Having read that this is based on a play after seeing it, I understand why in some moments it felt like bad theater at its worst. The whole production was cringe-worthy. Starting with bad lighting, bad cinematography and bad sound and ending with Bai Ling. When she's one of the top heads in your floating heads poster, you've got a problem. One can't really blame the actors because they had almost nothing to work with. Every main character is a cliché and speaks with the innocence of someone who has never watched TV or been online. That's fine for a play but when you watch a movie you expect actual human beings, not archetypal sketches. Bai Ling plays the stripper with the heart of gold, while the other main leads dabble in such riveting characters as "abused teen" and "illegal immigrant". The movie feels rushed and there's no place for character development when every other line is a platitude. The movie features two short scenes featuring a couple of big stars from Romania. Had the movie been better, they would have had a chance to either shine or sink. As it is, they give just a couple of more underdeveloped scenes which will make the viewers either smile or roll their eyes. The concept of the movie "love conquers all" has been done to death, many times with great results, so this feels unnecessary at best. The only good moment in the film is delivered by Dana Delaney, who should stick to Desperate Housewives or get a better agent.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Fire and Ice
(1983)
Pretty good actually...
9 March 2003
Ever since I heard of the Ralph Bakshi version of "The Lord of the Rings" I wondered: What the hell is 'rotoscope' animation?!!! Well... I finally found out... I saw this movie about three years ago not having any idea who Ralph Bakshi is... And I liked it... a lot... Very good story line... it even has a little character development which is great for a cartoon... See it if you get bored with contemporary animation.... Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it's just a nice cartoon... It's a pretty good movie too...
Dead in the Water
(2002)
A Disturbing Film
21 February 2003
Beautiful Cinematography and great Brazilian music. This is what this movie seems to be about for the first 20 minutes. But it's not, it's about good actors and a good plot... It may seem to go a bit slow at times but it's only 90 min or less... And the end will certainly get you thinking about it for days... 6/10
Thursday
(1998)
Good movie, not a Tarantino rip-off...
11 January 2003
I really loved watching this movie. Although some of the themes do seem familiar, I never compared it to Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" or "Reservoir Dogs" because it's a whole other dish. I'd have to say that Tarantino's movies always seemed kinda... fake to me. And I've seen a lot of rip-offs(including the horrific "Go"). This movie just... seemed more real. The actors did terrific jobs especially Thomas Jane(and I really enjoyed the flash-backs, see "Boogie Nights" for the inside joke). Even though some argue they've seen it all before, I believe it was overall a unique experience, and certainly a bold film.
Certainly, not as good as the first one
23 December 2002
I was very dissapointed by this movie. Good special effects aren't everything movies are about. It was a product made for a lot of people but not for Harry Potter fans. Movies are generally not as good as the books they were adapted from, but Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was fun. This sequel wasn't. The only highlights I can point out are performances by Alan Rickman, Kenneth Brannagh and (surprisingly!) Tom Felton. Eye candy for the little ones but anyone over 18 who has read the book, shouldn't go in expecting to be blown away. I guess, the reason this movie cashed in less at the box-office is as simple as it's not as good as the first one...
Showboy
(2002)
A brilliant "mockumentary"!!!
9 July 2002
This movie is filmed in the style of a documentary but it's not. It's a make believe world in which Christian Taylor(the writer of the great T.V. show "Six Feet Under")is fired and goes to Vegas in order to become a dancer, a Showboy! He's too short, he's too old and he is TERRIBLY funny!!! Watch out for cameos of Whoopi Goldberg and Siegfried and Roy. Funny!!! I laughed all the way to the parking lot, and I'm still laughing... Best 'mockumentary' I've seen and best comedy in a long while...
Scooby Goes Hollywood
(1979 TV Movie)
Scooby-Doo goes down...
18 June 2002
I have no idea what could have possessed a writer to come up with this intoxicating mixture of Scooby-Doo and Hollywood parody. Well... I guess it was the 70s!... The idea is that Scooby quits his Saturday morning show in pursuit of more challenging roles and box office success helped by Shaggy, his trusty side-kick. This was inspired by those awful cartoons in the 40s in which Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd act like real actors even talking to Mr. Warner - their boss!!! In the same awfully unfunny way, Shaggy and Scooby barge into the Studio Director's office in order to show him samples of their work which parodies westerns and stupid 70s musicals (like Saturday Night Fever).
In the end of all this Scooby(after messing up everything he tried to do) is convinced by hordes of children chanting "Scooby-Doo, we need you!" to go back to his regular show.
After watching this very stupid attempt at a longer animated Scooby-Doo film, the viewer is convinced the awfull jokes in the Scooby-Doo show aren't really that bad and is actually looking forward to a line like "If it hadn't been for you pesky kids..."
In the end of all this Scooby(after messing up everything he tried to do) is convinced by hordes of children chanting "Scooby-Doo, we need you!" to go back to his regular show.
After watching this very stupid attempt at a longer animated Scooby-Doo film, the viewer is convinced the awfull jokes in the Scooby-Doo show aren't really that bad and is actually looking forward to a line like "If it hadn't been for you pesky kids..."
Malice in Wonderland
(1985 TV Movie)
Funny but not THAT funny...
13 May 2002
The movie is a mildly funny comedy which you will laugh-out-laugh at but will forget the day after. A movie about the two Tinseltown 'divas' Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons could have been far better when its comedy source is the Hollywood 'Golden Age' struggle for who gets the better star gossip...
In short, Elizabeth Taylor(Louella) and Jane Alexander(Hedda)are rivals in the showbusiness gossip business both on the radio and in the written press. While Louella has always exploited the ones around her and has flourished by sinking to the lowest level of slime, Hedda has a ruff time getting a job as a serious actress and is forced by financial constraints to go into Louella's territory. The two become archrivals and compete for the same men who eventually become ex-husbands of both. The comedy is provided by a lot of crazy hats, food fights and a few polished dialogues which give a hint of the movie's unexplored comic potential.
Elizabeth Taylor cannot play comedy. Her performance is far-fetched and over the top with shouted lines and evil glares at Hedda. Her character remains one dimensional(vengefull forty year old seeking cat-fights) with just a faint hint at her feelings for her child. Jane Alexander on the other hand delivers a rich performance going from drama to comedy without being ridiculous. She is perfectly transformed from middle-aged actress with good moral values that keep her hungry to gossip columnist/gold-digger/Louella, the ultimate Hollywood product: someone with no spine what so ever. Yet both women manage to keep away from the ultimate state of "She'd eat her young for an extra dime!". The writers go a bit too far with the whole family is sacred' idea almost trying to force upon us a moral message that the reason these two women are unhappy is because they have undermined the importance of family, of women shouldn't leave the kitchen' ideas of the fifties.
The subplots are quite funny and the writer manages to slip a good dialogue from time to time. Don't get me wrong: the movie is a good comedy but not the best it could have been. Its other strongpoints (besides Alexander's performance) include the presence of a lot of Hollywood famous people of the time(1940s-1950s), a small role played by young Tim Robbins and some witty irony pointed at the big studios.
BOTTOM LINE: Don't go out of your way to see this movie (especially if you are a Liz Taylor fan...) because the are thousands of better movies you could be watching. But if you stumble over it on T.V. on a lazy afternoon you'll have a good time and it will leave you with a sweet aftertaste...
In short, Elizabeth Taylor(Louella) and Jane Alexander(Hedda)are rivals in the showbusiness gossip business both on the radio and in the written press. While Louella has always exploited the ones around her and has flourished by sinking to the lowest level of slime, Hedda has a ruff time getting a job as a serious actress and is forced by financial constraints to go into Louella's territory. The two become archrivals and compete for the same men who eventually become ex-husbands of both. The comedy is provided by a lot of crazy hats, food fights and a few polished dialogues which give a hint of the movie's unexplored comic potential.
Elizabeth Taylor cannot play comedy. Her performance is far-fetched and over the top with shouted lines and evil glares at Hedda. Her character remains one dimensional(vengefull forty year old seeking cat-fights) with just a faint hint at her feelings for her child. Jane Alexander on the other hand delivers a rich performance going from drama to comedy without being ridiculous. She is perfectly transformed from middle-aged actress with good moral values that keep her hungry to gossip columnist/gold-digger/Louella, the ultimate Hollywood product: someone with no spine what so ever. Yet both women manage to keep away from the ultimate state of "She'd eat her young for an extra dime!". The writers go a bit too far with the whole family is sacred' idea almost trying to force upon us a moral message that the reason these two women are unhappy is because they have undermined the importance of family, of women shouldn't leave the kitchen' ideas of the fifties.
The subplots are quite funny and the writer manages to slip a good dialogue from time to time. Don't get me wrong: the movie is a good comedy but not the best it could have been. Its other strongpoints (besides Alexander's performance) include the presence of a lot of Hollywood famous people of the time(1940s-1950s), a small role played by young Tim Robbins and some witty irony pointed at the big studios.
BOTTOM LINE: Don't go out of your way to see this movie (especially if you are a Liz Taylor fan...) because the are thousands of better movies you could be watching. But if you stumble over it on T.V. on a lazy afternoon you'll have a good time and it will leave you with a sweet aftertaste...
Tell Your Friends