Started: 12 May 1995
Last Update: 14 August 1996
Title: Apocalypse Now
Year: 1979, Color
Run Time: 153 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Drama, War
Era: Silver Era
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, and Dennis Hopper
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Plot: A tired, drunken, American military soldier (Sheen), stationed in Vietnam has to go on a suicide mission to kill a highly decorated officer (Brando), who has finally lost his mind because of the war. Along the way, he is escorted to his boat, by a lunatic officer (Duvall), who loves to surf the Vietnam beaches. Sheen makes his way down a nightmarish river, to locate Brando, and runs into a photographer (Hopper), who has also lost his mind, and learns that the natives of the land think of Brando as a god. Sheen must than fiqure out what he should or should not do, and what really is his destiny.
Critique: The film is one of the most fantastic war pictures ever made. The nightmarish scenes that Coppola has created are some of the best ever. The use of slo-motion, and editing is uncanny, as well as colors and sound. The music is perfect, and not a single actor is seen with a flaw. The film does slow down near the end, but it really does not take away the films' impact.
Components:
PC: 9.0 (A-)
CA: 9.7 (A+)
MS: 8.9 (A-)
DE: 9.5 (A)
CS: 9.5 (A)
Critical Grade: 9.3 (A)
Final Word: See the greatness of Coppola, and try to understand that Coppolla went through his own hell to make this film.
Final Grade:(A)
Title: Apollo 13
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time:
Genre/Sub/Mix: Drama, Historical
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Ed Harris and Kathleen Quinlan
Director: Ron Howard
Plot: This film tells the story about the fated mission of the NASA Apollo 13 space capsule, that
almost ended with disaster, when the capsule is torn apart because of an electrical clitch that
causes the capsule to loose some of its oxygen. The explosion also causes the ship to loose some
of its equilibrium and it begins to float off course at certain times. The astronauts, Jim Lovell
(Hanks), Jack Swigert (Bacon) and Fred Haise (Paxton) have to fight the ship to keep it on
course, and the darkness of space to keep from freezing, until they find their way home. The
mission control supervisor, Gene Kranz (Harris) does all he can to guide the men back home, as
does Lovell's wife (Quinlan), who prays for his safety.
Critique: The film starts out a little slow, but that actually helps the impact of the final hour and
a half of the film. In the seventies the space program was an after thought in the public eye, and
this slowness helps bring out the audeinces' fear, and makes the plight of the astronauts all the
more real. The acting is perfect. Ron Howard's directing is Oscar-esque. The special effects are
perfect, and the inter-cutting of Walter Cronkite's old news reels really makes things great. It is
not perfect, but close.
Components:
PC: 9.4 (A)
CA: 9.4 (A)
MS: 8.5 (B+)
DE: 9.6 (A)
CS: 9.5 (A)
Critical Grade: 9.3 (A)
Final Word: The audience learns that even in todays space program, these astronauts are heroes.
They enter into a danger that no other human being could ever imagine. The film becomes a
gripping fear that matches the fear that was felt all over the world that fateful day in 1973.
Final Grade: A
Title: Barb Wire
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time: 109 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Action, Futuristic, Fantasy
Era: Modern Era
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Pamela Anderson Lee and Steve Railsback
Director: David Hogan
Plot:
In a futuristic world, America has been split into two factions. One faction rules the new
American Government, and resemble Nazis. The other is known as the Resistence. A beautiful,
commando-like female warrior known as Barbwire (Anderson), runs a large bar in the middle of
the only free city left in America, Steel Harbor. An ex-resistance fighter, she now works as a
bounty hunter, and she works just for herself. A scientist who discovers the Government s new
plan to use HIV as a weapon against the Resistence, asks for Barbwire s assistance, and much to
Barbwire s resistence is pulled back out of retirement to avenge the death of her brother against
the evil Military Police Leader (Railsback).
Critique: Anderson is suprisingly good, but the dialogue and script provided to her make her look
every bit the dingy blonde. Railsback is good as ever, and some of the supporting actors are fun
also. The action is good, and so are the effects. The cinematography is the best part of this film,
which creates a very dark stimulating atmosphere remeniscent of the "Crow". If it wasn t for the
weak script, and bad dialogue the film might be pretty good. The script brings you up than down.
It cannot maintain a good pace and unfortunately the meaningless parts out-weigh the good parts.
Components:
PC: 6.0 (D)
CA: 7.4 (C+)
MS: 7.7 (B-)
DE: 8.1 (B)
CS: 8.8 (B+)
Critical Grade: 7.6 (C+)
Final Word: The film is not bad. I enjoyed it. The mood and the darkness was very pivitol to the
film s
success. The comic-book atmosphere is there. Do not go to see Anderson naked (even though
it s a plus), but go to see how she approaches her character and actually makes it work with an
below average script.
Final Grade: C+
Title: Batman Forever
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 121 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Fantasy, Action
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Nicole Kidman and Chris O Donnell
Director: Joel Schumacher
Plot: The third Batman film begins very quickly as the caped crusader (Kilmer) is called to save
the life of a security guard from the clutches of Harvey "Two Face" Dent (Jones), who is bent on
destroying Batman. Batman foils Dent's plans, and enrages Dent even further. Dent attacks a
few more times, and one day during the annual Gotham City Circus, he attacks and kills the
family of young acrobat Dick Grayson (O'Donnell). Dick decides he wants revenge. and after
becoming Bruce Wayne's ward, he discovers Wayne's secret, and decides that the best way to get
his revenge is to become Batman's partner. Meanwhile, an eccentric inventor (Carrey), who has
a hatred for Wayne, goes a little crazy with one of his inventions, and becomes the Riddler. He
joins forces with Dent and they plot to reveal Batman's true identity. The original Alfred
(Michael Gough) and the original Commisioner Gordon (Pat Hingle) from the first two movies,
return for this one, with new love interest for Wayne, Dr Chase Meridian (Kidman).
Critique: The film is visually fantastic. The stunts, the action, the colors and the cinematography
are a milestone. Jones is great, Kilmer works well, and Carrey is a good Riddler. The film does
have a good comic book feel to it and it is great to see a Robin who is not dorky. The chemistry
between Wayne and Meridian is good also, and Gough again is the perfect Alfred. Two-Face s
character, and Robin s character, even-though were portrayed well I felt were waisted in this film,
and that they were only used to tie up the loose ends in the film. The Bat-Mobile is a joke, and I
miss the old one. The film left no feeling in your emotions and I felt that by the time the credits
were done, I had all but forgotten the film. It was so bad that I went back to see it a second time
because I thought I missed something. This film also lacked the humor of the first two.
Components:
PC: 6.9 (C)
CA: 8.5 (B+)
MS: 7.3 (C+)
DE: 8.1 (B)
CS: 9.3 (A)
Critical Grade: 8.0 (B-)
Final Word: I miss Burton's apocalyptic touch to the film, because that gave the film an almost
electrical charge, which gripped a person, and when I left the theatre after the first two movies,
they were all I could talk about for weeks. We are lucky that Burton hung around as a producer
because in some of the scenes we do see some Burton influenced imagery that saved the film from being another Dick Tracy.
The first two films had an emotion to them. They were pieces of artwork that Burton put his
heart and soul into, and it would shine on the screen. Warner Brothers paid too much attention
to Joe Moviegoer, and Johnny Pop-culture and tried to bring in too much of the Adam West
Batman into this film. They also worried too much about the kids, and it killed the film. We have to understand that, that Batman is gone and replaced with a much darker, eviler, and more vigalante Batman, and that Gotham City is the gothic place where you will find worlds of the apocalyps. I will recomend the film because of the fun, action and the amazing visuals, but in respect to the
other two films I think it is the worst of the three.
Final Grade: B-
Title: Braveheart
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 177 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Drama, Adventure, Historical
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Mel Gibson and Patrick McGoohan
Director: Mel Gibson
Plot: This superb retelling of the revolt against the English by the Scotts, back in the 13th
Century, begins when a young William Wallace learns the meaning of war, when his father and
brother are killed during a battle with the English. Young William (Gibson) grows up into a
man, who just wants to start a family and live his life in peace. His wife is than killed by the
English, and this sets the course for the movie. Enraged he leads the Scotts into battle, and soon
is recognized as a leader in Scottland and a Devil in England. The King of England, King Edward
I (McGoohan) wants him dead.
Critique: Almost the entire film is perfect. Spectacularly cheoreographed battle scenes. Exotic
landscapes, and beautiful photography. Gibson s use of slow motion is perfect to help show the
tenseness of the situation. His ability to show his brutal side in his acting, and the expert
depiction, but controled showing of hand-to-sword violence, during the battle sequences, only
generates more energy and reality in the film. The love between him and his wife is felt
throughout the whole film, even though she is dead before the half-hour mark. Love conquers all.
The film could have been shortened by about 20 minutes. Some scenes, even though they were
good, could have been cut or shortened to compress the film to perfection. 177 minutes is a lot of
time to spend in a movie theatre. There also was a slight over emphasis on the battle-cry
approach, almost to the point of over-acting from almost all the actors. By the two hour mark I
felt if I heard one more "ATTAAAAACK" I would have an annurism.
Components:
PC: 9.4 (A)
CA: 8.9 (A-)
MS: 9.0 (A-)
DE: 9.5 (A)
CS: 9.6 (A)
Critical Grade: (9.3) A
Final Word: I was very impressed with this film, particularly with Gibson's directing, as well as his
acting. I was afraid this would be another case where a Director/Actor would concentrate too
much on one aspect, and do a terrible job on the other, and completely kill the film. He was very
much in sync with both his duties, and it actually seemed to help him do even better. The film is
excellent, near perfection, and other than the length, and some over acting, it is one of the best
films of the summer. You really have your emotions running wild, as you exit the movie theatre.
The film really tells you how childish the human race was, and still is, and that we could easily see
our own destruction with just our bare hands.
Grade: A
Title: Bridges of Madison County, The
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 135 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Drama
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep
Director: Clint Eastwood
Genre: Drama
Plot: Based on the book of the same name, this romantic drama begins at the present time, when
the son and daughter of Francesca Johnson (Streep), come home to Madison County, Iowa, to
bury their mother. They learn that in 1965 their mother had a four-day love affair, with National
Geographic Photographer Robert Kincaid (Eastwood). They find their mother s three volume
journal that she wrote shortly after the affair. The journal explains the affair, the reason for her
actions, and the way she still felt for them and their father. The journal begins at the point when
the father and the children go away on an excursion and, during that time she meets Kincaid. It
also talks about the 25 years since then, and if the two ever kept in touch.
Critique: The film is very melodic in its approach towards the two people, and the case of
adultury. You find yourself in-between-crying, and thinking to yourself the delicate nature of love
and betrayal. Is it wrong or is it right. You are as confused as the two lovers are and that is what
Eastwood wanted to do. Eastwood s directing is very good. Streep will be nominated for best
actress, I am sure. Her portrayal is fantastic. She made my eye s wet. She may even win the
oscar. Eastwood did it again. As he did in The Unforgiven, his directing was very good, but his
acting is a little distant from the audience. He may get Best Director again, but he ll have to wait
for Best Actor a little longer. The reason the acting grade is so high, comes from Steep. There are a few editing mistakes.
Components:
PC: 9.2 (A-)
CA: 9.5 (A)
MS: 8.0 (B-)
DE: 8.8 (B+)
CS: 9.1 (A-)
Critical Grade: (8.9) A-
Final Word: The film is very good. It is something that most people of the nineties should see.
It approaches a problem that is widespread today, and takes that problem into a confused dream-scape world and tries to correct the mistakes that many human beings have made. The film is love
all the way without glorifying the act of adultery. The message is clear, and I only hope that some
people do not see this as an accuss to cheat on a loved one.
Final Grade: A-
Title: The Cable Guy
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time:
Genre/Sub/Mix: Dark Humor, Comedy
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Jim Carrey, Matthew Broderick and Leslie Mann
Director: Ben Stiller
Plot: A young bussinessman (Broderick), who reciently just broke-up with his girlfriend (Mann),
needs to have cable installed in his new apartment. The cable guy (Carrey), comes over, and all
hell breaks loose. This cable guy wants to be Broderick s new best friend, and all he does is ruin
Broderick s life. It turns out the cable guy is demented and in need of serious help.
Critique: As usual Carrey is very annoying and gross. I still do not like him. Broderick is great,
and so is the rest of the cast. The story is very well written, but it is hurt by a very overwelming
aura of morbid-ness. There are many poorly edited shots also. Great sound track.
Components:
PC: 8.5 (B+)
CA: 8.0 (B-)
MS: 8.7 (B+)
DE: 6.1 (D+)
CS: 6.9 (C)
Critical Grade: 7.6 (C+)
Final Word: A good story. Very interesting characters are built here, but for me Carrey ruined it.
Carrey fans may love it. I wasn t bored, and the persona of the cable guy was neat to see, but
Carrey made it a tired affair.
Final Grade: C+
Title: Casper
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 100 minutes
Starring: Bill Pullman, Christina Ricci and Eric Idle
Director: Brad Silberling
Genre: Comedy
Plot: This comedy-fantasy is about a ghost! A freindly ghost! Based on the cartoon and comic
book of the same name, we begin the story as two evil money-grubbers (Idle and Cathy Moriarty),
who feel cheated out of an inheritance, relize that the very condemned house that they inherited
may in fact have gold under it. This same house is the house that Casper and his odd-ball uncles
haunt. At the same time, a spirit-psychiatrist and his young daughter (Pullman and Ricci), are
somehow brought to the same house in search of the after-life and the young girl s dead mother.
Casper becomes the girl's friend, much to her annoyance, and the uncles become the father s
drinking pals. Lots of fun ensues, as the money-grubbers attack the house, Casper tries to become
flesh again, the uncles create chaos, all during the local middle-school's Halloween party.
Critique: It truly holds up to the formula that the cartoon created, only in this case it is not boring like I always thought the cartoon was. LucasFilms did a fantastic job on the special effects. The set design for the haunted house was really cool also. The acting was fine, especially when it is quite evident that the actors can t see their ghostly work-mates.
The film may not work for older audiences and a film even of this
type, should find a way to bring in the attention of older audiences. Disney can do it. I also
noticed that some of the really younger audience members were bored during some of the longer dialoque scenes. Some of the kids ran around the aisles during these scenes. Disney grabs their attention also.
Components:
PC: 9.1 (A-)
CA: 8.5 (B+)
MS: 8.0 (B-)
DE: 8.1 (B)
CS: 8.8 (B+)
Critical Grade: 8.5 (B+)
Final Word: The film is enjoyable. Eight times out of ten, it would probalbly be great for the
whole family. It is funny. It is fun. You also may have a tear in your eye. It is worth seeing on
the big screen.
Final Grade: B+
Title: Congo
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 108 minutes
Starring: Dylan Walsh, Laura Linney, Ernie Hudson and Tim Curry
Director: Frank Marshall
Genre: Adventure
Plot: A primatologist (Walsh) decides that his prized friendly gorilla Amy, is home sick, and it's time to go home to Africa. He manages to raise the money for the Congo expedition, through a shifty entrepre-neur (Curry). His expedition becomes involved with another expedition led by a female scientist (Linney). This second expedition is sponsored by a corporation who is searching for another lost expedition that dis-appeared mysteriously, while searching for diamonds in the Congo. The expedition team is led by a crooked scavenger (Hudson), and once they reach the Congo they relize they are up against lost civiliza-tions, volcanoes, and a slaughtering group of grey killer apes. Based on a book by Michael Crichton.
Critique: The Gorillas look great. The African scenery is beautiful. Curry as usual is perfect as a shifty villian. The story is fine. You do have a few shocks in the film, and the action is good.
There also are a few bits of fun humor in the film. Marshall also uses a unique form of blurred
shot to show danger, which I thought was very interesting and added to the errie atmosphere.
There are a few slow points in the first third of the film. The film is a little laxed in
these parts. The special effects on the volcanic lava are a little cheap.
Components:
PC: 8.8 (B+)
CA: 8.4 (B)
MS: 7.2 (C)
DE: 8.8 (B+)
CS: 7.1 (C)
Critical Grade: 8.1 (B)
Final Word: The approach to Amy, the gorilla is quite good. The character is not lost in the subplots, and we are not overwhelmed with cutsey animal stuff, which is traditional at the movies. The military conflicts going on in Africa today, are not neglected, and adds to the reality of the film. Even though there are some slow points in the film, we still have great fun. Some critics, as well as Paramount themselves were skeptic about the film s impact, because of the lack of star-status in the film. I think that the cast does a fine job, and Marshall did a good peice of work.
Final Grade: B
Title: Crimson Tide
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 115 minutes
Starring: Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington
Director: Tony Scott
Genre: Action
Plot: A radical rebel commander has started a civil war in Russia and seized a nuclear base in Russia. He has threatened to use it if he has to. The U.S.S. Alabama, a nuclear submarine, has been called in to try and prevent any aggression against the U.S.A. Under the command of Captain Ramsey (Hackman), they head for the closest point they can to set up a possible attack. They receive messages to go to Def-con 2. On the way they are attacked by a Russian sub, and all communications with the outside world are lost, but not before a fragment of a message from Command is received. Ramsey feels the message is to attack, but his Executive Officer Hunter (Washington), feels they should wait until they verify the message in case the real message is an order to abort. This conflict, creates a certain civil war among the crew and the officers, and time becomes the real enemy.
Critique: Political tension, fear of a nuclear holocaust, and drama is all evident. You really do feel an urge to sit on the edge of your seat. Scott s goals of tension in the ship are felt in the theatre. The acting of Hackman and Washington (maybe Academy Award Nominations) really help the film. The use of news footage in the beginning and end helps greatly with the reality of war. The opposing forces between Hackman s character (the tough white war man) and Washington s pacifist black thinker is a great tool for the film. The dialogue between the two is fantastic.
Some directors can handle a situation, in which the audience is put into a position
where they can t forsee if things will go well for the goodguys or not. In this film, I always had
the feeling that in each bad situation, I knew our heroes would be alright, but I don t want to
have that kind of premoni-tion. I wanted to feel scared, and even though the tension worked, the
fear of failure did not. I think the main problem was that Scott would hang on the scene a little
to long.
Components:
PC: 9.1 (A-)
CA: 9.5 (A)
MS: 8.5 (B+)
DE: 9.3 (A)
CS: 9.0 (A-)
Critical Grade: 9.1 (A-)
Final Word: I feel that this film could have been an A+, but with the problem described
above I felt a little bit robbed of a true gripping drama. The tension, the politics, the sound track,
the acting, the plot, and the cinematography were great. The action was a little timid though. I
feel the submarine action in A Hunt For Red October was a little better.
Final Grade: A-
Title: Die Hard With A Vengence
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 128 minutes
Starring: Bruce Willis, Jeremy Irons and Samual L. Jackson
Director: John McTeirnan
Genre: Action
Plot: In the first Die Hard film we are introduced to Police Officer John McClane (Willis), and
his over abundance of bad luck (and good), when he is thrown into an action packed terrorists
attack in a large L.A. building. In Die Hard II he is in Washington DC s Dulles Airport being
bothered by terrorists who have seized the airport. In both films the action and adrenaline for the
audience are in an abundance. In this film he returns home to New York. He has not spoken to
his wife in a year, and is on the verge of being an alcoholic, when he is thrown into another
problem with a mad bomber (Irons). A lone pawn shop owner (Jackson) winds up in the middle
of it, and chaos insues. New York was never this boring.
Critique: A few action scenes. A few lines of dialoque. Some neat hand-held camera work.
Irons is a decent bad guy.
The film is slow. It is nothing like the first two films. Willis is tired. Jackson is
unimportant. The ending is over before you know it.
Components:
PC: 4.6 (F)
CA: 6.5 (C-)
MS: 6.9 (C)
DE: 7.7 (B-)
CS: 8.5 (B+)
Critical Grade: 6.8 (C-)
Final Word: A great formula was created by McTiernan with the original Die Hard. That
formula was even more greater in the second film. These earlier films gave the audience an
adrenaline rush very hard to find in other action films. I was upset at the fact that the film was
timid. The absence of Mc-Clane s wife was a very bad mistake. In the other two films his wife
was in trouble, and even with a rocky marriage, he still would beat all odds to save her, because
his love for her would come out, and increase his need to survive, and charge up the energy level
of the film. I felt very robbed as a whole in this film especially since I have been waiting for a
third Die Hard film for five years now. Even though The Last Boyscout was not related to this
series, for me, I like to think it was the third Die Hard film, and this shameless imitation is just
another (but a little bit better) Hudson Hawk.
Final Grade: C-
Title: Dragonheart
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time: 113 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Adventure, Sword and Sorcerer, Fantasy
Era: Modern Era
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Dennis Quaid, Sean Connery, David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwaite and Dina Meyer
Director: Rob Cohen
Plot: A brave knight (Quaid), witnesses the boy he thought was a son to him, turn into a King
with Hell in his soul. Quaid than becomes friends with a Dragon (voice of Connery), and they
both set out for revenge on the King who betrayed them both. Meanwhile, the daughter of a
slained commoner, seeks revenge for her fathers death, against the same King. All their paths
cross and the battle begins.
Critique: Kids will love the film. Older people can enjoy it but there is some silliness in the film.
The script is slow. Connery s Dragon looks fantastic. Special Effects are great. The acting of
Quaid is fine and so is the rest of the cast. Editing and Directing is a little off. The film bored
me in some areas, and it could have been better.
Components:
PC: 6.5 (C-)
CA: 8.2 (B)
MS: 7.1 (C)
DE: 7.2 (C)
CS: 9.2 (A-)
Critical Grade: 7.6 (C+)
Final Word: I had fun with the film. Some of the lulls did bore me. The plot will seem silly and
boring. Try not to let the poor editing pull your attention from the film. The acting, adventure,
and the Dragon will be great, and if you can imagine yourself in King Arthur s time, the film can
be entertaining.
Final Grade: C+
Title: Eddie
Year: 1996,Color
Run Time: 110 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Comedy
Era: Modern Era
Grade Catagory: Big Budget, ($30 million)
Cast: Whoopi Goldberg, Frank Langella, and Dennis Farina
Director: Steve Rash
Plot: A New York Knicks fan, of the worst degree (Goldberg), wins a hoops contest at a game,
and is elected the Head Coach for the second half of the game. The new owner of the team
(Langella) decides he likes her so much, that he fires the Coach (Farrina), and makes her the
Coach for the rest of the season. From there its a mad dash to the playoffs, and Eddie has her
hands full.
Critique: The film is very funny. I always enjoy Whoopi. Langella is very good. He is perfect as
the Cowboy-esque Basketball team owner. The story is fine. However, I know it is just a movie
but, I needed a little more explanation on how lucky Eddie was. Bad editing takes the viewers eye away from a very enjoyable film.
Components:
PC: 9.0 (A-)
CA: 9.4 (A)
MS: 8.4 (B)
DE: 6.8 (C-)
CS: 7.2 (C)
Critical Grade: 8.2 (B)
Final Word: This is a good film. There is great work done here by Goldberg. It makes you feel
good, even though some of it is hard to swallow. Look for a cameo by Dennis Rodman.
Final Grade: B
Title: Eraser
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time:
Genre/Sub/Mix: Action
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget ($85 million)
Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Venessa Williams and James Caan
Director: Chuck Russell
Plot: A government employee (Williams) gets involved in a government cover up, and a plot to steal a valuable computer disk. She is asked to have herself entered into the Witness Protection Agency. Williams and an Agent (Schwarzenegger), relize that the Agency is involved, and particularly, the leader (Caan).
Critique: The film is fun. I was not bored, and it was good to see Arnold do something good since Terminator II. The special effects are wonderful, and so are the stunts. As usual the problem is that some of the situations are too unbeleivable like all Arnold fare. There also was unnecessary scenes of blood, and I try to not be picky about that stuff, as long as it has a certain meaning to the film, and here it was just unnecessary.
Components:
PC: 8.5 (B+)
CA: 7.8 (B-)
MS: 8.2 (B)
DE: 8.7 (B+)
CS: 9.2 (A-)
Critical Grade: 8.5 (B+)
Final Word: Enjoy the film for what it is, and do not go in thinking it is just another Arnold film, which it is, but better than usual, and don't fall into the, "It's the same old Arnold stuff", trap. It is a fun rollercoaster ride that should be enjoyed.
Final Grade:B+
Title: Escape From L.A.
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time:
Genre/Sub/Mix: Action, Futuristic, Fantasy
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget ($50 million)
Cast: Kurt Russell and Stacy Keach
Director: John Carpenter
Plot: In the future Los Angeles has finally been hit by an earthquake, and seperated from the United States mainland. At the same time, a crazed President has created a unescapable prison out of the island. The President also has created a new set of rules for the people of America to follow, and if they don't than they are banished to L.A. Snake Plisken (Russell) is called in again to capture the President's daughter, who has escaped to Los Angeles to foil his plans. Snake must return or he will die of a disease planted on him by a crafty soldier (Keach). Snake is aided by all kinds of criminals during his fight, and the time begins to run out.
Critique: This film was more enjoyable than the first film. It was a fun film, and it didn't take itself seriously. That was the ingrediant missing from the first film. Carpenter tried to make it serious, and it wound up being a boring film. This one has good special effects, a great soundtrack, and an almost interesting story.
Components:
PC: 8.1 (B)
CA: 8.1 (B)
MS: 8.9 (A-)
DE: 8.1 (B)
CS: 8.9 (A-)
Critical Grade: 8.4 (B)
Final Word: Many people felt that this film was a carbon copy of the first film, and that this one was not as good. I feel that Carpenter wanted to make a new revamped, upgraded, remake of the first film with this film, and he also wanted to have fun with it, and that's what the film is, fun.
Final Grade: B
Title: Fan, the
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time:
Genre/Sub/Mix: Drama, Terror, Thriller
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Robert DeNiro, Wesley Snipes and Ellen Barken
Director: Tony Scott
Plot: A Proffesional Baseball player (Snipes), joins the San Fransisco Giants, and immediately goes into a slump. Making his life more difficult is a local sports talk show radio host (Barken), who bombards him with questions relating to sports and his divorce. At the same time a knife salesman (DeNiro), relizes his life is just getting worse and worse until he finally snaps. DeNiro decides that he will terrorize Snipes and his son.
Critique:
Components:
PC:
CA:
MS:
DE:
CS:
Critical Grade: A
Final Word:
Final Grade: A
Title: Forget Paris
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 101 minutes
Starring: Billy Crystal, Debra Winger, Joe Mantegna and Cathy Moriarty
Director: Billy Crystal
Genre: Comedy
Plot: This romantic comedy has Mickey (Crystal), an NBA Referee going to Paris to bury his
father. The body is lost at the airport. During the search, Mickey meets Ellen (Winger), an
airline supervisor. The two fall in love, they bury Mickey s father, and Mickey goes home, all in
one week. Both people resume their lives, but try to keep in touch with each other, until on day
Ellen escapes her life in Paris, comes to the United States, marries Mickey, and they begin their
see-saw marriage in Indianapolis. The whole story is told to the audience by the supporting
characters (Mantegna, Moriarty, Richard Mazur, Julie Kavner, Cynthia Stevenson and John
Spencer), at a restaurant.
Critique: A very funny film. A very cute film. The pace is maintained and some of your
emotions are stimulated. The dialogue during the basketball scenes is great. Crystal is wonderful.
Winger is a little stale. Mantegna should not be in a film of this type. I hate to say
it but he has been typecast. Good for him if he can get rid of the gangster typecast someday, but
right now I still am not sold. I did not like the way that the narration was handled in the film,
although there is one funny scene where Mantegna does a little embellishing of the story. As
mentioned before, I did like the dialogue during the basketball scenes, but the directing of the
actual games, actor movements, and overall cinematography during the games is not good.
Components:
PC: 9.0 (A-)
CA: 9.2 (A-)
MS: 8.8 (B+)
DE: 7.2 (C)
CS: 6.8 (C-)
Critical Grade: 8.2 (B)
Final Word: Reguardless of the way Winger handles her role, it is all evened out by Crystal's
performance. He lights up the screen, everytime he comes into camera shot. The film is fun. I
do not believe all the things I read about Crystal's approach to the film. That the film is over
saturated with Crystal-esque humor run amoc. I felt it was evenly distributed and added to the
picture. Some critics also said that some of the humor is down-playing love, sex and relationships.
I disaggree with that also, and I feel the film did what it set out to do; to be a funny romantic comedy.
Final Grade: B
Title: French Kiss
Year: 1995, Color
Run Time: 111 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Comedy, Romance
Era: Modern Era
Grade Category: Mainstream
Cast: Meg Ryan, Kevin Kline and Timothy Hutton
Director: Lawrence Kasdan
Plot: This comedy drama begins in Toronto where a couple (Ryan and Hutton),are having
problems with the direction their romance is going. He has to fly to Paris for a business meeting
and winds up falling in love with a beautiful French woman. After recieving her fateful phone call
from him, Ryan flies to Paris to hunt him down. While on the plane she meets a French
Hoodlum (Kline),who just happened to steal an expencive necklace from somewhere, and has now placed it in her purse. Kline chases her all over Paris, while she hunts down Hutton, till
eventually, the little girl from Toronto and the hoodlum begin to have feelings for each other.
Critique: The feeling in the film is wonderful. The depiction of cultural differences between
Americans and French (as well as Canadians) is done brilliantly. The cinematography is great.
Kline's performance is perfect. The soundtrack is very appropriate.
The formula between Ryan and Kline works very well. Very entertaining romance comedy. There are a couple slow points in the film. Hutton,s character, I felt, should have been fleshed out a little more. This is an enjoyable little film. You become enveloped in the plot line
and the romance surrounding these people that you probably will not notice some loose ends or
slowing down.
Components:
PC: 9.1 (A-)
CA: 8.9 (A-)
MS: 7.8 (B-)
DE: 7.4 (C+)
CS: 8.5 (B+)
Critical Grade: 8.3 (B)
Final Grade: B+
Title: The Frighteners
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time:
Genre/Sub/Mix: Horror, Dark Comedy
Era: Modern
Grade Catagory: Big Budget ($30 million)
Cast: Michael J. Fox, Trina Alvarado, Peter Dobson and Dee Wallace Stone.
Director: Peter Jackson
Plot:
Critique:
Components:
PC:
CA:
MS:
DE:
CS:
Critical Grade: (C+)
Final Word:
Final Grade:(C+)
Title: Heaven s Prisoners
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time: 142 minutes
Genre/Sub/Mix: Drama, Crime, Suspense, Thriller
Era: Modern Era
Grade Catagory: Big Budget
Cast: Alec Baldwin, Teri Hatcher, Eric Roberts and Mary Stuart Masterson
Director: Philip Joanou
Plot: In the Bayou country of the Carribean, an ex-cop (Baldwin), is thrust into a story of drugs
and death, as he tries to solve the mystery surrounding a little girl, and the dead who died in a
fatal plane crash. Along the way, he runs into confrontations with a man (Roberts) and his wife
(Hatcher), who possibly have Maffia connections. He is aided by a hooker (Masterson), who has a
past with Baldwin.
Critique: The camera work, editing and atmosphere is excellent. The erie feeling of gloom
brought upon by constant rain falling during most of the film is great. Baldwin is very good. All
the characters have purpose. None are wasted. The story is a fine piece, and I did feel compelled
to see the outcome. The story does have some low points to it and it does drag in a few areas.
The film does keep a pace in which you are not looking for more, and you don t fear you are
getting less.
Components:
PC: 8.6 (B+)
CA: 8.5 (B+)
MS: 6.9 (C)
DE: 8.8 (B+)
CS: 8.7 (B+)
Critical Grade: 8.3 (B)
Final Word: The film should be seen, for the mood and the art. Very gloomy setting, and a dark
feel all around. The lighting is very good. The story compells you to watch. Do not go looking
for "Die Hard", but go to see a nice little story based on a book.
Final Grade: B
Title: Hunchback of Notre Dame, The
Year: 1996, Color
Run Time:
Genre/Sub/Mix: Animated, Musical, Fantasy
Era: Modern Era
Grade Catagory: Modern Animation
Cast: Tom Hulce, Demi Moore, Jason Alexander,Tony Jay, Mary Wickes, Charles Kimbrough
and Kevin Kline
Directors: Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale
Plot: A classic story in which a deformed orphan is raised as a bell tower ringer (Hulce), and held
captive by his evil master Claude Frollo (Jay). His name is Quasimodo, and he yearns to be below
with all the normal people. He recieves advice from his stone Gargoyle freinds
(Alexander,Wickes,and Kimbrough), and on one day he decides to make his visit to the
townspeople. He travels in disguise, but than he is caught by the townspeople and tortured. He is
rescued by the beautiful gypsy Esmerelda (Moore), and begins a friendship with her. However, a
handsome knight (Kline) is the true object of Esmerelda s desires, and this saddens Quasimodo.
Word comes that Frollo wants to elliminate the Gypsies, and Quasi-modo, has to look into his
heart and see who he is most loyal to; his Master or Esmerelda.
Critique: This is definitely Disney s apology film for Pocahontas. It is an amazing, near perfect
adapt-ation of the Quasimodo legend. The music and the story release many different emotions in
the audience. The anination is oustanding, and the perspectives acheived in the film from the top
of the bell tower all the way down to the streets of the town, work perfectly. It is an amazing
peice of work. There is one tiny problem, and that is that Disney films have almost become a
cliche, and it seems no matter what kind of a story they have, the same kind of formula is
produced.
Components:
APC: 8.4 (B)
ACA: 8.3 (B)
AMS: 8.4 (B)
ADE: 9.1 (A-)
ACS: 9.5 (A)
Critical Grade: 8.7 (B+)
Final Word: The film is very inspiring, and beautiful. It is fun for the whole family. However, if
you feel that Disney films are becoming formula films, than you might feel like you saw this one
already.
Final Grade: A-