Change Your Image
ReggieSantori
An Italian-American in his early forties living comfortably in Fort Worth (in total excess), who did a brief stretch as a journalist, has a police record, joined certain questionable organizations, has never been married, writes novels, aspires to direct motion pictures, and is currently on a mission to discover the truth behind Jim Morrison's death.
Piece.
[trum]my favorite film-makers are (not in order):
Orson Welles
Quentin Tarantino
Martin Scorsese
Arthur Penn
Alfred Hitchcock
Akira Kurosawa
Fritz Lang
John Huston
Francis Ford Coppola
Oliver Stone
[jump9]"The real question is: who accuses me?"[fight2]
Reviews
Collateral (2004)
Wow... This Was The Best Movie Of The Year
I'm as surprised as you are. Make no mistake, I know Michael Mann is awesome and I knew the cast was good, but I wasn't expecting this film to be such a treat! Some things I noticed from the trailer that appeared to be possible strikes against proved very well used. This film knows exactly what to do with hand held digital cinematography.
The story is a simple one. An LA cab driver who's letting life pass him by picks up the wrong fare. Cruise forces Foxx to take him around the city all night to perform various murders. The cops think Foxx is the murderer, but one detective doesn't buy it. The set up could have lead to a drab, standard action picture. A creative, naturalistic treatment results in a highly immersive, very enjoyable film. This film takes you to Los Angeles with complete texture- it's as if you're really there. The soundtrack is also awesome. The performances from the two leads are fantastic. All in all it is a thrilling and realistic film.
And I wasn't joking when I said it's the best. No other film I've seen this year (and I've seen quite a few) can quite measure up to this one. This is the one that I can honestly say I have no reservations about.
To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
Everybody Wang Chung Tonight!
Yes, that is Wang Chung on the soundtrack, and not just for the songs, but for the entire score! Why? William Friedkin, who once made us all respect him with THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST must have thought it was time for a change and made this 80s monstrosity. He's thoroughly responsible for it, too. On his DVD commentary, he admits to writing much of the script, selecting William L. Petersen for the lead, and hiring Wang Chung, telling them "not to do a piece with a beginning or an end". The result is dreadful and uneven. The best thing about this movie is its car chase, and that can't hold a candle to the brilliant piece of work in THE FRENCH CONNECTION.
The movie starts off with an assassination attempt on the president, which is thwarted by secret service agent Petersen and his aging partner. His partner is retiring in a few days, but must go out on one last case. He goes after counterfeiter Masters (Willem Dafoe) and is promptly blown away by him, giving Petersen a revenge motive to take down Dafoe at any cost. That's the main plot. The details are that both the hero and the villain sleep with girls who don't like them, the hero has a new partner who's afraid of breaking the rules, and the villain has a lawyer who isn't too particular about them. For some reason, any mention of Petersen's connection to the secret service stops after the opening scene, and he seems to be an ordinary cop. John Turturro shows up somewhere in the mix as a man working for Masters, and is ultimately a forgettable side note. It's a funny thing that in a movie for which money was actually counterfeited under supervision of an ex-con, the funny money itself spends almost as little time in the movie as does the secret service. In Friedkin's own THE FRENCH CONNECTION, the heroine was also real, and an ever-present part of the story (who could forget the quality test scene?). I guess there's only one way to say it: Friedkin lost it.
For some reason this movie has multiple scene including male nudity and people getting kicked in the crotch. This movie is a bit like a porno: you see every character naked but you never get to know who they really are. Likewise, TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., as a movie, is all surface. On top of that, the surface isn't very pleasing. The canned Wang Chung score, the lifeless photography, and the poor transitions add up to a movie that is as ugly as it is empty.
A strange set of circumstances and the movie's only good twist send Petersen and his new partner, Pankow on a doomed mission to abduct a man carrying a vast sum of money, bringing gunmen down on them and resulting in the now famous car chase (Wang Chung fans beware, it's un-scored!). Here we finally get some interesting photography and the action the move had been sorely lacking. From there, the plot steers for tragedy and a conclusion that feel somewhat inevitable. This, however, is mishandled, giving the viewer yet another disappointment to remember it by. I won't spoil it, because it really isn't worth spoiling.
This movie is nothing special. At best it's a flawed cop drama, at worst a stain on several careers. You can get what you're looking for better stronger, faster, and just plain not screwed up. See Friedkin's big movies from the 70s instead. TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. is a sad reminder that we can no longer count on him to deliver quality cinema.
Lukas' Child (1993)
Too Slow, Too Thin
I love the occasional low-budget exploitation horror movie. They're usually good for a laugh. LUKAS' CHILD, like most of the movies in its genre, has its share of funny bits and t&a. It is, however, too slow and repetitive to be really entertaining. The plot has a smalltime Hollywood production company sacrificing girls to a creature referred to only as "the child." From that creepy, promising start, we descend into boredom with the introduction of a detective investigating the disappearances of beautiful babes. He's semi-good-looking, and the women he questions are all hot and interested in him, but, honestly, who needs him? The real star of this show is Lukas, an old man in a bathrobe who is priest to a strange cult. The guy can act and his dialogue isn't bad either. He and the victims have some good scene together that have a dramatic quality that makes you forget for a minute that this is an exploitation movie you're watching. The funny bits of this movie are good stuff, too. One of Lukas's thugs (who a witness described as looking "like Charles Manson") abducts women by night and takes them back to the cult's lair in coffins. It's a pretty funny sight to see a pick-up truck driving through LA at night with a coffin not quit fitting in its bed. There are some pieces that don't fit, though. Two children witness the strange goings on and dutifully inform the police. The kids really bring this movie down by a lot (they're right out of the 50s). If this thing had been made a mere two years later, the influence of SE7EN would have improved the whole detective angle by a lot, and this movie would have been much better. As it is, this film suffers from the stagnant state of the horror film at the time. It's a pity, too, because Lukas and his child were a pretty interesting idea (at east until the child is shown). LUKAS' CHILD is a fun movie watch with friends while having a few beers. At the very least, its better than the other three movies on the DVD horror-anthology I found it on. If you do happen to find this movie and for some reason want to watch it, keep your expectations low and you might enjoy it.
The War Zone (1999)
A Good, Shocking Little Film
Highly talented actor Tim Roth tried his hand at directing with this irregular little film, THE WAR ZONE. The presentation is what I would call flat; a frank, non-gloss view with no frills in sight. The story is a disturbing one, rendered more disturbing by the flat, passionless approach.
An English family moves from the big city to a more rural town on the coast. The teenage son is unhappy. The mother is pregnant and the film opens with the family getting into an auto accident while trying to rush her to the hospital. The baby is alright but the family is not, in the whole relationship balance realm, anyway. The son begins to suspect that his older sister is having a tryst with their father when the two begin to spend more time together. Before long he finds out it's true. This tale is hardly pleasant and THE WAR ZONE could not be called entertainment. This is a shocking tale played out in a bleak landscape by almost inhuman characters.
Harsh scenes are shown the viewer by an unflinching camera and the viewer soon finds himself unable to flinch as well. The images are accepted, just as flatly as they are presented, though they could never be approved of. What Roth has delivered is almost an experimental film, an art film, because it does not try at all to entertain. This may be boring to most viewers. It isn't a bad film, nor could it be called great, but it tells its story in all its mute grayness and doesn't pull any punches. I can guarantee one thing about THE WAR ZONE; you will not feel like speaking when it is over.
The Doors (1991)
Stone's Beautiful Tribute Succeeds All The Way
Only Oliver Stone could manage to make a 140 minute bio-drama about this band and make it work. He and cinematographer Robert Richardson make this a wonderful, tripped-out experience that never leaves reality behind (I'm speaking of drama, not facts) and never lets nostalgia overcome the story. Of course I'll give credit where it's due, Val Kilmer gives what is probably his best performance in the role of the one and only Jim Morrison.
The film opens with a depiction of that famous event from Morrison's childhood, when he saw the Indian die, setting the viewer up for the semi-legendary tone of this film. Stone clearly has a reverence for the time and the man. From there we follow Morrison from being misunderstood in film-school through his life and love and years with The Doors, to his death in Paris. Along the way, Oliver Stone works another miracle: he prevents Meg Ryan from ruining the film with that irritating "cuteness" that's left so many others in flames. Ryan is forced into the non-cute position of Morrison's lover and "muse" who suffers endlessly at his fame and drug abuse. One of my favorite scenes has Kilmer dangling out a window asking Ryan if she'd die for him.
The soundtrack is almost entirely Doors songs, many of which are performed (very well) by Kilmer. The supporting cast features an unrecognizable Kyle MacLachlan in a good turn as another member of The Doors. As with many Stone films, fact and fiction are blended together to tell the story, but it doesn't detract at all from the worth of this film. What the viewer gets is an emotionally active look at the short life and career of Jim Morrison. The performances are good, Stone's script and direction are in good form, and the photography and editing elevate the film to a higher level of cinema.
THE DOORS is a must see picture. Never before or since has there been a celebrity biography to succeed so thoroughly as a drama and as a film. Reggie can't get enough of this!
Apocalypse Now (1979)
One of the Ten Best Films Ever Made
You can forget about THE GODFATHER, STAR WARS, or SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. This movie is one of the best there is and is only beaten by a handful of pictures. I'm not talking AFI here, but my own, more accurate scale. This wonderful film, that developed over more than ten years and nearly cost the lives of all involved ranks number 4 on my list of 100 best films, coming in behind CITIZEN KANE, THE TRIAL, and IKIRU.
APOCALYPSE NOW is not merely an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", but an improvement upon that work. This film defies genre classification. It could best be described as an epic, and as that it surpasses any epic made before or since. The scope is great, yet the atmosphere is claustrohobic. The setting is bright and beautiful but the tone is dark and disturbing. It is set in the Vietnam war, but it's not about the Vietnam war. Coppola said the movie was the war itself, but it's even more than that.
After 25 years in release and thousands of reviews, I'm sure you know the plot, but here it is again just in case. Martin Sheen (BADLANDS, THE DEAD ZONE) is Willard who does certain special covert operations in Vietnam. His latest mission is to find Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando- the greatest), who has gone mad deep in the jungle, and terminate "with extreme prejudice". He heads up river on a small navy boat with a mixed bag of men. They first encounter Robert Duval and his love of Wagner, surfing, and napalm. From there things get crazier and crazier. People die, the men lose touch with reality, and then they find Kurtz...
There are plenty of famous scenes in the film and a couple of candidates in the REDUX version (which I actually liked). The score director Coppola produced with his father adds to the already eerie atmosphere of these great scenes. Wagner's "Flight of the Valkyries", The Doors's "The End", Flash Cadillac's "Suzy Q", and The Rolling Stones's "Satisfaction" are all used to perfect effect as well, and better than would ever be done again. For use of music, the Du Long bridge scene is probably the most haunting example in the film.
The visuals in APOCALYPSE NOW are at least as good as the score (or should I say, as great). Coppola hired Vittorio Storaro to photograph his masterpiece. Storaro had previously worked on Bertolucci's THE CONFORMIST and LAST TANGO IN PARIS. Like those two films, APOCALYPSE NOW is visually perfect, every shot a splendid display of color and light. I mean this movie looks good!
Saving the best for last, as the movie does, there is Brando as Kurtz himself. He gained too much weight over the course of production to be the
Kurtz Conrad described or Coppola envisioned but he is still one of the most imposing characters realized on screen. Brando delivers the famous "the Horror" speech, not as Milius wrote it, but as his on great bit of improv. His few scenes are addictive in their power. Kurtz has cinema's greatest lines. This is really where all the elements of a movie come together in a perfect blend. With Brando's performance, climaxing a film full of great acting, this becomes a perfect film.
APOCALYPSE NOW is a must see film. Whether you're a movie nut or just somebody looking for a good movie, this is the one you can't miss. This picture spent the souls and minds of all who made it; the least we can do is watch it.
"Pray for your father."
I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932)
Some of the Most Powerful Scenes Ever Filmed are In This!
I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG is a great example of 1930s drama and a statement about the inhumanity of the chain-gang system. It works beautifully on both levels, but is best viewed as a drama. Muni plays an optimistic veteran of the Great War who, through unfortunate circumstances, is arrested and sentenced to work on a chain gang in the south. The tragedy continues with depiction of the cruelty of the guards and various attempts at escape. Once our hero does escape and proves his worth to society with success, he finds that he isn't quite out of the woods yet. Despite the obvious restrictions of film-making at the time, this film is very potent. Some bits are genuinely heart-rending and the ending is one of the saddest and most powerful I've seen. I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG is a movie worth searching for. Like many great 30s dramas, if you give this movie a chance you'll be well rewarded.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
You Have Got to be Kidding Me
With all the hype and protest over Gibson's THE PASSON OF THE CHRIST, I was prepared to enjoy this movie that had stirred so many. With everyone alternately attacking and celebrating the movie, it seemed it just had to be good. Well, I finally went and saw it.
To my disappointment, I found that several of the negative things said of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST are true. The film is very self-indulgent, overblown, and offensive. I am not an easily offended viewer, nor an easily disgusted one. For a film that takes itself seriously, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST shows too much gory, bloody violence for too long. Mel Gibson's commitment to this version of the story results in long scenes of Jesus being tortured in graphic detail. These scenes are not only excessive, but slow. It's like William Wallace's torture in BRAVEHEART stretched out to two very long hours. The picture crawls gradually along, leaving a bloody trail.
This same amount of blood and gore in a movie not about Jesus would likely have earned an NC-17.
I'm sorry to say that the complaints about this film depicting Jews as savage cartoon villains are accurate. Even though Gibson may only have been trying to tell the story as it happened, the result looks very much like an anti-Jewish film. The Jews are shown mostly as a howling mob. The Romans don't come out of it looking too good either, but the evil of the Jewish characters really takes the prize here. D.W. Griffith could have made this movie in his time and gotten away with it, but today this kind of thing is a bit socially irresponsible. I'm no stickler for political correctness, but damn, do they make the Jews look bad!
If you don't know the story, what follows may contain *SPOILERS*.
The fact that the film has subtitles won't prove to be a problem for those who are annoyed by reading them because this film has very little dialogue. There is very little human interaction of any kind except for violence. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST runs like so: Jesus is praying right after the last supper and Satan tries to tempt him (this actor did well, probably the most subtle thing in the whole movie). Jesus goes to wake his disciples and he is arrested in a slow-motion sequence with a lot of fighting. The Jews try to give Jesus to the Romans who don't want him, who give him to Herod who doesn't want him, and gives him back to the Romans who begrudgingly agree to "chastise" (torture) Jesus. Following long bloody torture, the Romans try to free Jesus, but the Jews would rather free the overly evil murderer, Barabus(they pulled out all the stops on this guy). Most of what follows is a patience testing portion, depicting Jesus carrying his cross up to the hilltop to be crucified. When he gets where he's going they crucify him and he slowly dies. He talks with the other crucified men and with his mother. He is stabbed in the side, raining blood into the wind. Then he dies.
*END SPOILERS*
There are brief flashbacks thrown in throughout this that are like a little taste of drama, but not enough to fill this film's void of it. It only delivers a portion of the story in which the viewer is nearly alienated from the characters. Jesus cries a lot and writhes in pain and falls down (while bearing the cross, maybe ten times), but we don't really get to know him at all as a character. The Roman commander is at least shown to be human (giving in to his love's sympathies for Christ and trying to resist the mob) but not quite three dimensional. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is over-full with violence, suffering, gore, blood, and torture yet almost empty of human (or divine) drama.
Judas is almost a footnote in this version. He betrays Jesus and is then tormented by cheesy horror movie effects and children. He hangs himself fairly early in the picture and that's it. He isn't treated as character, but a hurtle the film must jump so it can proceed to the more important obstacle of showing as much blood as possible.
Satan comes and goes from time to time, smirking and showing off an array of horror-movies effects. He remains a relieving, subtle island is a sea of excess until his final appearance.
James Caviezel's performance as Jesus is convincing. Most if this performance consists of being whipped, falling down, and spurting blood, but it is convincing. The performances in the film are not the problem. I might have cast the film differently, but the actors here did do their jobs. The blame for THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST lies squarely with Gibson.
If Mel Gibson wanted to bring something to the Jesus-film that had never been seen before, why did it have to be long blocks of torture? On top of this, the film is technically unimpressive and artistically unimaginative. There are no shots worth remembering or great feats of editing. The score is forgettable. The film's use of color is poor. Gibson really did nothing to save this! What he wanted is respectable, but how he went about getting it is not. Had there been more, longer flashbacks, had the violent scenes been trimmed a little, had there been more dialogue, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST would have been a good movie. It could also stand to lose some of the parts where the Jews are shown as a snarling mob of blood-thirsty monsters, and could have used better cinematography. As it is, the film falls short.
I wanted to like this movie, but it's like watching a preview in slow motion: you get part of the story and only some of the good parts are shown. It can't be the whole movie! This just doesn't cut it. It's the combination of a gory nightmare horror flick and a truncated made-for-TV drama. For those who want to see a good Jesus movie and are open to varying interpretations, I recommend Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. For a good movie by Mel Gibson, look no further than BRAVEHEART. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a movie to see perhaps just once, if you have a strong stomach, and aren't sensitive to anti-Semitism, and don't have to pay for it, and don't have anything better to do. Otherwise, watch my recommended films instead.
Calling the Shots (1993)
Good and Scary TV Thriller
I saw this on TV sometime around 1995 and was very impressed. In CALLING THE SHOTS, Redgrave plays a female television journalist who gets into a very scary kind of trouble over one of her stories. She receives threats and packages containing very provocative material. Before long she finds that this mysterious someone is stalking her. When the police get involved (useless as they always prove to be in these thrillers) it's discovered that her apartment has been fitted with bugging devices and hidden cameras. This thing never loses steam, but builds juicily towards the intense conclusion. Redgrave is excellent as the reporter trying to cope with an unnerving situation. The shocks are all well timed, too. CALLING THE SHOTS is a haunting and memorable mini-series that really should be seen.
The Truth About Charlie (2002)
Blasphemously Bad Remake Insults Everything
Jonathan Demme's THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE, as most know, is a remake of Stanley Donen's CHARADE, which was once called "the best Hitchcock movie not made by Hitchcock." Being a big fan of Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant, I was naturally outraged. This outrage only lasted for about the first 40 minutes of the film, however, only to replaced by confusion and disgust at this pathetic excuse for a movie.
Newton plays a woman living in Paris who's husband is killed on a train. She finds out that her husband, Charlie, wasn't who she thought he was and that his former partners in crime are now after her to find his money. Mark Whalberg appears, romantic, dashing, whatever. He seems to want to help her, although he may be one of the bad guys. Tim Robbins shows up as a bumbling American agent of some kind who wants to help her but also requires Charlie's money. From there it gets a little shaky... make that really shaky. People die and the camera work degrades in quality. Anyone who saw the original will know what's happening... for the first hour... sort of.
Mark Whalberg and Thandie Newton are definitely well below the stars of the original film. That said, they are the least of the things wrong with THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE. Jonathan Demme must have gone forth to make this with mischief on his mind because he thoroughly ruined this movie.
From the start, the viewer can tell that the style changes completely between scenes in an attempt to be playful. Once Anna Karina (once Godard's wife) appears, we know that Demme is trying for a French New Wave thing. This might have been delightful if Demme knew what he was doing. The New Wave movies had ideas in mind and good performances, unlike this film. There is a scene where Newton mentions Trufaut's classic SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER and its star, Charles Aznavour suddenly appears, singing that movie's theme song. Huh? Having seen and loved these French New Wave classics (which CHARADE was nothing like, by the way) I was insulted by these clumsy, name-drop references.
The whole new wave thing must have been the filmmakers' excuse for ignoring plot, because after a while, it has completely derailed. Something comes up about Charlie's mother, also not very clear. Then come several flashbacks that suggest what happened with Charlie and his cohorts. These are filmed like bad re-enactments from TV documentaries. At one point one of the female heavies spontaneously declares her love for Newton. Nothing occurs before this gave any indication that love was to bloom. In the climax, Robbins is either hamming up his act or simply didn't care enough about the film to give it a real performance. By that time, though, the movie has completely given up on trying to thrill or excite, but now feebly tries to amuse (one actor gives the camera a good long look). The silliness continues through the credits, to the irritation of all. The viewer is left asking "What the hell was that?"
THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE, more than anything else, is a mess. It's a slap in the face to CHARADE and a lame bastardization of the French New Wave. Demme's career had been in decline in the years after his success with SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (which is spoofed in this film). PHILADELPHIA and BELOVED were both weak, but they were classics when compared to the anti-masterpiece that is THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE. Anyone who enjoys good movies or at least thinks they do should avoid this film. It isn't worth the time. To see what this was supposed to be, but much better, rent CHARADE, PIERROT LE FOU, SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER and other movies not starring former members of the Funky Bunch.
The truth is that it sucks.
Night Crawlers (1996)
Pathetic Beyond Belief
NIGHT CRAWLERS is a zero-budget shot-on-video horror flick with a cast that can be counted on one hand. A friend of mine purchased it in a bargain horror-anthology called "The Spawn of Satan". That title wound up having nothing to do with this or the other three horribly cheap horror moves contained in the set.
The plot to NIGHT CRAWLERS has a family moving into a suspiciously inexpensive house in a town in Utah. They are soon attacked by the "Night Crawlers", ground-dwelling paper mache monsters with four drawn-on eyes and antennea. A lot of fake blood sprays about. The obviously non-professional cast stumbles over cliche horror dialogue (minus the swearing, this is Utah). There are really bad computer graphics as well. The monsters explain in a barely intelligible voice about how they are from another planet and have lived on Earth for centuries. This amazing twist hardly proves relevant since it's just a typical (if atypically cheap) scare fest. Mercifully, it only lasts about an hour.
I'm not sure if it's fair to compare this on a scale with real movies that actually had funding and actors, but I still call NIGHT CRAWLERS one of the worst movies ever made. Even if they did get money for this, the writing and directing are pathetic. This is yet another made-for-video effort that isn't worth discovering.
Modern Vampires (1998)
Stupid, Stupid! STUPID! I can't believe anyone liked this.
MODERN VAMPIRES is an (obviously) independent (obviously) low budget "off-beat" little thing that features Casper Van Dien. His character is a vampire who smiles a lot and always seems to be thinking "dude! I'm a vampire!" All the vampires in the picture like to show their fangs a lot and have no conception of subtlety, even though they are supposed to be fashionable. Rod Steiger appears as Van Helsing in this version (who is somehow only about 60 years old at the end of the 20th century) and he has a huge grudge against Van Dien's character for making his son a vampire. A prostitute vampire figures prominently in the plot and our hero takes her under his wing to show her the ropes of vampire society and to save her from a vampire count who wants her dead. Any of this sound interesting to you yet? It isn't. I just watched it because I thought the Sci-Fi channel might be showing a real movie for a change. Wrong! This cheap, un-involving junk is on par with all the crap they show. The lighting and music are really bad points that go extra far to cheapen an already lame production. MODERN VAMPIRES even takes a few stabs at being funny, but these fail too. It's as if a made for TV film decided half-way through production to be hip and trendy like FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, but wasn't quite sure how to go about it. This is exactly what you'd expect it to be: wanna-be quirky, poorly acted, boring, predictable, and downright annoying when it tries to make you like it. I genuinely hope that this director never gets work again. Unless you're a sucker for seeing Rod Steiger making a fool of himself, stay far away from MODERN VAMPIRES.
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)
This HEAD has got guts!
BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA is another great hard-boiled action masterpiece from Sam Peckinpah(THE WILD BUNCH). Like most of his films, this one has cult status while it ought to be hailed as the classic it is. It features generous helpings of Peckinpah's famous slow motion gun fights and has great lines like "you guys are definitely on my sh*t list!" I don't know how that sounds to you, but for me it was irresistible.
Warren Oats(BADLANDS) stars as the piano player hired to retrieve the head (of Alfredo Garcia), unaware that he'll have competition. He knows he's working for the bad guys, but doesn't care because he needs the money. He sets out with his girlfriend and things don't exactly go as planned.
The film also features a cameo by Kris Kristofferson(A STAR IS BORN) is a biker. It is one of the many great scenes in this movie. Another has Oats transporting Garcia's not-so-fresh head, talking to it as he goes.
Many think the movie is over the top or just plain bad, but they're wrong. This movie has guts and emotional intensity. There's a good amount of both action and drama, and they both work.
If you like Peckinpah, action, or movies centering on severed head, BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA is for you!
Baywatch Nights (1995)
The Best "Baywatch" Series!
This show was seriously too much. "Baywatch Nights" was like some brilliant combination of the original "Baywatch" and "The X Files" by way of Raymond Chandler. I only got to watch a little of it back in 1996 before they canceled it. Hasselhof would always be contending with aliens, mutants, or even demons! Man, I wish they still put stuff this crazy on television. It really beats the crap they have nowadays, like "Mutant X". They didn't know what a good thing they had. "Baywatch Nights" is probably the best thing to grace the small screen since "Playhouse 90" in the 50s! This is a great one, and you can quote Reggie on that.
Lost in Space (1998)
Worst Sci-Fi Movie in the Last Ten Years
I just saw the 1998 LOST IN SPACE and I still haven't recovered. How could they possibly have made a movie this bad? Two actual good actors, Gary Oldman and William Hurt, are trapped in this atrociously written, badly directed waste of $80 million. Whether or not you liked the cheesy 60s TV series, you're going to hate this.
Alright, this is how it goes: it's the future and there's pollution, world peace (ugh!), and terrorists. The Robinson family is going to fly through a "hyper-space-portal" (or whatever the hell they call it) to a planet on the other side of the galaxy to colonize it and save humanity. Hurt, playing a respected scientist with no time for his kids, says at a press conference "there's a lot of space out there to get lost in" (ugh!). Matt LeBanc from "Friends" is horribly miscast as the flying ace who will pilot the Robinson's earth-saving space ship. Then we come to the children... but we wish we hadn't. The little boy is a science-fair genius who wishes his dad had more time for him and the girl is a teenage stereotype who argues with her mother and keeps a video diary. They both have very high, annoying voices, and the lines they deliver are terrible on top of that. Then comes the mother. I don't know who played her, and I don't want to know. They all live in a futuristic house in a futuristic CGI geodesic dome (ugh!). Except for family tensions "I don't want to give up the next ten years of my life", the mission appears to be a shoe-in.
Then we meet Gary Oldman, the 1998 version of Dr. Smith. He would have been a terrific character if his lines weren't so terrible (I think Akiva Goldsman was trying for Shakespearian). Anyway, he's evil and loves it, and works for the terrorists. He sabotages to mission, getting himself trapped on the ship in the process, and getting the Robinsons lost you know where.
Along the way we see thoroughly unconvincing CGI used for just about everything, including an annoying monkey-creature that's supposed to be cute. The costumes (which director Hopkins had a hand in designing) are really terrible glossy-body-mold stuff (think BATMAN AND ROBIN for comparison) which basically gives everybody (even the kids) well defined ahem!- features. Even the music is bad, and horribly arranged. And the end titles go above and beyond tacky, being half music-video, including a rapped-over version of the original theme and sound-bites from the film. And then there's the robot, which the son makes friends with and teaches that it has a "heart" (ugh!).
The script and direction are still probably the worst atrocities in LOSTIN SPACE. One of the more embarrassing bits has LeBlanc explaining to Heather Graham (to whom he is pathetically attracted) the concept of constellations and draws Porky Pig on a window. Even during intimate dialogue scenes, none of our actors seem sincere, or even to be speaking to one another. These characters don't even talk like human beings.
It's hard to believe the studio didn't just put this one on the shelf and leave it there. In the end LOST IN SPACE didn't even make enough money to justify its release. The world really would be a better place without this movie.
Memento (2000)
Not as good as Nowlan's "Following"
Before I even caught a whiff of the insane hype over "Memento" I saw a little film from an unknown director called "Following". I was very impressed with the editing scheme and direction of this tight little noir and hoped the director would gain success. It's too bad that success had to come from "Momento". This too plays with the arrangement of scenes, but in so simple a fashion that getting the trick was no challenge. It isn't a bad film, really, but it's not great either. I don't recall having any complaints about the performances. But the story and the way it is presented are not all that interesting. The gimmick of seeing the scenes in reverse order and the little carry-over at the end of each one felt like a running gag that had gone sour. The film is a one trick pony that was lucky enough to snag everyone's attention. If people looked closer they'd know that the movie behind the hype is actually fairly thin and shallow. I'd really like to see Chris Nowlan have a hit with a really good picture. This one just isn't as good as "Following", but it is better than "Insomnia".