Change Your Image
morris8277
Reviews
Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)
One of the most underrated films of the 80's. ****
This is one of those films that come along, don't generate alot of media hype, and then get buried under a mountain of rubble. It's only when it is unearthed by us the viewers, either at the video store or on T.V that we truly get a glimpse of this very entertaining and charming movie. Not a flop (by 80's teen angst film standards), but not an overwhelming success like it's predecessor, 'Pretty in pink', this film managed to generate a cult following.
Like 'Pretty in Pink' it is the story of a misunderstood youth (in this case Eric Stoltz, instead of Molly Ringwald) from the wrong side of the tracks who falls for someone who is, by their standards, unattainable. Both films star a disaffected friend who steals the show. In Pretty in Pink it was Jon Cryer's performance as Molly Ringwalds hopelessly infatuated friend Duckie, in Some Kind of Wonderful it is Mary Stuart Masterson's portrayal of Watt's, the tough, tomboy best-friend and secret admirer of our main character Keith.
As in Pretty In Pink, Keith manages to steal a date with his unattainable heroine, Amanda Jones. Asking her at the perfect time, when she is most vulnerable after a fight with her boyfriend, an egotistical rich-boy jerk played by Craig Scheffer. Whether it be shock, or a deep-seeded need to get revenge on her boyfriend, Amanda accepts, sending shockwaves through the ranks of their California high school.
By the last 15 minutes of the film we come to realize a few things, Keith is desperately trying to be his own person in lieu of his over bearing father, Amanda isn't sure of herself regardless of her popularity, and finally that Keith's best friend, who he see's only as a pal, is hopelessly in love with him but can't reveal her true feelings in fear of being rejected by the only person she can relate to.
In the end of our film Keith comes to a crossroads, stay with Amanda, the girl he has pawned after for his entire high school career, or be with Watt's, his best friend since grade school? Unlike Pretty in Pink Keith chooses the latter, and I believe this film to be superior to 'Pretty in Pink' because of that. In the original ending of Pretty in Pink Ringwald ends up with Cryer, but because of test audience reaction John Hughes decided to rewrite the ending to have Ringwald's character stay with Blaine, Andrew McCarthy's character. Much to my dismay as I really believed that she would end up with Duckie. 'Some Kind of Wonderful' fixes this problem without sacrificing anything emotionally from the story. You truly feel for this teenagers and identify with them in some way.
The ending was a breath of fresh air and was a great way to tie up an excellent film. I truly believe that this film, (along with 1989's 'Say Anything...', and 1986's 'At Close Range') is incredibly underrated and deserving of high praise. A great overall film.
28 Days Later... (2002)
A psychological thriller....but not scary in the least!!!
First off, let me start by stating that I didn't hate this movie. It had a psychological edge that's not present in a lot of films of this genre, especially the living dead genre. But I have to go on by saying that I didn't quite enjoy this film either.
This film is very complex, and exhibits many different styles and allows the viewer to see just how big of a melting pot of cinema is responsible for Danny Boyle's foray into film. It stretches from the mad vision of Stanley Kubrick all the way to the films of George A. Romero. His post-apocalyptic vision of the U.K is perfect as it is startling. I can't imagine anything worse than waking from a semi-coma, naked in an empty hospital, and then wander out to find the usually bustling and loud streets to be ominously quiet and void of life, especially in the middle of the day.
Thats just exactly what happens to our hero in the story, Jim. He awakens 28 days into a killer plague, after an accident put's him into a slight coma. Groggy and in a sort of trance, Jim wanders into a local chapel to find it filled with the "infected". His ensuing escape from the "infected" is how we run into the heroine of our story, Selena. A rough and tumble brit who has been hardened by her own experiences of survival and her own tragedies of the plague. It is at this point where we discover the true nature of the destruction of life as they knew it. This is where Jim is made aware of the startling reality that his family are in all probability dead, as is all of Jim's friends, and co-workers.
Now, I'm not going to delve into any more of the story as most have probably seen this film. So let me just analyze what I took away from this picture. For one, THIS IS NOT A ZOMBIE MOVIE!!!! A lot of people like to label it as such when it clearly IS NOT. These people are clearly infected with a disorienting and violent disease and are blissfully unaware of what they are doing, imagine an mega version of rabies, but they are certainly ALIVE! I came into this film expecting to see a zombie flick, with our heroes being chased through the streets of London by legions of the living dead. This film is far from it.
I was not "scared" by this film. It was a psychological thriller on some levels, especially because I would not want to go through what our heroes went through to survive. I guess it taps into our most basic primal instinct, survival. No one want's to imagine a life in our day and age where we must fight and fend off brutal attacks by mindless hordes on a near daily basis. But that was the extent of the "horror" of the film.
This movie was neither a horror film, nor terrifying. It didn't have the shock factor of "The Exorcist", nor did it have the psychological edge of "The Silence of the Lambs". It kinda slipped through the cracks and lies somewhere in the middle.
Before I saw this film, I had heard a lot of people proclaiming this to be one of the scariest films of all time, this is far from the truth. This film was only moderately scary if not at all. The plot was predictable, the "infected" were no more scary than they were Zombies, and the story progressed too slowly. One of the keys of a good horror film is the quick progression through character development to the life and death struggle with a homicidal madman or madmen. The only exception to this rule may be John Carpenters original, "Halloween" (1978). Carpenter used timing masterfully in that film and that is why "Halloween" has withstood the test of time And the hordes of sequels and copycats it spawned. "Halloween" began methodically as it built up to it's heart-pounding climax. 28 days later... on the other hand, started slow and ended slow. This may just be the style of an eccentric filmmaker, but it makes for a poor suspense film.
Again, let me sum up that this is not a Zombie film. If you want a gory Zombie film full of scares, I would recommend anything from George Romero, or better yet, just check out Tom Savini's masterful 1990 remake of Romero's classic "Night of the Living Dead". It takes Romero's original characters and ideas and adds a bit of style and flair to it, not to mention great special effects by the master of gore, Tom Savini. You could also check out the new "Dawn of the Dead". It is good as well, especially if you want a more up to date version of the living dead films. It starts off with a bang and never looks back. But for a slow moving, tedious attempt at a suspense thriller check out 28 days later...., but be careful, do not attempt to operate heavy machinery or drive while watching this film, it could put you right to sleep.
Hellboy (2004)
An awesome thrill-ride
I'm usually pretty skeptical about comic book to film translations thanks to such esteemed turkeys as "Captain America", "Daredevil", and "Punisher" (the early 90's version with Dolph Lundgren). But this movie, which could've been bad.....real bad, somehow found a way to be ammusing and entertaining, while at the same time staying faithful to the comics original characters, storylines, and influences.
Now this film's not gonna win any awards and isn't going to turn non-comic fans into hardcore comic maniacs but it is a great pre-summer action/adventure film with some comedy and a bit of the eccentric tossed in for good measure.
I won't go into the usual routine and start giving away plot points and story snippits. All I will say is "Go see the movie". But before you do you must take all logic, all sarcasm and cyncism and toss those all out of the car window on the way to your local cinemas. This movie has alot of things that may contradict alot of things that most people believe in, but remember, ITS JUST A MOVIE. Thats what movies are for, they are meant to take the impossible and make it possible and so on. Like I said, this movies not going to be an award winner, and won't be on any critics ten best lists, but it will be a film that you'll laugh at, and generally have fun watching. Its a great escape from the surrealistic existence that many of us live every single day. So, take my advice, go see this movie, sit back, relax, and have some fun.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Maybe not Moore's vision, but excellent nonetheless!!!
This spectacular picture may turn fans of the Alan Moore graphic novel away in much the same way "From Hell" did. But, like "From Hell", it managed to wrangle up enough action, adventure, mystery, Romance, and even drama to satisfy even the most picky of palate's.
Stephen Norrington's vision of Moore's graphic novel was filmed in much the same way as his vision of the "Blade" comic books when he directed the first installment of that series. His dazzling array of action, special effects, and non-stop thrills enlightens the viewers senses and makes the movie that much more enjoyable.
We begin with the introduction of the films villain, the Phantom. The movie then moves into second gear as the literary heroes that form our league are introduced one by one beginning with our gallant leader, Alan Quatermain (Connery), and ending with the dynamic tandem of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, (who is played by Jason Fleyming, who coincidentally was in both this film AND "From Hell") who were my overall favorite character's in the film. The CGI used to create the Hyde monster was, in my opinion, much more advanced and believable than that used for "The Hulk". As were most of the special effects in this film.
Overall, it may not be what some consider to be a classic. But this movie will definitely be a favorite of mine for many years to come. I give it 8 out of 10 stars, and would recommend it to anyone who wants to see a fun summer adventure picture.
Hook (1991)
Not quite terrible, but not quite good either.
"Hook" is the kind of movie you watch with your kids, period. It has a kids eye view on the world of neverland and the people who reside in it. Its almost as if Spielberg had an out of body experience while directing this film, handing the reins over to his 12 year old self and saying to himself, "have fun." Its whimsical and at times even a bit charming. Although, these good points are routinely drowned by exhausting plot jumps and set changes. The film also suffers from the same thing that makes alot of Spielbergs films hard to swallow, the length. I am of the opinion that a good fantasy film is a short fantasy film. This movie could've easily been cut to an hour and fourty-five minutes and convey exactly the same amount of plot and character development as is present in the current two and a half hours plus of the film. It also suffers from over-dramatization of the relationship between Peter and Tnkerbell, while simultaneously under-dramatizing Peters relationship with the lost boys. The lost boys, in this film, have been reduced to a loathesome gang of punks and brats that, unless your 10, you just want to grab by the collar and beat relentlessly with a tightly folded leather belt. You find out nothing about them whatsoever and there is just no connection to them, at any point in the film.
The only true delights in this film are the acting of Dustin Hoffman, and Bob Hoskins who, in my opinion, capture the attitudes and essences of their characters perfectly. Hoffmans portrayal of "The Captain" is that of a scourge and a scoundrel while also being a snooty uppercrust english gentleman. As for Hoskins "Smee", he is as loveable as he is devious in this part and shows his incredible acting range and abilities. The worst parts of this film are Robin WIlliams, and Julia Roberts. They were incredibly unbelievable and in my opinion, contributed tremendously to what went wrong with this picture.
Overall I'd give this movie 7 out of 10 stars. Watch it with your kids but don't expect to be whisked away to a magical realm and become deeply subdued by interesting storylines and fun dialougue. This movie is strictly, kids only, from start to finish.