Aaron's Review Page

1998 Short Takes

Future Short Takes 1999 Short Takes

Past Short Takes: 1997 Short Takes
1996 Short Takes

Top 10 Movies of 1998

A

American History X: **** I haven't been so incredibly moved by a film in years. Few movies have ever given such a fantastic, psychological approach to the plague of hate and rage. The acting, screenwriting, directing, and design were all impeccable. Edward Norton and Edward Furlong were fantastic. It would be hard to find a better drama this year.

The Avengers: *** While the plot was iffy and not very satisfying, this was certainly an enjoyable and witty film. The design as a whole was done very well, and I loved Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman, and Sean Connery.

B

The Big Lebowski: *** 1/2 An odd yet hilarious black comedy from the Coen brothers. After the Fargo debacle, they've impressed me. John Goodman is fantastic and the script is great.

Blues Brothers 2000: ** They've tried to recreate the same formula as the first film, but with little success. Sparse laughs are all you'll find. The true highlight of the film which makes it worth seeing without a doubt are the musical numbers. Never has a finer group of jazz, blues, and souls musicians been assembled for one film. Showstoppers include "Looking For a Fox", "364-5789", "Respect", and a grand finale to end all grand finales. A mediocre film with an unbeatable soundtrack.

The Borrowers: *** 1/2 A cute yet entertaining children's comedy about a family of little people who live inside houses and buildings in London. A good cast and a witty and amusing script make this a real highlight. The true reason to see this is John Goodman. I see shades of Oliver Hardy in his performance as the evil-eyed lawyer who schemes to build a tourist hotel on top of the borrowers' house. He is truly hilarious, and this is a real joy to watch.

Bulworth: **** An enormously hilarious and biting political comedy. Beatty is phenomenal and the script is so true it's scary. Wonderfully directed and performed. The funniest part is where Beatty begins to speak entirely in rhyme.

C

A Civil Action: * 1/2 I thought that this film was terribly slow and very boring to watch. It takes them two hours to get nowhere, and then everything else is summed up at the end. I thought Robert Duvall was amusing, but nothing spectacular. There were some funny moments, but on the whole, I kept wishing this would end. I found I was not interested in any characters and did not care what happened to them. This was not worth seeing.

D

Dark City: * 1/2 A dark and dull film which smacks of Fritz Lang, with Kiefer Sutherland recreating Peter Lorre. An adept cast and a brilliant design combine with a very poor screenplay which doesn't make much of a fine idea for a story. Dark City is too dark and the plot doesn't come close to compensating.

Deep Impact: **** I was astounded at the amazing display of dramatic effect used in what proved to be an excellent acting film. I was glad it wasn't too much of a spectacle, but the effects were nice. It really gives us a good look at how the end of the world might look.

Deep Rising: * 1/2 A very bad sci-fi/horror film. Treat Williams is so overdone and hammy it's a strain to watch. It is a good idea for a script, and and is actually suspenseful and scary at times, but it borrows from so many other films, it's like watching a montage of crap.

Disturbing Behavior: ** 1/2 A film that keeps you riveted. The problem is, though, that after you get out of the theater and start thinking, you realize what a poor plot there was. It was really not believable and not cohesive, but the action and interest is at such a high emotional level so that during the movie, you're really excited.

Dr. Dolittle: *** A fun, childish, and enjoyable little comedy. Not extraordinary, but full of enough laughs to keep it interesting.

E

Elizabeth: *** 1/2 This was a thoroughly enjoyable film. Cate Blanchett gave perhaps the best performance of the year and Goeffrey Rush led an amazing ensemble cast as well. The design was astonishing and the film was very well planned and designed. My sole problems were with the screenplay. I found it a bit hard to follow, because the characters were all very confusing. I lost track of who was betraying whom and who was on whose side. Other than that, I was in awe.

Enemy of the State: *** 1/2 I must admit that there were a few kinks in the story and several things that weren't quite believeable, but other than that I was thoroughly impressed by this movie. Will Smith passes the test again, and the direction is done very well.

F

Fallen: *** A film with magnificent potential, which falls just short of a great suspense flick. Denzel Washington seems ill-fit in this role, but still does a good job. Donald Sutherland is a bit too reptilian in his lieutenant's role. John Goodman brings back his Sea of Love police buddy role very nicely, and pulls off a few acting moments as well. The glitch is in the script. It seems constantly indecisive. It won't make a firm decision about the nature of the bad guy. If it had stuck with the "soul-transmitted-by-touch" factor as some unnatural fluke, it would have been grand. If it had gone full-fledge into the "hell and heaven fallen angel" theory it would have beeen grand. But it constantly hovers halfway in between. So, the film seems splotchy and ultimately fails.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: * 1/2 Johnny Depp was great as Raoul Duke (Hunter S. Thompson's character), but the rest of the film was so disjointed, disgusting, and dull that it wasn't interesting. Benicio del Toro did a good job portraying a fat, despicable, slob, but the slob wasn't likeable. I didn't care. The plot didn't move at all. In between hallucinations, flashbacks, and off-color jokes, there is some prophecy and wit mixed in as Duke narrates. The film doesn't work, but it is very funny.

54: * 1/2 A very poor film with no plot progression whatsoever. It tries to tell a story, when in reality it's just aimlessly following a few uninteresting characters. There is little real drama here. It does do a better job than the loathsome, ugly, disgusting Boogie Nights, though at depicting a world of sex and drugs without making the viewer vomit. There were some funny parts, and I suppose it was entertaining. At the end, it talked about Steve Rubell's dream, and the end of it in a beautiful sequence that surprised me. It was the only moment of beauty and clarity in the whole film.

G

Gods and Monsters: *** Without a doubt this is perhaps the most bizarre film of the year. The screenplay I thought was the weakness, being agonizingly slow at times. If you're willing to sit through a slightly boring movie, you will be astounded. It was directed and designed flawlessly by Bill Condon, et al. Ian McKellen gives a career performance of such magnitude and subtlety that I was floored at times. The biggest surprise is young Brendan Fraser who does not overplay his role and fulfills his job masterfully. Probably the most unique aspect is that it deals with such a wide variety of topics: homosexuality, Hollywood, romance, war, fathers, and many other issues. It's well worth seeing.

Godzilla: *** Despite some evident story problems, it was a very good action film. They didn't handle Godzilla as well as they could have. They were eager to get him into New York, but once they did, they didn't know what to do with him. They had to bring in an entirely different enemy altogether to try and keep the film alive. It was too reminiscent of Tyrannousaruses and Raptors to seem like a unique film. Still, from an action standpoint, it was very weldone, and it had its funny moments.

H

Halloween: H20: *** 1/2 I was astonished by the quality of this film. Jamie Lee Curtis was great and believable. The action and chases were fantastic. The story was above average, and amazing for a sequel. The ending was what I was hoping for: Something with closure. Great!

I

The Impostors: *** 1/2 It's obvious from the opening sequence that Stanley Tucci took this film right from the comedies of early Hollywood. The first scene is entirely silent, and is much more effective that way. Moviemakers should realize that a there is more to comedy than words. You could learn a lot from watching Laurel & Hardy, Chaplin, Keaton, and Abbott & Costello. This is obviously what Tucci did and it worked out magnificently. The plot seemed to be a little bumpy, and it was apparent that Tucci isn't an experienced screenwriter and was trying to do too much at once. The hokey romance and eccentric supporting characters are characteristic Marx Brothers or Abbott & Costello. Tucci adds a new flavor to his film, and is helped by fantastic comedic performances by himself, Oliver Platt, and Campbell Scott especially. For anyone who pines away for the old comedies, this is for you. It is also for people who want to see a fresh approach to comedy abandoned by Hollywood more than forty years ago.

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer: *** This was certainly almost as good as the original. It doesn't bog you down with plot, but it chooses to just give you enough to satisfy you and leave the rest to superb suspense and action. Although I did predict the ending and many more frustrating points, this sequel is without doubt a joy to see.

J

Jane Austen's Mafia!: * 1/2 As with all satires, there are a handful of jokes that are truly hysterical, and many that are enjoyable groaners. But, as in Mafia!, the majority are weak, amateur, and uninteresting. There was no underlying plot, which even the most haphazard of comedies needs. There was no continuity or hint of story, so I just learned to follow the jokes, which were poor. I have to admit, though, it is worth seeing if only for two or three pee-in-your-pants jokes.

K

Krippendorf's Tribe: ** 1/2 A comedy with a great idea, but the screenwriters don't quite pull it off. Richard Dreyfuss is, of course, perfect, and Jenna Elfman does a good job as well. There are dozens of great jokes, but they are loosely held together by the plot. Worth seeing, though, for some great laughs.

L

Les Miserables: **** An epic of titanic proportions. The acting is intimidating and the direction superb. Never has an epic been brought to the screen with such grace as Les Miserables. Neeson, Rush, and Danes were magnificent, and the supporting cast was fantastic.

Lethal Weapon 4: *** 1/2 I am constantly amazed at how these sequels just keep getting better. It's a cliche and it's hokey, but I just love Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. I think Joe Pesci is hilarious. The whole routine between Chris Rock and Danny Glover was great. The scene in the dentist's office was classic comedy. The action sequences were well directed and well executed. I could have used a better balance, but I was well satisfied.

Life is Beautiful: **** The first thing I have to say is that this was certainly unique. There are probably more messages and symbolism in this film than I could ever sift through. My basic impression was that despite all adversity and in the face of all horrors, life is still beautiful. Roberto Benigni began as a comedian reminiscent of Chaplin, Stan Laurel, and Lou Costello. He ended as an actor reconciling his tragic character with comedic overtones. He did a magnificent job, and the entire film was magnificent. My only complaint is that I could not quite reconcile the happiness with the atrocities.

Little Voice: **** I was amazed at how touching this film was. Three cheers for all of the actors and writers. I was thoroughly entertained and especially wowed by Jane Horrocks as Little Voice herself. Of course, Michael Caine was wonderful, and Brenda Blethyn was great as well.

Lost in Space: *** An interesting attempt to make good of a largely forgotten TV show. There are good jokes, and good suspense moments, but the plot doesn't hold up. It is poorly written and uses amateurish formulas. The film ultimately succeeds, despite the combination of time travel and family values, which while well executed, doesn't fit together in the big picture.

M

Major League: Back to the Minors: * It's sad to see that they're still milking a good movie like Major League for more sequels. While this film is diverting and at times funny and amusing, it is very poorly written. Bob Uecker managed to save the second film from failure, but you can see clearly that nothing can bring more energy to the Major League films.

The Mask Of Zorro: *** 1/2 Just what I expected from a film based on a TV show that I loved to watch as a kid. Anthony Hopkins is the master of versatile acting. The more I see Antonio Banderas, the more I like him. He was the perfect fit for this role, and executed it to a "T". It was very comedic, but not too much so. The action sequences were amazing, and kudos to the stunt doubles! This is a thrill to watch!

Mercury Rising: ** 1/2 A fun suspense thriller, but not quite intelligent enough to fit in with the super-intelligent story. Bruce Willis is back, as usual. The plot proceeds well and is adequate, but it doesn't stand up to its potential. I saw where Alec Baldwin compared the life of one little boy versus the lives of thousands of agents and wondered why they didn't make more of that. It seemed a very valid point and wasn't really dealt with. Apart from some minor objections, the film was above average and worth seeing.

O

The Odd Couple 2: ** I was astounded to find that Neil Simon wrote what I thought was a tedious and amateurish screenplay. However, Neil Simon can still make you laugh. Matthau and Lemmon can still make you howl with laughter. While this film packs howls, it's very iffy on anything else. Worth seeing though, if only for the consistency and brilliance of the humor.

P

Patch Adams: *** 1/2 The most interesting thing about this film is its irregularity. I think that's what turned off most people. It didn't have a steady flow of rising and falling action and thus was difficult to identify with. However, you can't really complain, because it is, after all, a true story. Robin Williams doesn't really surpass anything, but he turns in another hilarious performance.

Phantoms: *** I was amazed at how well done this film was. After it got panned by the critics, I expected a crummy Sci-Fi/Horror film not worth its weight in popcorn. I was surprised at first that Peter O'Toole was in it, and second that the youth actors weren't the cliched teenagers seen in most horror films. Hats off to Dean Koontz and co. on a superb screenplay that thrills!

Pleasantville: *** 1/2 This film is a joy to watch. It is so new and is bustling with such energy that it compels your attention. Hats off to each actor, all of whom function together seamlessly. It's a thrill to see Don Knotts again, as well as the late J.T. Walsh. My problem comes with the screenplay. It seems so smooth at first, but becomes too cumbersome in mid-film. There were several areas where it seemed slow, and it looked as if the screenwriters were just moving along with the flow, not caring about justifying it. This is a basic hair-split, though, because I loved the film. It is truly invigorating and a mirror of our own society. ("No Coloreds" sounds familiar, doesn't it?)

Primary Colors: *** 1/2 A brilliant film that really deals with everything we try not to think about when it comes to politics. Every scandal and corrupt politicians that we make light of and make fun of, when it really is a serious stain on our pride. John Travolta makes a career performance as Jack Stanton, not Bill Clinton(laughter). Emma Thompson is great as his wife. Kathy Bates may be looking at another Oscar with her powerful performance as a mentaly ill friend of the Stantons. Billy Bob Thornton is great, and everyone acts as an ensemble to make this one of the best films I've seen this year.

Prince of Egypt: *** 1/2 A fantastically produced film. Apart from a few minor faults, The Prince of Egypt is one of the best animated films of the 90's. I don't like Val Kilmer as Moses. That's in the Bible somewhere.

Psycho: ** 1/2 This was certainly an entertaining film, but I have only one question: Why was it made? There were no major deviations from the original (except some hanky-panky), and the camera work was virtually identical. It incorporated a few modern techniques, but was just a non-unique film. I really hate to admit this, but I never really thought the original was all that fantastic to begin with.

Q

The Quest for Camelot: ** 1/2 They tried to make it like a Disney film and failed. The songs had no real melody, they were just there to be pretty. They were dealing with too magnificent a subject to deal with it in such a silly manner. I didn't buy Gary Oldman's silly character as the villain. There were very funny moments, with Eric Idle and Don Rickles as the two-headed dragon. While it was a star-studded cast (Pierce Brosnan, Cary Elwes, Celine Dion, LeeAnn Rimes, Sir John Giegud, Eric Idle, Don Rickles), that was really the only thing that held up a flimsy premise.

R

Ronin: ** This is a film that still puzzles me. The title probably repelled most movie-goers, but it is almost justified. DeNiro and Co. play a group of international ne'er-do-wells assembled to steal a briefcase. There is nothing of significance in this film outside the realm of the characters we know, and that is one reason it fails to interest. Since the characters are all that is interesting, the remainder seems boring and repetitive. DeNiro gets old and the only moment of clarity in the film is the scene with the man who paints tiny Japanese battle scenes. The title is explained and it almost makes sense, however, I can't compare the characters to wandering Japanese samurai. The only thing to remember this film by is that it contains three former James Bond villains (Tomorrow Never Dies, GoldenEye, and Moonraker)

Rush Hour: *** A hilarious romp of a movie. I never felt Jackie Chan was interesting enough on his own, but when he isn't the only interest, he is fine. I loved the interaction between him and Chris Tucker. Tucker has such a personality that he'll make it in movies for a while, but we'll see how long he lasts. My main gripe is that the plot was simple. A consul's daughter is kidnapped. Nothing really changes, it's just a series of events. There are a few things revealed (usually all at once), but the plot really doesn't move. But the laughter is such that you really don't mind.

S

Saving Private Ryan: *** I feel strongly about this film. It was an astonishingly overrated film. My main fault was that I felt that nothing in the film moved during the entire film. I knew I was watching a Spielberg film. It wasn't subtle at all. Some people liked that, but I thought my experience as a filmgoer was ruined by being FORCED to feel pain and FORCED to cry. Spielberg's films all seem to fiercely demand emotion. I don't like being told how to feel about something, and Saving Private Ryan was leading us all by the nose. Spielberg has moved away from art and is now interested only in righteous indignation. There was a wealth of emotion and trauma that certainly made it a moving experience, but nothing developed and there was nothing on a grand scale at all. It was like looking at an art exhibition and having the artist follow you around, saying, "Isn't this good, huh? Isn't this good? How dare you not like it!"
The critics praised this film and bowed down to Spielberg. I was repulsed at the acclaim this film got. If it meant to picture the frustration and boredom of war, they didn't have to give the pathetic illusion of an action film in the first place. For boredom and frustration, All Quiet on the Western Front is much better. Don't get me wrong, this was enjoyable and a good film, but not a great one. It certainly is NOT the greatest War film of all time. For those overzealous critics who can't see past their local video stores, rent Judgment at Nuremberg. It may have been realistic, but that doesn't make it good. I want people to think about this: Don't mistake an emotional film for a good one.

Shakespeare in Love: *** 1/2 Now I am as big a fan of ol' Bill Shakespeare as the next guy. It wasn't a lack of love for Shakespeare that dimmed this film for me. It was the fact that the film had a lack of love for Shakespeare. Instead of creating what could have been a timeless classic in praise of Shakespeare,love, and life, the film slowly becomes a simple love story. It was a good love story, but it wasn't the best film of the year. It was probably better acted than any other film this year, but the screenplay irked me and did not please me completely. Other than that, this film was a phenomenon.

A Simple Plan: **** It's wonderful when you find that rare movie that explores simple, timeless aspects of life. A Simple Plan is a thrilling story that keeps you involved all the way through. It is acted and directed with superb finesse, and it is written extremely well. This is a film that makes you think about money, trust, brotherhood, and life. Any plan that starts simply and is planned well will ultimately fail.

Small Soldiers: * A flimsy, completely uninteresting attempt at cuteness by bringing back old war cliches on a smaller level. Some funny moments, but overall uninteresting and trite.

Snake Eyes: ** A very average suspense film. It wasn't as horrible as it was cracked up to be, but it was very dull and not really worth seeing. They revealed everything too early in the film to keep you interested. There was no real sense of mystery or suspense. It was still kind of interesting, though, just to see Gary Sinise.

The Spanish Prisoner: *** 1/2 David Mamet has done it again. Not only is this an amazing screenplay, but it is directed flawlessly. I had a few problems as far as understanding, but overall it's one of the best of the year. Great job by Campbell Scott and Steve Martin.

Sphere: ** 1/2 The book by Michael Crichton is amazing, and the screenplay comes through with only a few questions, however important they may be. Good performances across the board provide for an entertaining sci-fi film.

Star Trek: Insurrection: *** Another entertaining Star Trek film. It doesn't hold anything overly exciting or terribly entertaining and fails to capitalize on its theme, despite the best acting efforts of Patrick Stewart.

T

The Thin Red Line: * War is bad. Once you understand that, there is no point in seeing this movie. There are no solid characters or plot. It's just some soldiers fighting the Japanese over an island. Death is the main character. In all its disgusting, putrid glory, death takes the limelight and that's all folks. The filmmakers were trying to form a social commentary on the evils of war. Just saying that makes my eyelids heavy. If a film is boring, too long, and uninteresting, and redeeming social value it has is worth squat. This was two hours too long. Pointless death gives me a headache.

There's Something About Mary: *** 1/2 I never thought I could laugh so much at a black, bathroom comedy as I did at There's Something About Mary. I'd certainly have to call it the funniest movie I saw this year. I laughed until I cried! Anyone who hasn't seen this cannot miss it. However, it's not for the squeamish.

The Truman Show: *** 1/2 Wonderfully fun film. It went through several low points during the film, but overall, Jim Carrey was great and Peter Weir succeeded. However, again I must remind the critics that there is a differnece between a good film and a great one. No one was inclined to disagree that Jim Carrey could make the transition into a serious role. Only I disagreed. I admit that he made a good showing and was impressive, but slow down, you idiots, he's no Olivier. He could have done much better. I don't mean anything personally against Jim Carrey. On the contrary, I think he did a fine job. However, I must remind the pretentious, overzealous mass media critics to keep their damn pants on.
This movie was very good, but not great. It could have gone much further as far as self-examination as a society and taken the spotlight off of Jim Carrey for a minute. If the film had made us look at ourselves instead of at the screen, then it would have been great. As it was, it was just very good.

U

Urban Legend: ** 1/2 An entertaining film that certainly takes a unique twist in its premise. It's refreshing to see a new serial killer, but most of the other devices are borrowed or contrived. Most of it is predictable, but it's still a fun ride.

US Marshals: *** The sequel doesn't hold up to its predecessor, but it still manages some fun. Tommy Lee Jones is great, but was not meant to be the star. Wesley Snipes does a poor job of holding up his end of the star billing. The screenplay leaves a few things unanswered, but is enjoyable for its action and suspense quality.

V

Vampires: *** 1/2 How can you not like John Carpenter? His trademark horror style never ceases to impress and thrill me. Only his films can give me that evil chuckle I get in a horror film. Vampires is so original and so interesting that the script's flaws are irrelevant. James Woods is the baddest-a$$ in the film, and it moves like clockwork. He and a skeleton crew of slayers try to stop a master vampire from becoming immortal. (John Carpenter also did the music. Isn't that just GREAT?!)

W

The Waterboy: *** A quirky, bizarre comedy that makes you laugh when you know you shouldn't. Henry Winkler is a riot and Adam Sandler is really funny. His on-again, off-again style repulses some fans, but I like to stick with him for his good jokes. The backwoods bayou setting lets us hillbillies make fun of ourselves. It is a sports comedy cliche, but the lines are just so funny! (There's a power bomb, courtesy of Captain Insano). By the way, why did Kathy Bates do this movie?

Wild Things: *** Purrrrrrrr. As a teenage boy, I'm inclined to rave this film. But good sense prevails. The plot is absolutely unique and worth mention, despite its faults. After a solid dozen plot twists, the audience loses track of where we started and everything becomes unreal and absurd. It keeps your interest, but it's evidently amateur. By the way, why did Bill Murray do this movie?

Wrongfully Accused: ** 1/2 An entertaining film with some nice jokes. It has a hilarious start and looked to be great. It went downhill between jokes, though, and it slowed considerably. It was worth seeing, though, for some of the parodies and satire that is trademark Leslie Nielsen.

X

The X-Files Movie: * 1/2 It's sad that I didn't understand a bit of what was going on. Instead of improving on the TV show, they only made it seem longer. There was little extraordinary here. A lot was revealed, but none of it was explained. If you don't watch the TV show, you will be thoroughly in the dark. I don't watch the show, and I was left behind completely. I was angry that the film was so closed to the public and that there was nothing grander involved. If you don't already know the characters, you're dead meat. The script assumes you know everything, even if you know nothing. TV show followers will eat it up.

Links back

back to homepage

back to movies page

Email: chaosrules70@hotmail.com