Gotham once again, and a sadistic, dark and ruthless serial killer is on the loose, calling himself "The Riddler". He's killing off Gotham slowly, choosing the highest figures and officials in the city, and professing that they are nothing but corrupt. As his plan begins to slowly unfold into the public's eye, Batman and the Gotham police must work together to stop him.

It's really, really dark; and maybe not even worthy of a PG-13, but rather, a higher R rating. It's tonally similar to "Se7en" and "Batman Returns," but a little more ridiculous, possessing a mostly one note performance from Robert Pattinson as Batman. He's very macho and brooding, and that's just about it. But even with Pattinson, it's really quite dark, maybe even as dark as the deeply disturbing work of Tim Burton's "Batman Returns" and even, maybe, as dark as "Se7en" which is actually very similar in plot, too. The rest of the performances are fine, too, Jeffrey Wright, Paul Dano and John Turturro especially. There are a few scenes with John Turturro, and one with a monologue, and they are some of the best in the movie - Turturro gives a fantastic and creepy performance, and the less about him said the better.

One of the main flaws with the movie, though, is that it doesn't need to be 176 minutes long. It could have easily been around 145 minutes, which would have worked more in its favor - it'd be more interesting and compelling, because around the end, I started to wonder just how much time was left. There are individual scenes of great intensity and suspense, but there is too much talky drama, unnecessary violence, chases, fights, and ridiculous and goofy cliches played with the utmost seriousness. Another flaw is Pattinson, which I already mentioned, and Colin Farrell as the penguin, who looks absolutely ridiculous in his terrible old man make-up and performs as a totally unconvincing idiot.

The movie as a whole, though, is mainly a mixed bag - there are some great elements, but yet, some not so great ones. Matt Reeves does an excellent directorial job, and the film is never less than scary with Paul Dano as the Riddler, and the ever growing threat of Gotham City's last days. I have to say though - I enjoyed it, very much, actually, because I was taken with it. It looks absolutely stunning, dark, sinister and complex, and leaves you a little disturbed. It works as a whole, and I think it's a movie from this year that really delivers.

Reality Bites (1994)

The 90's generation with wit and believability

[9/10 · 25 September 2022]

Reality Bites (1994)

3.5/4

"Reality Bites" is a special movie with a good screenplay, direction and performances. It reminded me of what a fresh, original film can be, and one that stays with you for long after you watch it. Director Ben Stiller is capable of great visual style and ideas, and I enjoyed the film for that, too. The screenplay is also very well written, and made me laugh - a lot. I found the whole film very funny, and found myself laughing along with it and enjoying it.

The plot of the film is a fairly basic one. Lelaina Pierce (Winona Ryder) is a young woman, a documentary filmmaker, who's trying to find her way. She, along with her other Gen X friends, have graduated from college. Troy Dyer (Ethan Hawke) is her boyfriend, and has a somewhat rocky relationship with her: they're very clearly in love, but have a hard time with each other. Finally, they break off, sending Lelaina and Troy to their own separate ways in Houston, Texas, where life becomes even more complicated with Lelaina's Gen X friends and her increasing want for love and Troy is unsatisfied.

The film's basic but fresh plot really aids the film in general. Director Ben Stiller's engaging direction is one of the best qualities of the film, which is really well wrought in general. One of the standouts in the film is John Mahoney, who plays a TV host that Ryder works for, and is warm on the outside, but incredibly cold on the inside. Ryder eventually does something to him, which I won't spoil. But his performance reminded me of his role in "Say Anything...", it's just that good. Another joy is Ethan Hawke and Winona Ryder together, both great on the screen. Ryder is a fabulous actress; I think she really deserved more like this. Something else I also liked about the movie is Ben Stiller's actual character in the movie. He plays Leliana's boyfriend at one point; he's very good, but I think the most memorable aspect is that he actually gives himself a part of a jerk. It's daring and wonderful, and especially puts a new spin on things. He's good in both aspects.

It may be an old fashioned story, but it's made into a rich film of great characterization and direction. There is so much wit and humanity in these characters, too, and we truly believe them. There's also a lot of culture and intelligence; a rarity for movies these days. I enjoyed it a lot.

Mars Attacks! (1996)

Invasion of the ensemble cast terrorized by aliens

[8/10 · 25 September 2022]

Mars Attacks! (1996)

3/4

"Mars Attacks" is a classic alien invasion sci-fi B movie tribute, this time headed by a massive list of recognizable icons. Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Martin Short, Sarah Jessica Parker, Michael J. Fox, Tom Jones, Rod Steiger, Lukas Haas, Natalie Portman, Sylvia Sidney, Paul Winfield, Pam Grier, Jack Black, Joe Don Baker, Christina Applegate and Barbet Schroeder all star in the film; if that's not a cast, then what is. The story is not quite as good, but the entertainment is undeniable, because Tim Burton has true style.

The film takes a simple premise. Aliens begin to surround earth, and humans begin to panic. The incompetent president, played by Jack Nicholson, and his wife and daughter, played by Glenn Close and Natalie Portman, are fearful, and the rest of the humans are trying to figure a way not to fear. But once the aliens arrive, it's clear that they're just as advanced as us, with a sick, cruel and dark sense of humor and strategic minds.

Based on the Topps carding card series, the film has a little basic plot, but it works because some of the humor works so well. I laughed quite a lot during the film. It's clearly intended as a B sci-fi movie with an A list Hollywood resume. No doubt that Tim Burton is tributing that kind of a movie; the kind of movie Ed Wood (which he also made two years earlier) would have made. But one of the most clever aspects of the film is its satire of human reaction, which at times made me really laugh.

It's probably intended as what it turned out to be: a campy, enjoyable and ridiculous sci-fi fantasy - the kind they used to make in the 50's. It may be over the top, but it's just as fun.

Turning Red (2022)

Pandas and boy bands

[8/10 · 24 September 2022]

Turning Red (2022)

3/4

"Turning Red" was released earlier this year, and has since received some mixed reception. I've even heard some people call it "the worst Pixar movie that they've made" and some have called it a masterpiece. I admit to really liking the film. I enjoyed a lot of it, and admired a lot of it too. The visual style is massively vibrant, colorful and eye popping, which is my main reason, I think, of enjoying it as much as I did.

Set in Toronto, 2002, "Turning Red" follows 13 year old Mei, an ambitious and successful Chinese girl who is going through a period in her life like any girl does. But it all changes for her when she turns into a big red panda, which turns out to be something that she's inherited from her family, a characteristic that has carried down from generation to generation. Mei must learn to live with the panda, and deal with her own family and personal problems.

Mainly, the story is interesting, but the style is very much like anime. It's well done and thoroughly crafted, with a wonderful and compelling style. It was directed by Domee Shi, who made the absolutely brilliant "Bao" six years earlier. The drawing and directing style are very similar.

Overall, I enjoyed it much more than I expected, and thought it was a very well made Pixar film. It's not their best film, but it really is wonderful - a cultural representation of anime and different cultures, made into an enjoyable adolescent fairy tale.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Divorce battle style

[8/10 · 19 September 2022]

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

3/4

"Intolerable Cruelty" opens with a fantastic opening scene, and some beautifully designed opening credits. So far, so good - and just like that, the movie maintains itself all the way through. I was tremendously entertained by "Intolerable Cruelty" and found it very tolerable and uncruel. The screenplay was written with tremendous care and knowledge of romantic comedy itself. George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones have some kind of natural chemistry together; they make this movie wonderful.

The film follows an ambitious and successful lawyer, Miles (George Clooney), and a case involving a preying, beautiful wife, Marylin (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and an unsuspecting husband, Rex Rexroth (Edward Herrmann) in an affair. She's known for marrying rich men and divorcing them for her assets, and Rex is no exception - and so is the memorable Howard D. Doyle, played hilariously by Billy Bob Thornton in a screaming performance of a rich Texas tycoon. But as the case goes on, even though Miles represents the husband, he falls in love with the wife, and thus begins a challenge to get her, and earn her trust (which turns out to be much harder than he expects).

As mentioned, Clooney and Jones are absolutely wonderful together. They remind me somewhat of Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. They are that wonderful and enjoyable. The rest of the performances are great, too, like Geoffrey Rush, Edward Herrmann or Billy Bob Thornton's, which are very funny in themselves.

What I found eventually detracted from the film, however, was the unbelievable plot and predictable situations, which are often played for the ridiculousness of the moment. But their relationship is almost more fun because of it. Even though we know what'll happen, we're never bored or uninterested, and I think that's a tribute to the filmmaking.

Also detracting from the film are some unsatisfactory plot contrivances, such as a random character who's the oldest head of Miles's film. He's always painted as a frightening figure, with little light, lightning shining on his face, etc. But it bothered me because it really just wasted time instead of progressing the plot. There are some moments like this one in the film.

But, all in all, it's a classic battle of the sexes, funny and entertaining. Clooney and Jones and even the whole cast have wonderful chemistry. Here, the Coens, the directors ("Fargo") show the audience that they know how to make a romantic comedy, too, with their versatile and diverse talent. I don't think it's perfect, but I really enjoyed "Intolerable Cruelty" because so much of it was so much fun. Never once did I forget I was watching a cinematic romance, and enjoyed so much of the romance, too.

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

City adventures

[8/10 · 18 September 2022]

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

3/4

The first "Babe" was a cute, harmless and fun G-rated children's film with heart and compassion. It was also a smash hit, and was very successful, even being nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars that year. "Pig in the City," the sequel, is not quite that. In fact, it's much darker and sadder. It has a much more real life and frank narrative, and there were times where I really felt sad for these characters. But I also like this one better than the original, I think, because it felt more interesting than the original film. It's also more imaginative, I think, because the visuals for this film are utterly breathtaking, and the sets are more colorful than before. There's a lot more color this time around, too. Some scenes literally left my mouth agape; they were so inventive and beautiful that I couldn't help but sit in awe.

"Pig in the City" once again follows Babe, a talented, kind and generous, this time traveling to the big city to win back his farm, because his owner's debt is becoming more and more prominent. But problems immediately arise when her owner leaves their current hotel to make a call home, and one of the animals residing in the hotel takes her owner's luggage, which Babe immediately tries to get back. This gets him lost in the big city as the animals run away with it, and must figure a way to help himself.

George Miller, one of the most diverse and eclectic directors ("Mad Max" or "The Witches of Eastwick"), directed the film, and does a wonderful job. We believe in the little pig, and want her to succeed. His talents do legitimately add something to the film, and I believe he is one of the most original directors working today, and this film and a few others of his is my evidence.

In the middle, parts of the film do drag on a little bit too much, and the film does slow down a little bit. But even if it is not perfect, I enjoyed the film. It's both heartwarming and devastating, and is one of the most underrated and inventive kids films out there. But do be warned - this is not easy viewing - it's really sad, and sometimes even creepy, like Mickey Rooney's character (no spoilers...). It's also sometimes devastating. But in the end, I think it's a rewarding viewing experience, and I enjoyed it more than the original, which is quite something for a sequel - but this sequel is special.

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Before the studio system fell; a time where Hollywood was much more secret

[9/10 · 18 September 2022]

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

3.5/4

"Would that it were so simple." - Hobie Doyle

"Hail, Caesar!" was released six years ago, and is still being talked about. It got mainly a mixed reception, but I think that it's a really good film. It portrays one of the darkest times in Hollywood, and one of the most interesting, and gives us a real insight into what it was really like in Hollywood during the 50's. The screenplay provides us with plenty of interesting situations, ideas and even moments, and gives us a genuinely funny film. It's slow-paced, and takes its time, but it pays off in the end. It was directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, and excellently, too, because this is a beautifully directed and superbly made movie.

"Caesar" follows a studio head in the 50's, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), who's the main head of Capital Pictures. Everything seems to be going well, and currently, they're working on an epic retelling of Christ's life called "Hail, Caesar!", until one of the main stars of the picture, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), is kidnapped. He's taken and held ransom by a group of rogue communists making a statement in the historically rough and dark time in Hollywood history, the infamous McCarthy era, where stars were blacklisted left and right. Mannix is going to have to not only recover Whitlock, but make sure that nobody finds out about it, either. But he's also got a studio to run, which is proving more and more difficult with this new problem.

It is a visually dazzling film, using a sort of modern 2016 visual scheme combined with the 50's era Technicolor. As usual, I was incredibly impressed by Roger Deakin's sublime photography. The film has an incredible cast, too, which also features people like Ralph Fiennes, Alden Ehrenreich, Scarlett Johanson, Tilda Swinton playing two identical twins working in the press, Channing Tatum, Frances McDormand and Jonah Hill. All of the cast is excellent.

As mentioned, the film is very slowly paced, but in the end, it all adds up, as every minute is really worth it. All of its technical credits are excellent, and the story is also compelling in its own way. It's a movie of great style, and I loved the ambition and execution. The last 40 minutes are probably the best in the movie, however, as the finale builds up, and the film becomes more and more complex.

I'm usually a sucker for this kind of a 50's studio drama, and this time, it served; it's a great 50's drama in general, filled with believable moments and interest. It evokes a darker, more quiet time in Hollywood, and I was fascinated.

"Hail, Caesar!" is another very good film by the Coen brothers, excelling at different genres, interest and story. Would that it were so simple, though; there really is a lot to the film in general.

Babe (1995)

Talking animals

[7/10 · 18 September 2022]

Babe (1995)

3/4

"Babe" is a perfect movie for kids, because it is not only harmless and good natured, it's entertaining and charming for everybody, not just kids. It's a quiet, harmless film with some genuinely cute moments and emotion and even heart. Uncommon in most kid's films, so often, is heart and emotion, because, so often, they usually have robotic main characters and no emotion. That's what's refreshing about "Babe" which is that it has all of those things. It also has a very good screenplay, direction and fine acting from James Cromwell especially, who I felt was my favorite part of the film.

"Babe" follows a little pig named Babe, whose mother is taken away and is selected for a special event at the carnival. It's there that a farmer wins her in a game, and is able to take her home with him, and slowly but surely, the pig adapts to his surroundings and life on the farm with all the other kinds of animals. In this film, all the animals speak English, too.

In a word, "Babe" is charming. I enjoyed watching these animals speak English, and found the whole film especially adorable. It's one of those movies that is really hard to find something negative to say about, because it wins you over. Somewhat to my surprise, I really enjoyed it.

Three Thousand Years of Longing (2022)

"Longing" a superb vision of imagination

[9/10 · 18 September 2022]

Three Thousand Years of Longing (2022)

3.5/4

Seven years ago, George Miller, one of the most diverse talents working in Hollywood today (the man has made movies ranging from "The Witches of Eastwick" to "Happy Feet" to "Mad Max"), made "Mad Max: Fury Road," which has since been billed as a masterpiece. It is a masterpiece; one of the great action movies ever made. It also has the distinction of being one of the incredibly rare occurrences where the film not only lived up to the hype about it; it surpassed and lived above the hype. "Fury Road" is likely to be considered one of the great movies of all time, giving it a few years, just as "The Dark Knight" took a few years to be listed as one of the great movies people had ever seen.

Miller's follow-up couldn't be anymore different. This movie is one of the weirdest I've seen in years. It's so unconventional, rule-breaking, offbeat, and interesting... there are so many more adjectives to describe the film. But, of course, the public being the public, the film has absolutely tanked at the box office. It doesn't have the same appeal as "Transformers," or heck, even "Fury Road". It isn't a movie for the general public. It's a movie that requires you to think long and hard about it, even when you're watching it - and I respect any kind of movie that uses that technique. That also means that is going to be certifiably odd. This is an odd movie; but a bizarre, original and thoroughly engrossing odd movie.

It is tough for me to describe the visuals. They are visuals of another world; another time, another place... you name it. But they are breathtakingly beautiful. It's probably one of the most beautiful movies of the year, because frankly, I don't know if any other movie could live up to it, stylistically. The most distinctive thing about the movie, I think, is actually the visuals, sets, costumes and directorial flair (Miller).

"Longing" follows Alithea ('truthful' in Greek), played by Tilda Swinton, who's generally lonely in life, but is also an extremely educated and successful scholar in stories and mythology. On a conference trip to Istanbul, she encounters a mysterious 'jinn' (similar to a genie in Islamic fairy tales), played by Idris Elba, in her hotel room, who offers her exactly three wishes for his own freedom. But Alithea, as a scholar in this kind of a situation, knows that sometimes wishes can go wrong. The majority of the movie is mainly in her hotel room - but is made incredibly spellbinding by the jinn, who explains to her just how he got stuck in the place he is now over three thousand years, telling her tales of both how he knew wishes and curses to go wrong; in many ways, it could very well be interpreted as tales of what not to wish for.

I won't give anything else away. Idris Elba and Tilda Swinton, in their roles, are some of the best performances of the year. They are superb, illuminating these already beautiful visuals and tales with their fine acting skills and true talent. I can't stress how imaginative, original, offbeat and fascinating this whole film really is. All the way up to the ending, we are treated with truly dazzling shots and visuals. Should I be surprised, though? Shot by John Seale, who came out of retirement for this specific film (he also came out for "Fury Road" seven years earlier), the shots achieve what "Witness" and "The English Patient" had, which was beauty and scope. Miller really got the talent for his film.

But what eventually stops the film from being a masterpiece is a few little things; some things don't really work, such as Swinton's character later in the film after the hotel room scenes, who is someone that you don't really care as much about as you do with Idris Elba's character, who we really feel sorry for. The film also becomes less interesting after those main hotel room scenes, where I felt I didn't like the third act quite as much as I loved the first and second act.

So, the film is not quite as good as "Fury Road," but is still something unique and special. It may be flawed, but it is some of the most fascinating work of the year; and I think it may very well be one of the most interesting and compelling films of the year. It remains an absolutely dazzling piece of epic narrative and creative storytelling, telling something that I have never seen anything like. It may not be perfect, but is a surefire contender for one of the best films of 2022. I think that it may also be one of the most underrated and underseen films of the year. But I've been endorsing it, and I really do hope people see it, because I haven't ever seen anything like this, and I hope Miller goes on to make a work of dazzling scope and ambition in the future like this.

Lorenzo's Oil (1992)

An affecting tale

[8/10 · 18 September 2022]

Lorenzo's Oil (1992)

3/4

"Lorenzo's Oil" has a lot of emotional weight behind it. It has a true, devastating story to tell, and tell it nicely. It is interesting to me that this was based on a true story; George Miller, the director, has a medical degree, so he wrote the film to be based on that. In order to talk more about it, though, let me introduce you to the plot.

We follow a family of a mother (Susan Sarandon), father (Nick Nolte) and son (Noah Banks), the Odones. When the son is found to be exhibiting unusual characteristics, the parents begin to wonder what's really going on, and after a long, strenuous journey through doctors and hospitals, the boy is found to have a rare disease called ALD. It has only been recorded a total of 16 times, always kills its victims within two years, and is incurable. The disease, in fact, is so rare that only a few doctors in the entire US are working on the cases. The family decides to consult one of the doctors, played by Peter Ustinov, who tells them that it will take him a while to really uncover the disease itself. Dissatisfied by the lack of support the Odones are getting and the little knowledge they've gathered, they decide to come up with a cure for their son to save his life, even though they aren't doctors.

"Lorenzo's Oil" is a very entertaining and interesting film. It's a tense, emotionally challenging film, too, and is about something that is uncommon in common Hollywood films - real life fear. I thought there was a lot to like in the film, and realized that there was some startling emotional frankness, especially during the scene in which the disease. I also enjoyed Sarandon's and Ustinov's performances. I believed in Sarandon especially.

I think it's wonderful that Miller, as a doctor, had somewhat of an experience of this, and decided to make a movie about the real fear of disease. His direction is very good, too, establishing a genuine suspense about little Lorenzo. Without spoiling, I have to admit, I was on the edge - but when (the ending) happened, I was relieved.

The only flaws of the otherwise well-made film is that it is a bit too long at 129 minutes, going on a little too much in the middle, which does drag the film down a bit. The other flaw is Nick Nolte's performance, where he attempts an Italian accent. It is nothing less than completely unbelievable and hard to listen to. It's also a flaw that could have been fixed, too, because in the film, he's only Italian because he brings up something about his family and makes spaghetti for young Lorenzo. It is distracting and hard to both listen and watch.

But besides that, I'd say that "Lorenzo Oil" is an emotional and thoughtful film. It is also an affecting and triumphant story, too. This is a movie that is worth a lot. It's not like a lot of movies that Hollywood makes.

Ready to Wear (1994)

90's fashion satire that proves even minor Altman is capable of a good movie

[8/10 · 18 September 2022]

Ready to Wear/Pret-a-Porter

3/4

I don't know what it is; I think this film is wonderful. I don't think it's peak Robert Altman, but the man proves that he doesn't have to make a great movie to entertain and interest an audience. "Ready to Wear" is one of his most underrated films; a smart satire on the fashion industry of the 90's. It's pretty fun to watch Altman direct his massive cast with color and vibrance. A lot of critics don't particularly like the film; I don't know why. I wonder if we really saw the same thing, but I don't really know. Sure, it's not great Altman in a way, but it is entertaining to see these characters interact.

"Ready to Wear," abiding by classic Robert Altman style, follows an ensemble cast of characters, filled with Hollywood and foreign actors. It takes place during an important fashion week in Paris, where every big name in the industry gathers. It's mainly a time for fashion walks, showcases, etc. There's a few big events, also, as a major fashion figure has a heart attack but another man is blamed for his murder, designers quarrel and fight, and even a cheating photographer, played by Stephen Rea, who takes pictures of different figures behind the scenes. I counted over 20 characters in the film.

Besides Sophia Loren, Julia Roberts, Marcello Mastroanni and Kim Basinger, the film also stars Jean-Pierre Cassel, Chiara Mastroianni, Anouk Aimée, Rupert Everett, Forest Whittaker, Lili Taylor, Julia Roberts, Tim Robbins, Linda Hunt, Sally Kellerman, Tracey Ullman, Teri Garr, Danny Aiello, François Cluzet, Cher and Harry Belafonte as themselves and even Richard E. Grant. The cast does a great job, and I particularly loved Hunt, Kellerman, Ullman, Roberts and Robbins. Everyone has such great chemistry together.

There are a few flaws with the film, however, like too many characters, or a goofy accent from Basinger's reporter character. It also has a little bit too many characters, and the film becomes hard to follow, unlike Altman's previous film, "Short Cuts," a masterpiece of character development and juggling different characters throughout. Luckily, however, it doesn't have that hard of a plot to follow. The film may also be a bit too long at 133 minutes, and probably should have been about 120 minutes.

Altman's film is successful, however, at its satirical content - there are times where it is very, very funny and joyous. The screenplay was written with care, even if it has a little bit too much content, by Altman and former Chicago Sun-Times writer Barbara Shulgasser. I liked the insights and humor they added to the situations. I appreciated the film, and the great Altman's style especially, because I don't know many directors who can do something like Altman and make it successful, like this film is. It is not a perfect film, as his previous "Short Cuts" was in '93, but it's a minor, thoughtful piece. It's watching a genius at work. I enjoyed the film, even if it is a little flawed.

Death Becomes Her (1992)

Becoming immortal

[8/10 · 17 September 2022]

Death Becomes Her (1992)

3/4

Camp is something that's hard to achieve. In some cases, it is painfully clear that some films are trying very hard to become a sort of camp. Where "Death Becomes Her" is most successful is in that very field; it is very over-the-top, but does so in a sustained, artful and vibrant manner. It is also entertaining and fun to watch - an impressive feat, considering all the special effects and style.

"Death Becomes Her" has a simple plot; one person tries to outdo one another. Meryl Streep plays Madeline, a once popular actress, slowly becoming a has-been. She's married to Dr. Ernest Menville (Bruce Willis). Goldie Hawn plays her longtime rival, Helen, a woman who always tried to be as successful as Madeline. A long time ago, Dr. Menville was once engaged to her, but eventually fell in love with Madeline instead; it created a bitter and fierce rivalry. But when Madeline discovers a mysterious immortality treatment, held by Lisle (Isabella Rossellini), she sees an opportunity to not only beat out Helen, but to return back to her stardom.

The film is a little bit too long, and it sometimes drags on; it is sometimes too over reliant on its own effects and style. But the film never loses your interest, with one wacky situation after another; many bordering on the fantastical.

Admittedly, the movie also takes a while to get going. But when it gets into its own rhythm, the movie becomes a joy - something I have never really seen before, and one of the best, most professional pieces of Hollywood excess ever made. It reminded me of "The First Wives Club" in its feminine rivalry and the opponents involved; and it maintained my interest just like that film. But what I like the most about "Death Becomes Her" is the absurdities, which make it a viewing experience of its own. Camp, but in a subtle, more professional way, this movie is.

Color of Night (1994)

"Color of Night" thoroughly ridiculous and unbelievable even with director Richard Rush

[6/10 · 14 September 2022]

Color of Night (1994)

2.5/4

"Color of Night" opens on a disturbingly ill patient who is clearly not happy with her life; she immediately has a gun in her mouth, and just a few minutes after, she jumps out of a skyscraper window from her psychologist's office, who's played by Bruce Willis. His name is Bill Capa, and he's a psychiatrist who is traumatized by the suicide and becomes psychosomatically colorblind to the color red because of the blood puddle on the sidewalk. Deciding to quit it all together and forget all about it, he takes off to Los Angeles, where he coups up with Bob Moore (Scott Bakula, from "Quantum Leap"). Bob has a psychiatry group that he works with weekly. But things become a lot more dangerous and dark when Bob is killed, and Bill takes over the group for his friend. As with, oh, every assorted character mystery/thriller both in film and literature, they're all set up to be a killer in some way. In other words, they get a motive. And just by coincidence one day (and just to add that extra 'R' and 'erotic' into its genre description), Capa gets in an accident with Rose (Jane March) and the two begin seeing each other, even though it's quite obvious to the audience that she's bad news, but he can't see it (no spoilers, because this is that kind of a film).

It is already a violent film just from the first few minutes, and to make it even worse, it becomes plot hole after plot hole complete with some kind of violent scene just like that one. It most certainly confirms its 'R' rating; it's most definitely a 'hard R' as the coin of phrase goes. Most shocking about the film, however, is not the violence or objectionable content in general; but rather, it is not a boring film at all. It was directed by the very talented Richard Rush, capable of making "Color of Night" a hip, stylistic but roughly put together film. He is the light at the end of the tunnel; without him, this film is a true sinking point for all involved. But director Rush almost single handedly earns this film a two and a half rating from me; he's definitely capable of making an interesting environment with a discernible style and interesting ideas, like some inventive shots and visuals. The screenplay provides no favors, though, and is one of the dumbest of this genre, which I like to label the "erotic thriller," essentially meaning that it combines voyeurism with suspense; of course, Hitchcock was the master at this, and "Color of Night" is much like Hitchcock in imitation. But what I'm comparing the film to is movies like "Basic Instinct," "Fatal Attraction" or "Body Double" which are all (tonally) similar. This is one of the more incompetent ones in the genre, though. Every character seems so dumb; not seeing through one another, Bill not seeing or realizing anything... it's quite exhausting. To quote Roger Ebert on the film - "it's just... a zoo!" Summed it up perfectly, Roger.

What I also didn't like about the film was the stereotypes, which are just crushing. You know 'em: the doctors are just as sick as the patients, and the patients are completely out of their mind. Sometimes, 90's Hollywood needs to realize that people also go to a psychiatrist to sort out a problem they've been having, or to organize a conflict. They aren't always there to cure themselves of severe mental illness. It feels lame. But yet, the doctors are also sick in their own way - oh, please. And even worse are the cliches, like the killer giving a long monologue on why exactly they're the killer, and the hero escaping during the evil monologue. Other ones are that every single character has a substantial flaw that is obvious and in the audience's face, but not in the main character's (in this case, Bill's) face. Willis, in the film, is so off, that I can't even describe it - and the rest of the cast is laughable. It's quite something - and to think of it, this is the film that came directly after "North" that Willis made - and boy, it wasn't looking too good. Good thing he accepted "Pulp Fiction" because that would have been sad if he continued on this route.

"Night" is also infamous for being one of the great bombs of the 90's. It was panned by just about every critic, lost a substantial amount of money for the producer, Andrew Vajna, completely destroyed Richard Rush's directing career, never directed a movie again, and scared Hollywood away from Willis for a little bit. Jane March, his co-star, also never went anywhere. Perhaps if the director's cut, a cause for great turmoil for Willis, Rush and Vajna, was screened in theaters, instead of the theatrical cut, it could have been better. (There was talk during the production of the film if the director's cut should be released, but ultimately, Vajna shut Rush out and gave himself the final cut). But even after I completely slammed the film, I must say, I wasn't bored laughing at it and figuring out what was wrong. It's pure camp, and a notable entry into the not so notable section of the "erotic thriller" that keeps one on the edge of their seat, thanks to Rush, even if they know what's going to happen. I was generous with my rating because I had fun. It's not "Basic Instinct," "Body Double" or "Fatal Attraction," but it's great if you like bad movies.

But even now, "Color of Night" is a disappointment in multiple different categories. The biggest, however, is that the directing style couldn't save the predictable screenplay and camp value associated with this pathetic story. A fascinating bomb, considering the talent that went into it. It didn't quite work, but I think it has some qualities, such as Rush. "Hip" is probably a perfect word to describe Rush's style here, but to describe the other parts of the film (to quote Ebert yet again on the film), I would have to say "stupefying" which is what Ebert went with. Yet again, he summed it up perfectly.