Change Your Image
johnnysure1
Reviews
The Clan of the Cave Bear (1986)
Where's the problem? It was pretty good.
After watching this movie, I was wondering why this was said to be so bad? I've never read the book, but as caveman movies go, it places a solid second to QUEST FOR FIRE. This was back in the '80's when make-up was cool, so I loved the make-up jobs. This was back when Jan DeBont was a great cinematographer, so the film was visually gorgeous. And Alan Silvestri's score was beautiful in a very '80's kind of way. Acting was pretty solid, and I thought Daryl Hannah was very good. (It must be very difficult to play a Neanderthal without feeling ridiculous.) The story was simple and wonderful. I have no reservations. If you like caveman movies, this is pretty good. If you don't, rent something else.
Flightplan (2005)
Watch PANIC ROOM and RED_EYE instead
Perhaps if this film had come out 10 years ago, right after PASSENGER 57, it might have looked a bit better. As it is, it bears immediate reminder of the two far better thrillers mentioned above. In the case of RED-EYE, I understand that Hollywood has long been in the habit of making the exact same movie at the exact same time at different studios (the werewolf phase of 1981, the DANTE'S PEAK/VOLCANO showdown), so this unfortunate bit of release timing is understandable. But how Jodie Foster, an actress of enormous talent and notorious pickiness, would decide to make the exact same film as her last one with weaker script, cast, and director may be one of the great mysteries of cinema history. Here's a woman who can play anything, and she comes up with this merely passable Lifetime thriller. Actors of this caliber need to understand that we expect to see them in more ambitious stuff, and it is actually a detriment to the filmmakers to do this sort of thing (although, based on the box-office returns, I guess it wasn't too big of a detriment.) I had a similar problem with Robert DeNiro in HIDE AND SEEK. Any of a number of actors could have done that film without us having to see the greatest actor of his generation slum way below his talents. What's next? Daniel Day Lewis in the next Freddy picture?
Don't get me wrong, I like a good little thriller. But this one falls prey to one of the oldest thriller traps that there is: it is easier to set up a creepy situation than it is to find a reasonable explanation for why it might happen. Well before this movie falls apart with a ridiculous explanation of what is going on, my little brain was already analyzing the situation and thinking: "The only possible explanations for this turn of events are all utterly ridiculous." Somehow, that implausibility level did not hinder RED-EYE, but films like FLIGHTPLAN and HIDE AND SEEK quickly crumble when we realize how unlikely the plot is.
In the end, PANIC ROOM had a more plausible plot, while RED-EYE had a more entertaining one. Those other movies also had better badguys, better heroines, better plot twists, and much more kickass finales. Oh, yeah, they also had senses of humor. And if you want to try to outdirect Wes Craven and David Fincher in the thriller genre, you'd have more luck trying to pull off one of the schemes attempted in these three movies.
Red Eye (2005)
Wes is back in the game!!!
Wes Craven is the MAN!!!! Now that's a f@(%ing MOVIE!!! Here's a note to Hollywood. This was a movie with a SCRIPT!!! Notice how two characters sitting there talking were sexier, scarier, and more thrilling than your typical CRASH, BOOM, BANGs! Oh and by the way, the grand finale shows you how to do CRASH, BOOM, BANG correctly.
The two leads are excellent. Perfect casting, good chemistry, they seem intelligent (and of course, they're both very pretty, but as long as you've got the first three, I can actually enjoy the fourth.) Our supporting cast is good too. The comic relief character (Jayma Mays) is actually NOT ANNOYING! I'm a moderate liberal, and I was cheering for the head of Homeland Security (Jack Scalia)! And Brian Cox plays an ordinary, recognizable human. We're even worried about what might happen to him! But the real star is Wes. He's given us a whole career of disreputable, squirm-inducing classics (LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, SCREAM). Well, he may have finally worked himself up to semi-reputable, and I hope he has a really big hit! Incidentally, this is what PHONE BOOTH and CELLULAR were supposed to be.
Hide and Seek (2005)
Never thought I'd say this, but why cast Robert DeNiro?
This is one of those creepy little thrillers about a weird kid who whispers scary little comments while terrible things happen in the middle of the night. That Dakota Fanning is quickly filling the void that Haley Joel Osment left when he got to old for these sorts of roles. And she's pretty good. Admittedly, I've never seen her play anything other than a weird scary kid, but she's pretty good at it, and she's not the problem with the movie. No, the problem comes with our main character, her father. This guy does so many stupid and illogical things throughout the course of this movie that there is absolutely no way to be pulling for him. I mean, what is this? Passive parenting 101? Your daughter just messed up the bathroom and wrote insulting things about your dead wife on the walls. I think you'd get angry! Of course, in movies like this, there maybe something they're not telling us... or it may just be bad writing! But the real problem with this movie is the very presence of Robert DeNiro. Sure, he's made some bad movies recently, but he still has this aura of quality around him, which makes it impossible to enjoy a movie that is so distinctly not-quality. There are plenty of great actors who fit in just fine in B-movies and can make this stuff believable. But Robert DeNiro is such a good actor that it feels a little embarrassing to watch him in such an obviously sub-par movie. Maybe stick Gary Oldman in the lead... Jim Carrey might have been interesting. But Robert DeNiro? Somehow I can't get around the fact the he just shouldn't be doing movies like this.
Finally, there's the plot twist. The simple fact is that most plot twists suck. I challenge anybody to actually explain how (or why) the killer would have actually done the things that occurred in this movie. Oh, sure, I can understand in the logic of a silly B-movie, but when you put Robert DeNiro in the lead, I just expect more for my $$$.
Finally, a note for Famke Jannsen. I'm a big fan. I fell in love with you when you were doing really fun but cheesy movies (MODEL BY DAY, GOLDENEYE, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL). I then liked when you moved into smaller roles so you could work with really quality people (Robert Altman, Branagh, and so forth). But what is with these middle-of-the-road crap-fests like DON'T SAY A WORD and this? Dammit, you're wasting your talents. Maybe if you could have had the lead, this would have been worth watching.
The Last Cowboy (2003)
First rule of film-making:get a good cast!
Grumpy farm guy wants to keep his land, and the money folk trying to take it are all treated as reprehensibly greedy slickers (even though the money people are behaving reasonably and the farm guy is belligerent, violent, and unreasonable). Just once, it would be nice to see one of these movies where the hero is the banker... just trying to do his job and even help the farm guy, while the farm guy is recognized as an intractable jerk (No disrespect to the farming community, it's just that the banking community has had to endure such a beating from these sorts of films, that it would only be fair turnabout!) That said, this film is pretty solid for the genre. While the countryside bears more resemblance to California than Texas, it's still pretty and beautifully shot. By contrasting the three leads' different approaches, the movie actually addresses the fundamental flaw in these movies. The heroine wants to update her father's farming practices, while he is married to tradition. And I may not be a Hallmark Channel kind of guy, but it nice to see a project that is morally clean without totally whitewashing its issues.
The production's greatest strength, though, is the casting of Jennie Garth, Lance Henriksen, and M.C. Gainey. Fine actors all; it's nice to see them cast in roles with the complexity that thespians of their talent deserve. And they all look halfway plausible with the horseriding, as well.
All in all, I wouldn't watch it again, but it certainly is better than a lot of the stuff you might run across on the Hallmark Channel.
Victim (1961)
First-rate engrossing thriller
Ah, the thriller addressing an important issue. Always the best way to get your point across, since the thrills make the message more palatable, and the message gives the thrills some thematic weight. There have been many such films through the years (CROSSFIRE about anti-Semitism, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT about Black-White relations, etc.) and this is one of the best.
Much has been made of the fact that the film does not go far enough in its endorsement of homosexuality. Indeed, the main character appears to be happily married and, while he admits to homosexual impulses, no proof is given that he has ever actually engaged in gay sex. At the end of the film, when his life and career may probably go up in flames, he seems quite adamant that he wants to stay with his wife and continue in a male-female relationship.
To be honest, I liked the fact that the film played things restrained. This was probably an effort to keep the film mainstream, and it's a smart one. The movie is not about the joys of sex, so there is no need for them to be shown graphically. Also, the fact that the main character is either comfortably closeted or simply bisexual makes his call to action more engaging for the audience. He is not motivated out of self-interest (the blackmailers were quite content to leave him alone), but personal ethics. As is the audience, we are repulsed by the actions of the villains, regardless of our orientation.
I have not seen the lead actor in anything else (and judging by his filmography, I doubt that I will.) However, this was a very effective performance. Much like the film, the performance was extremely restrained. Some of our contemporary performers given to histrionics would benefit from seeing this.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Roland Emmerich:He may not be great, but he gets the job done!
Back in 2000, director Roland Emmerich made THE PATRIOT, an terrific film about the Revolutionary War. But that's not the Roland we all know and love. No, the real Roland makes big, grandiose movies where talented but inexpensive actors get to dodge full-scale destruction of recognizable landmarks. Unlike Michael Bay (his primary competitor in this field), Mr. Emmerich doesn't like to fake us out with rapid editing. He wants us to take good long looks at the carnage which he is unleashing. And unlike many cynical, snide young filmmakers of today, he takes his work seriously . there are no knowing, post-modern winks to break the 4th wall, there is no supercilious disdain for the characters gracing his screens. When the actor James Spader was approached for the Emmerich sci-fi opus STARGATE, he initially wanted to turn it down because the script was not very good. Emmerich responded that the adventure of getting such a monumental film onto the screen would by its very nature create all the inherent drama the film would need. Roland was right back then, and that very philosophy continues to serve him right up to THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. No matter how much of the movie is achieved through digital effects (which better win the Oscar if there's any justice on the planet), there is a sheer sense of awe at the blood sweat and tears that must have gone into creating this behemoth.
Finally, it's fun to see a movie take its liberal message and couch it in such a populist entertainment that it will play in red and blue states with equal success.
I love ya, Roland. The critics may sneer, the aesthetes may jibe, but film in, film out, the people come to see you, and rest assured that I'll be there for your next movie, too.
Fled (1996)
One of Will Patton's best performances!
Will Patton is one of our finest actors, having blessed the screen with a variety of memorable characters. Unfortunately, most of his performances seem to be in movies like this: generic action films which nobody has any need to remember. Sure, he gets to show up in great movies (NO WAY OUT), good movies (REMEMBER THE TITANS), and popular movies (ARMAGEDDON), but the man is a working actor who ain't embraced by the masses, so he also has to make movies like this. Not that this is a painfully bad movie... it's just so darn generic. And the testament to the man's performance is that there is nothing on paper that should make this a particularly great role. But darn it if he isn't the moral center of the movie.
If you don't know who this guy is, you can skip the movie with a clear conscience. But if you are a fan of the man, this performance is one of his best.