Review: THE PLANET OF THE APES

TIM BURTON GOES APE…AND DEVOLVES IN THE PROCESS

(reviewed on Friday, July 27th, at Cinemark in Scranton w/ Dad, Mom, Annie, & Jack)

    I caught an A&E Biography show two days ago that featured Tim Burton. This week they’re doing Ape week, whatever that means. My dad says that A&E is probably owned or has some affiliation with 20th Century Fox. Why else would they do an ape week? This week they’re profiling different folks like Kris Kristofferson, Helen Bonham Carter, and Charleton Heston, who was the original dude who yelled, "Get your paws off me you damn, dirty ape!” Remember “Bright Eyes”? And the horrifying conclusion of that first film, The Planet of the Apes? It came out in 1968. It was based on a French book. It was such a hit money wise that they did a few crappy sequels. They even did a TV show and a cartoon. I guess it was only a matter of time before they re-did the original. It seems nothing is safe anymore. We got a re-make of The Mummy a few years ago. These aren’t massive re-makes, granted. They haven’t revisited Gone With the Wind or Casablanca yet. But where do we draw the line? I thought the original Apes was in league with those two. Yes, the other films and the TV show and cartoon brought it down. Maybe some don’t look at the original as a classic. But I do. So why remake it? Well that’s a simple question. Too easy almost. Why remake anything? Because you liked the first one so much? Maybe 20th Century talked Tim Burton into this idea, and maybe in his head he still believes it, but the real reason is cool, green, dead presidents. They made the new film for money. It’s a shame, too. Shouldn’t movies be about creativity? Or even, hell, in the summer they can be for entertainment. The new The Planet of the Apes lacks it all. It’s a popcorn mess. It’s boring. It’s lame. It’s un-funny. It’s silly. It sucks. I hate it. And now I look at Tim Burton as a shell of his former self.
    The new flick stars Mark Whalberg as the spaceman. He crashes onto a planet inhabited by apes. These apes talk and have control over the humans, who are looked upon as mere slaves. The story is the same as the orginal. A role reversal of sorts. And deep within there’s a racial thing going on, but with the new one you kind’ve have to look beyond the silly sci-fi hijinks to take anything remotely intriguing from it.
    The big deal with this one is Rick Baker’s makeup. He transformed some fine actors like Helen Bonham Carter (who will never be the same after Fight Club), Tim Roth, and Michael Clarke Duncan into apes. There’s gorillas and baboons, and there are some monkeys I think. The costumes are great, but to me they looked too plastic. I liked the original costumes because they were scary. And I liked the original because the humans couldn’t talk. And in the original you actually wanted Charleton Heston to win. You rooted for him with fists in the air. You wanted him to beat up those damn apes and win! In this new version, Mark Whalberg has a few quick quips here and there, and then one big fight speech that comes out of left field. The dude ends up on a planet where apes rule and he doesn’t act surprised, confined, or totally helpless. He really sucks in this film.
    Tim Burton also sucks here. The style he uses is sort of here, somewhere. He used to make really cool atmospheric films. Sure he doesn’t write the scripts, but his style is present in stuff like Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood. Yes, he made those two silly Batman films, but I always looked at him as a pretty good director. When a film was coming out with his name on it you knew you would be in for something special. Unfortunately, he signed on to direct this. Why? Did he like the original? If he did, then why didn’t he leave it alone? Here he puts too much Mars Attacks like silliness into the final product. There are too many jokes and scenes that you cannot take serious. So then how are we to react during the scenes that are supposed to be serious? Yeah, Tim Roth as the villanious Thade is cruel and evil, but does it matter if he wins? Not really. I couldn’t care less.
    I was bored with Apes. It’s all visual style and brooding music and expensive ape suits. It lacks every emotion and all of the drama the original had. The script has a few twists and turns, but the twists and turns are completely laughable. Granted, I doubt we’re supposed to take much of this serious…and that is why this film is a comedy. Why is this film a comedy, though? Sure, add some humor and what-not for the kids and popcorn audiences, but why ruin a great film in this immediate mess of a picture? This film, sadly, is awful. It rambles along with barely any action, save for one very boring and ultra-silly battle sequence. And yes, I won’t give anything away, except to say that this film fits finely along with the rest of the cluttered Hollywood junk I call The Summer Shit of 2001. I can’t wait to miss the sequel. ½* (out of ****)

Review: JURASSIC PARK 3

THE DINOS ARE SMARTER BUT THE SCRIPT IS DUMBER IN JURASSIC PARK 3

(reviewed at the mecca with mom and annie on Wednesday, July 18th, 2001)

    As I watched Jurasic Park III on opening day, I realized something as soon as it started. The very first scene is extremely silly and lame, plus the special f/x are extremely cheap and pathetic looking. What I realized, and what I kept thinking about in my mind, was how hard is it to make a good dinosaur movie? I guess Joe Johnston and the dozen script writers dropped the ball, because I think that it should be fairly easy. Jurassic Park III is a silly, disaster of a film. Granted, 1997’s The Lost World was a step down from 1993’s Jurassic Park, but JP3 is a giant leap down in quality, special f/x, excitement, action, logic, plot, story, characters, beginning, middle, ending, and, okay. You get the point. It seems like Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton were eaten by raptors in 1997 and thus had no say whatsoever in this mess. Because sadly, even though The Lost World could have been better, I would have much rather seen Crichton and Spielberg work on this thing.
    It all starts out lamely enough. I won’t spoil it, but if you have seen even one preview then you more or less know EVERY SINGLE SET PIECE IN THE ENTIRE FILM. Yes, the previews give away everything, even most of the ending. Basically, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill, who was good in the first film, but I feel for bad for him here because it seems he only signed on because he needed the money…after all, since The Piano no one has been knocking down his door exactly) ends up on Site B, Isla Sorna, the second island where the crazy Dr. Moreau-ish John Hammond created the dinosaurs. This is the same island we first saw in The Lost World. The place is run down, and the dinosaurs are living about in fierce jungle terrain. The problem with this film, and the second one, is the fact that there is no real good reason to come back to any of the five islands (in The Lost World we learn that there are five islands, although in this film we learn that there are only two…yes, it doesn’t make sense). The second film featured a lame plot line that had Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn showing up on the island to take pictures while a few hunters showed up to catch some beasts. Fine, that is at least somewhat logical. Why anyone is on this island in this third outing is more or less a complete copy of the first one plus another reason that is too lame to even repeat here.
    So some people get chased around by dinos, including the infamously big Spinosaurus, the raptors (again), and some pteradactyls. There is action, but it is silly and monotonous, and not nearly as death defyingly intense as the infamous stalled car sequence in the first flick, the infamous raptor kitchen scene in the first flick, or the infamous two t-rexes & a trailer scene in the second flick. The pteradactyl scene in this is probably what most people will agree is the best, but even that action scene turns silly and lame way too fast. This film, unfortunately, is for kids. And I guess I should have seen it coming. Joe Johnston directed this one, and he is the director of kid movies like October Sky and Jumanji. There are too many jokes in this film that turn it into a colorful romp. The big climactic ending is turned into a laughable popcorn disaster when some genius decided to cut an intense, violent battle with a colorful, unfunny joke plot.
    Don’t ask, because you don’t want to know how bad it is.
    How hard is it to make a good dinosaur film? Seriously! How hard it is? It’s not hard at all! Why not rate the next one R, put some hardcore Starship Troopers-esque carnage into it, and make it fucking awesome? Why bore us with this kiddy bullshit? Dinosaurs are fucking wicked! They’re sick and disgusting and ferocious and scary and horrible and not unlike the friggin’ nazi’s! Why are they in a kid’s movie???
    The other aspect that is a total letdown are the special f/x. They are, without a doubt, horrible. All of the dinosaurs look like they’re animated. The raptors are too colorful, and the Spinosaurus never looks as threatening as the t-rex in the first film, even though it’s bigger and more powerful. Jurassic Park came out EIGHT YEARS AGO, so why are the f/x worse now? Did ILM pull a rush job on Johnston? Do they only put the good stuff up on the screen when Spielberg is directing? I’m not sure, but this film needed major work. I guess now we finally realize why they sank this monster in mid-summer instead of opening it up earlier. It’s a kids film, and it isn’t boring, but it’s a mess. This franchise was golden, and the first film was the best popcorn film of the 90’s. Now the franchise is almost ruined. This summer, unfortunately, is turning worse every week. *1/2

Review: A.I.

SPEILBERG’S A.I. IS INTRIGUING, WONDERFUL, & DISAPPOINTING

(reviewed at the mecca with annie on opening day; Friday, June 29th, 2001)

    In 1969 Brian Aldiss wrote a short story titled “Super Toys Last All Summer Long.” Stanley Kubrick ran with Aldiss’ idea and created a magnificent fairy tale opus he titled A.I. No one really knows how long Kubrick tinkered with his movie idea, but I know that ever since I became a fan of cinema I have heard rumors and hushed whispers about this infamous and secretive project. A.I. was first thought to be a sequel of sorts to Kubrick’s most famous work, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or at least a companion piece. It wasn’t until he passed away that his true intentions were revealed to the public.
    I first read about these ‘true intentions’ in an article in Entertainment Weekly shortly after his death. Apparently Kubrick not only had an 80 page treatment written, but he had collaborated with almost every special f/x wizard in the business, including having telephone conversations for years with Steven Spielberg, who he had at first wished to have him help produce (there is also a story going around now that has Kubrick asking Spielberg to direct because the material was closer to Steven’s heart). There were supposedly story boards drawn up, and I’m sure Kubrick had everything ready to go.
    There was one problem besides his death: he wasn’t sure how to proceed. In the article in EW there was the idea brought forward that Kubrick wasn’t sure if the main character of A.I., a robot boy, should be played by a real actor or done via special f/x. No one really knows what Kubrick was waiting for. He had most of the work done but he decided to make Eyes Wide Shut instead, another film that he had been thinking of making for years.
    I’m sure Kubrick had more project ideas under his belt, but A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) was by far his greatest. When he died every one of his fans realized that what could have been his greatest triumph would never see the light.
    That is, until director Steven Spielberg took the reigns over.
    And now A.I. is playing in well over three thousand screens across the country. Sadly, it’s playing to main stream audiences who loath it, who leave the theater wishing they had their eight bucks back. The critics have been even more generous, but I believe everyone agrees that A.I. is a disappointment. It may feature wonderful sights, awesome special f/x, a truly great fairy tale story, and some fine performances by the likes of Jude Law and Sixth Sense boy, but in the end, the film is rather disappointing.
    Basically, A.I. is a future Pinnochio. Instead of the puppet yearning to be human, Haley Joel Osment is a robot yearning to be human. See, he is the first robot (known as a “mecha” in the film…for “mechanical”) who can actually love. But that is all that I am going to tell you. Why ruin anything? Why tell you about Joe or Teddy or the half-submerged New York City?
    The other critics, including the ridiculous spoiler filled review by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, have given away everything and more. What Spielberg and Dreamworks and Warner Brothers have done so far has been to promote the film as being ‘secretvie.’ Kubrick used to do it. He had closed sets and used to use the bare minimum of set people. There’s a funny story Paul Thomas Anderson (the writer/director of the awesomely epic Magnolia) had about visiting the set of Eyes Wide Shut. P.T. asked Kubrick why he didn’t have that many people working on the movie. Kubrick leered at him and asked, “Why? How many people does it take you?” An obvious jab about Kubrick getting it done more efficiently.
    A.I. is a surprise. The previews have shown almost nothing about gigantic chunks of the film. The problem with this is that most casual moviegoers will enter the darkened theater expecting a Speilbergian fantasy. They will feel robbed, cheated, and raped. This is a dark film with even darker currents running through it. Kubrick would be proud of most of the film, especially it’s cruel and evil tone. This is a cold, barren world filled with robbers, cheaters, and thieves.
    A.I. is, honestly, a mess of a film. The beginning is different than most films these days but too much of the beginning is boring. The middle section is exciting and riotous and awesome and insane and silly and comical and ridiculous and wonderful and intense. The last section of the film is boring and silly and laughably bad. There are some parts in this film that had me hooked. There are wondrous sights in this film, like Joe by the moon, or Teddy crawling up on the bed like a common pet.
    There are a lot of good things about Speilberg’s A.I., the first film he wrote since Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The performances, special f/x, and story are the best things in the film. The bad parts include some slow parts in the beginning and the God-awful ending that works in script-form (or book form, this would have been a downright awesome novel). Why is the ending so bad here? You will be cringing in your seat because you will think that the movie is never going to end. After much thought, the special f/x are what ruined the ending. Still, the final scene is wonderfully serene, and I believe it is the same way Kubrick would have ended the picture.
    Which leads to the great, never-ending debate. Would Stanely Kubrick’s A.I. have been better? Would it have been longer? More violent? More sadistic? More sexual? More dark? More boring? More insane?
    Nobody knows. And sadly no one will truly ever know. But I was glad to see A.I. on the big screen, even though it was Steven’s, and not Stanley’s. In the end, while A.I. may have disappointed, it is a grand picture of epic scope worth seeing. It isn’t a great film, but it has excellent parts that you will ponder and reminisce about long after the sun sets. I would have rather seen Steven’s A.I. then no A.I. at all. I suppose that has to be saying something. **1/2 (out of ****)

Review: PEARL HARBOR

GRATE SOME CHEESE & DROP THE BOMBS…PEARL HARBOR’S HERE

(reviewed at the mecca on memorial day ((mon/tues may 27/28)) with stu + jack)

     It was late July 1998 when Steven Spielberg’s epic WWII picture Saving Private Ryan hit theaters. While it didn’t win Best Picture that year (Harvey and Bob and the voters at the Academy should be institutionalized for three to seven years for that crime), it brought forth a new era of World War II remembrances. Society got Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation book, and films like The Thin Red Line, The Enemy at the Gates, Band of Brothers, U-571, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Wind Talkers, and Pearl Harbor got made. Earlier today prez Bush even announced that finally Washington D.C. would build a monument for all those that were lost in that terrible war in in the 1940’s.
     World War II is chic. It’s popular. It’s hot. So what happens after a powerfully awesome film like Saving Private Ryan comes out. Easy. You look for the next target. SPR featured the infamous Battle of Normandy, France. The Thin Red Line did Guadalcanal. What’s a ‘cool’ and popular battle? Why, hell, what about the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Uh…wait a minute Mister Hollywood Producer. We lost that battle. And…and…it wasn’t really a battle at all. Those slant-eyed Japs came flying in, blew the shit out of us, and left us crying with blood and broken glass. Those Japs made us look like common fools! Who wants to see a movie about that?
     Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckhiemer and Randall Wallace and Disney know who. And that’s why the latest $200 popcorn spectacle Pearl Harbor is showing in a bazillion screens to loathsome crowds (the crowd I saw it with seemed to loath it anyway…meaning they didn’t laugh at any of Alec Baldwin’s jokes and they didn’t clap like usual moviegoers). Saving Private Ryan showed the brutality and carnage of war that had never been shown before in World War II films. SPR was supposed to be serious enough to let us young kids that don’t know nothin’ realize that these guys died to protect the U.S. of A. SPR ushered in the call of heroism that rounded the world. SPR and the others that followed were supposed to be entertaining, yes, but also they wanted everyone living today that didn’t know what it was like back then to come to an agreement that those that fought and died and suffered deserve recognition. SPR ushered in a very positive notion of WWII vets speaking up and our generation of rioutous, out of control drunks listening.
     Pearl Harbor ruins everything. Randall Wallace wrote the horrendously by the numbers script and Michael Bay directed while Bruckheimer produced. This telling of the Pearl Harbor bombing (which was supposedly done much better in the Oscar winning famous pic From Here to Eternity…a film that made famous kissing on the beach while waves splash up and over the skin) begins by introducing two cocky and charming hunk fly boys from somewhere with cornfields. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett want to fly so of course they eventually become two spectacular fliers in WWII who both end up in Pearl Harbor during the bombing. The only story other than the bombing involves a nurse played by the downright h-o-t-t-i-e Kate Beckinsale who ends up falling in love with the high flyers. There are other air force dudes, but they are more or less cliches like the stutterer, the idiot, and the tough as nails old man played by Tom Sizemore. Jon Voight gives an authentic performance as FDR, and Dan Akroyd even gets the part of the ‘smart’ army intelligence dude who knew the japs were going to invade Pearl Harbor. As for the ENEMY…the Japanese are given a few scenes preparing for battle, which more or less makes this a revenge popcorn film.
     The best aspect of this 3 hour and 3 minute disaster (in every sense of the word) is the actual bombing of Pearl Harbor. It doesn’t come fast enough (at least an hour and a half into the film…and what is really hilarious is that the real bombing was shorter than this film), but when it hits you better hold on tight. These battle scenes are nothing compared to SPR, but for the popcorn dollar they sure do deliver. The Japanese come in like an army of soldiers in the sky and start dropping bombs in the water and on the decks of the ships and firing shells. The explosions are big and the shots are loud and the special f/x are terrifically awesome, which makes me recant my theory about how f/x are ruining film (see The Mummy Returns and The Phantom Menace). There are a few f/x scenes where the camera follows a japanese plane as it swoops down between the billowing, black smoke and ships on fire and WOW…these scenes are some of the best f/x work I’ve ever seen. As we fly behind these planes it’s like we’re in a video game. Truly awesome.
     The bombing eventually has to end, and while the movie should of as well, it drags on for another hour. Maybe the writer or producer didn’t want to let everyone go home on a down note. I mean, the United States basically had their pants down and got creamed like we did in ‘Nam. There are no popcorn films in existance where the good guys lose. So, because of this concept, the film drags on to the Dolittle mission of bombing Tokyo…which is strangely only warehouses. And guess who goes on the Dolittle mission? You guessed it, Frank Stallone. Oh, no, I mean the two high flyers themselves. And yes, Kate is down on the ground ready to burst into tears at any harm’s notice.
     For my money, Pearl Harbor sucked more than an Asian whore during the rainy season. It was too long, too cheesy, too silly, too stupid, too sappy, too same old, too over the top, too All American pride-ish, and too plain bad. The characters are all likable heroes, and Kate pulls of an eye-candy performance of epic proportions, but the movie has Bay’s fingerprints all over it. This is the hack director who made Armageddon and The Rock. And while The Rock was entertaining, it wasn’t meant to be serious. Pearl Harbor is supposed to be serious, but it looks too much like a glossy Gap advertisement than a heroic war picture. The bombing, which lasts around forty-five minutes, is awesome stuff, but the hour before and after is some of the worst stuff ever put on film. Bay attempts to make this the most All-American film ever put into a projector. Kids playing baseballs. Thousands of sunsets. Trains billowing smoke. Hip jazz clubs. And to top it off, Bay adds many Hollywood hi-jink laughs to entertain the audience…and all of them are so uninspired they make Brenden Fraser’s jokes in The Mummy Returns look like Don Rickles one-liners.
     Pearl Harbor has some good action scenes, but is a terrible film. It’s almost sad that Hollywood makes a serious war disaster and turns it into a tear jerker popcorn picture just to make money. People only go see this for the action scenes. Young kids don’t give eight shits about the serious side of war after this movie. They just want to hop in a plane and shoot some Japs after a hard night of drinking and laughs.
     I kind of wish the Japs had bypassed the harbor and shot down this movie instead. *1/2

Review: SHREK

OVER THE TOP SHREK CONTINUES DREAMWORKS’ WAR VS. THE MOUSE

(reviewed at Ritz 5 on Tuesday, May 15th, 2001 <sneak> with Annie)

 
   In October of 1998 Dreamworks SKG pulled a fast one. The company’s first ever computer animated picture, Antz, was set since the beginning to hit theaters in the Spring of 1999. Disney also had a computer animated bug feature, A Bug’s Life, which was set to be the first computer animated kids bug feature out of the gate when it would open in November of 1998.
    Dreamworks, and definitely Jeffrey Katzenberg in general who was fired by the mouse in ’94, declared all of a sudden that Pacific Data Images (PDI) had miraculously finished the picture months ahead of time. Antz would begin showing in October 1998, one month before A Bug’s Life.
    This was, for my money, when Dreamworks unofficially declared war on Disney, and Disney’s animation department in general. It is all ready 2001, and Dreamworks has put out The Prince of Egypt, a spectacular animated religious family film, Chicken Run, a claymation film from the creator’s of Wallace & Grommit which was one of the best films of last year, and The Road to El Dorado, a so-so animated buddy family film. Disney has gone on to put out Tarzan, Toy Story 2, Dinosaur, The Emperor’s New Groove, Fantasia 2000 and in June, Atlantis.
    But Dreamworks did one thing: it made Disney wake up from its slumber. Not only did they begin to try new things like the computer animated Dinosaur which featured photo-realistic backgrounds (like Shrek), but they also put out a new Fantasia (2000) which was shown on Imax screens across the country, and June’s offering Atlantis features no talking animals (supposedly…this one I don’t buy however) or colorful show tunes.
    Disney also tried to create a powerful and serious animated film titled Kingdom of the Sun. What happened to that? Who knows if it really sucked or if Disney was afraid it wouldn’t make any money, but that powerful animated serious film turned into the ludicrously silly Emperor’s New Groove starring the voice of David Spade.
    So the summer of 2001 is upon us and upon us once again is another classic animated showdown between Dreamworks and Disney. I all ready mentioned Atlantis, your basic animated Disney flick minus the song and dance numbers.
    What about Dreamworks new film?
    Shrek is the second PDI computer animated from Dreamworks. It features the voices of Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, John Lithgow, and Cameron Diaz. Myers voices a big, green, smelly, ugly ogre who lives alone in a swamp in the woods when he is suddenly faced with an adventure on his hands. Accompanying Shrek on his journey is a talking donkey voiced by Murphy who steals the show with his early 80’s style wisecracks (why isn’t Murphy as funny in his feature films these days?). The other characters include a short villain voiced by Lithgow named Lord Farquaad (yes, this is a children’s movie with a guy named Fuckwad) and a princess voiced by Diaz.
    PDI/Dreamworks’ first computer animated film was Antz, which was superior to Shrek but only because it was much more adult-oriented, what with Woody Allen’s neurotic-ness reeking throughout the film and such classic songs as Sinatra’s “High Hopes.” Shrek has a lot of jokes and touches (such as the obvious reference to Disneyworld) that are aimed at adults, but for the most part, kids will enjoy it much more than they did Antz. There are fart jokes and burp jokes and there is off-the-wall zany humor and all in all this is a children’s film.
    The best aspect of Shrek however is the animation. Wow. Before the film I caught a trailer for Disney’s Atlantis, and while I’ve always been a stickler for hand-drawn animation, Shrek makes Atlantis look like a rubber ducky vs. a gameboy advance. Shrek looks downright awesome. Yes the humans in the film are a little fake looking, but supposedly in this fairy tale world with ogres and snow white and robin hood and a dragon and what-not, humans are supposed to look a little fake. The moon and the stars, the tall dark castle above a pit of lava, the grass and the trees and Farquaad’s looming castle in the distance. This movie looks awesome…and it’s all from a friggin’ computer!
    Shrek also features the most jokes per ratio in a film since the days of Frank Dreb

bin. There is great music and some serious themes and a lot of humor and by the end if you haven’t cracked at least a small smile than you must be related to the Grinch. The only problem I saw was the over the top silliness of the film, which works for children but won’t entirely work for the majority of adults. Still, kids will love it, and it’s highly entertaining and funny and looks downright fabulous. I would not be out of line to think Michal Eisner is shakin’ in his boots. **1/2

Review: GLADIATOR

MY NAME IS GLADIATOR…AND I AM AN EPIC DISAPPOINTMENT

(reviewed at the mecca on Friday, May 12th, 2000, with Jack)

    With the release of Dreamworks/Universal’s Gladiator, the summer movie season of 2000 has officially begun. The time when the big guns come out to play. The time when studios put out their huge budgeted, special f/x laden ultra actioneer pictures that are silly and stupid yet fun and popcorn worthy.
    Gladiator, on the other hand, came out expecting Oscar nominations. It is a 2 ½ hour epic about Ancient Rome gladiators laced in with rulers and slaves and blood and guts and amazing special effects shots showcasing Ancient Rome and the Colliseum and how clean and white it really was.
    Gladiator got a lot of extremely favorable reviews, meaning that people actually watched this and took it seriously? Gladiators? Guys in sandals with swords fighting? Okay, I enjoy action. But what about the surrounding epic plot involving the evil Caesar and the Caesar’s wife and the gladiator’s wife and kid? Give me a break. I think I took Wild, Wild, West more seriously.
    Russel Crowe is Maximus, a successful Roman general who defeats the Germanians in Germania in the opening battle scene which is horribly edited in slow motion so the audience has really no sense of what is going on whatsoever.
    Eventually things go awry and Maximus loses his rank and becomes a gladiator slave who must fight in a dusty desert town (North Africa, maybe? The movie is so lackluster it never actually lets us know where the fuck they are) against bigger, meaner guys with swords and scary looking masks.
    Things progess slowly, and he heads to Rome’s Colliseum where the evil Caesar (Joaquim Phoenix who does his best with the awful script’s dialogue) is staging 90 days of Colliseum action so the people admire him.
    Of course Maximus becomes the best gladiator there is, defeating everything the evil Caesar throws at him, including Bengal tigers, people on chariots shooting arrows, and a big brute gladiator who has come out of retirement after boasting the only undefeated streak in gladiator history. Should I even have to spell out to you that his streak is in dire straights?
    The one aspect of the film that is awesome, is the gladiator scenes. They are fucking killer! The chariot battle scene was so damn cool I was sweating that John Woo may not even be able to top that next week with the PG-13 MI:2.
    But alas, the 2 ½ hour film has maybe 25 minutes devoted to action…making me think that maybe the idiot screenwriters should have thrown out the epic storyline and just have made Russel Crowe become a gladiator in the beginning and forget about the entire evil Caesar back story. The surrounding plot only ends up producing a boring sword fight which rips off directly from Rob Roy’s final sword fight between Tim Roth and Liam Neeson anyway.
    In the Zucker brothers/ Jim Abraham’s classic spoof, Airplane!, the pilot asks a little kid a question that defines the reason Gladiator is so silly. “Do you like movies with gladiators?” Gladiators are silly. The movie is ridiculous, yet it plays out dead serious and ends up extremely preposterous and boring. I couldn’t help laughing at the supposed powerful scene where Phoenix asks Crowe what his name is. He turns around with his steel, menacing mask on and says, “My name…(dramatic pause)…is gladiator.”
    Can you take that serious? Me neither. ** (out of ****)

Review: EYES WIDE SHUT

STANLEY KUBRICK’S SWAN SONG

(reviewed on video, Tuesday, March 7th, 2000)

    Eyes Wide Shut received a lot of attention over the span of roughly three years. It got a lot of attention because Stanely Kubrick died a week after handing Warner Brothers the final print. It got a lot of press because Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman played husband and wife on screen. It got a lot of press because the plot of the movie remained elusive until it came out in July ’99. There was a ton of press about the film, and it’s mysterious circumstances. How Tom Cruise developed an ulcer and didn’t tell Stanely about it until he was done filming. How Kubrick had to digitally enhance a few sex scenes so that it would receive an R rating.
    Beyond all of the hype and all of the mysterious rumors and stories and curiosities, Kubrick’s swan song, his final, dream-like, borderline pornographic film, actually turned out to be a pretty good film.
    Tom Cruise plays Dr. Bill, a normal, beer swilling, New York City living husband to Nicole Kidman’s Alice. One night after an elegant, brightly lit dinner party, Alice and Bill get into a heated bedroom conversation about sex and lust. Alice admits one time when they were staying at a hotel she saw a guy dressed up in a military outfit and she had the hots for him. She had sex with Bill but imagined it was the admiral. This story enrages Cruise, and so he goes off in New York City on a sexual excursion to get back at his wife.
    It’s kind of funny that the story of Eyes was so confidential, because the plot is extremely thin, and the movie moves about as slow as any other Kubrick feature.
    The best scene in the entire film is really the core of the flick. Cruise ends up at a masked orgy in an upstate mansion. Kubrick had a knack for filming anything, anywhere, at any time, and making it look downright awesome. The party is shot so well, and the music is dead on, that a feeling of dread and eroticism creeps through the screen with each shot.
    Both Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are decent actors, but nothing special. The plot is thin, and there are too many ridiculous coincidences, but all in all the film works because of one thing: Stanley Kubrick. He had such a knack for making good films that he could probably film a cereal box and make it engaging. The party scene is so well done it puts every other ‘art’ movie to shame. The lighting and the music and the way the steadi-cam follows everyone around every corner, it’s just great to watch and to be involved in. The movie is about dreams and real life and sex and lust and adultery and fucking.
    Stanley Kubrick hasn’t made a masterpiece with Eyes, but he has made an interesting, mysterious, dream-like piece of film that is extremely engaging and beautiful looking.
    We will all miss his Kubrickian style, his magnificent endings and his perfect music and lighting. We’ll remember Jack Nicholson yelling, “Heeeeeere’s…Johnny!” with a crazed look in his eye, we’ll never forget the Droogs out for a midnight stroll, the ape tossing a bone in the air, or Slim Pickens riding the a-bomb.
    We will miss you, Stanley Kubrick. Goodnight sweet prince. *** (out of ****)