Ok, here's the deal. Periodically, I'll put a movie review on this page. My
scale is as follows:
Utter
crap; a total waste of 90 minutes of your existence
Possibly
worth watching if you're suicidal or drunk or high or immortal
![]()
Slightly below par of standard Hollywood fare
![]()
A decent movie, worth seeing once
![]()
![]()
A good movie; a candidate for multiple viewings
![]()
![]()
An excellent piece of cinematic work; worthy of high praise and a spot on your
video rack
Scooby Doo - (2002; approx. 86 mins.; reviewed 6/6/2003) This is a movie I really wanted to like; as a longtime Scooby fan, I looked forward to this film with anticipation. Elements of this film work very well, but as a whole, it disappoints. Everyone is aware by now of the brilliant casting of Matthew Lillard in the role of Norville "Shaggy" Rogers; comparatively few people have commented on how masterfully Linda Cardellini played the role of Velma. I wasn't sure how I'd feel about having a CGI Scooby in a film in which all the other characters are live-action, but it seems in retrospect to be a very smart decision on the part of the filmmakers, as it allows the sort of flexibility with the character that a real dog would never be able to achieve. On the other hand, casting newlyweds Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze, Jr. in the key roles of Daphne and Fred, respectively, was a serious gaffe. Gellar just comes off as Daphne the Vampire Slayer, which makes no real sense in the context of the TV series. Odd as it sounds, Prinze just doesn't look like a blond Fred Jones, and no amount of shaving and hair-bleaching will convince me otherwise. Rowan Atkinson, however, positively threatens to steal the show as the enigmatic Emile Mondavarious. So the characters are a bit of mixed bag--how's the story? This is where the movie really leaves its adult audience wanting, and make no mistake, the creators of the film clearly recognized that a show with the history and cult following of Scooby Doo would attract a mixed audience if translated to the big screen. Older viewers, for example, immediately relate to the vilification of the character of Scrappy Doo. Perhaps some would question the idea of seeking a logical and coherent plot in a film whose star is a talking CGI dog, but I do feel that the screenplay should have a consistent internal logic, irrespective of the prima faciae absurdity of Scooby Doo. Many unanswered questions linger after the credits roll. Leaving aside the utter nonsense of the protoplasm, where did these strange monsters come from? Did Scrappy create them? Are they genetically-modified rabbits? Or are they extraterrestrials? In the end, you can only sigh in exasperation and warn the next person to stay away from this real dog of a movie.
My rating:
![]()
Run Lola Run - (1998; approx. 80 mins.; reviewed 7/1/03) This is yet another movie I wanted to like a lot more than I did; it must be the year for them. I had heard of this movie and German actress Franka Potente in the same sentences and associated with such terms as "tour de force" and "breathtaking." Later, I saw Potente in the lead role of the 2000 film Anatomie, and I was quite impressed with both the movie itself and her performance in it. Given all the positive press this film had received, I looked forward to enjoying it thoroughly. Instead, I found myself wondering whether the director couldn't have made his point in a way that didn't involve a lot of quick cuts and references to obscure and seemingly irrelevant characters. Lola (Potente) is charged with meeting her boyfriend, Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu), in 20 minutes with either $100,000 or 100,000 Deutsch Marks (that part's a bit unclear, as I was watching a dubbed version of the film). It seems that Manni, after acting as a courier on behalf of his gangster boss, lost a bag containing the aforementioned sum of money, and he is scheduled to meet his boss with the money in 20 minutes. So, as the title suggests, she spends a lot of celluloid running. The events of the next twenty minutes are played out three times with minor variations in each iteration. She runs into several minor characters during the allotted time, for each of which we are treated to a fast montage of shots showing events in their futures. The first and second iterations end in the deaths of Lola and Manni, respectively. The third and final iteration is a happy ending. There may be a moral to the story, as in the first and second iterations, Manni and/or Lola rob institutions to acquire the needed cash; however, one is left to wonder whether these problems would exist if Manni weren't working for such a shady character in the first place. While it's not too hard to be sympathetic with Lola, the viewer does question why she loves this loser, whose part in the story isn't substantial enough to reveal any particularly positive characteristics. The soundtrack, which I actually liked, sets the pace for the film, as it consists solely of uptempo techno dance music. However, the direction, utilizing quick cuts and, for reasons entirely unclear to me, snippets of animation, is both annoying and . . . well, it's just annoying. I don't believe movies should be made for people whose attention spans are not longer than a half-hour. Those people should be damned to attending festivals of short films or watching MTV for the rest of their natural days or until they get some better medication. I think this movie could have been made with the same cast, a different writer and director, and it might have been worthy of the praise that's been heaped upon it in international critical circles.
My rating:
![]()
Underworld - (2003; approx. 121 mins.; reviewed 10/21/2003) Underworld is a very different sort of vampire film. It is bold in the sense that it is an attempt at mythmaking. As such, it is both a success and a failure. However, it should be viewed in that context, and not, I believe, as many others have characterized it--a mere, highly-derivative Dark City-The Matrix clone. Seen through a stylistic prism, of course it may appear derivative. However, that's really an unfair criticism in a genre where virtually every modern American film is derivative of the Hong Kong cinema tradition. Leaving such considerations aside, the film looks great. The vampires are perhaps not as menacing as one might expect, but that too is quibbling. The werewolves are without question the best translation of the werewolf concept to celluloid in the history of film. The environments are shades of midnight blue and black--not a rich palette, but one that suits the subject matter just fine. The movie's sex appeal can almost entirely be summed up in two words: Kate Beckinsale. She looks great in the tight leather outfit she wears for most of the film, but the film avoids the over-the-top, almost comic-book sexuality seen in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). As the trailer says, the movie is about a millenia-old war between werewolves and vampires and the young mortal whose bloodlines may hold the key to victory or peace. One of the more interesting elements of the story is that the vampires are not undead in the traditional sense. They breathe (see the underwater scene) and they have heartbeats (see Viktor's awakening). These are supernatural, living creatures, just as the Lycans are. The story has a number of twists, some of which are more obvious than others. One of the film's greatest failings is its inability to provide, throughout the course of the movie, a solid backstory. This is somewhat difficult to do without giving away the game, but it is clear from viewing the official website that there is much more to the story than is revealed in the actual movie. What is present in the film is adequate, but it really leaves one hungry for more information. At a running time of just over two hours, it's not immediately clear to me how this would be possible to rectify without radically altering the script. Still, on the whole, the movie looks and sounds great. While a bit hard to follow at times, this world deserves a second look--a Dead by Dawn to its Evil Dead.
My rating:
![]()