Adams Movie Reviews

Are these arresting characterizations? Tour-de-force performances? Impeccably executed technique? Yes, yes and yes. It is all of these things. Yet, it remains a bad experience.

It isn't a bad experience because it is depressing. A tragedy like King Lear is far more depressing, and remains a masterpiece notwithstanding. Nor is it a bad experience because of its depth of despair. Some of the greatest operatic works wallow in despair. It is a bad experience because it tries to make something deep out of something shallow. It tries to say something about life in the context of broken lives and lost hope, but it fails. And it fails for the most inexcusable of reasons: it sells out redemption for cliché.

Consider: here is a man intent on drinking himself to death. He isn't just toying with the notion, crying out for help, or too messed up to think clearly. On the contrary, he achieves a level of clarity when he is on the sauce that he cannot attain when sober. He really is set on killing himself. It's just that he chooses to go about it in the most leisurely and self-indulgent way possible: a process that allows him to make a grand gesture of his death while pulling the woman he professes to love into his self-destructive vortex. Most critics have hailed this film as an exploration of selflessness. But I can't think of anything more selfish. Were he selfless, he would have just blown his brains out and made an end of it. Instead, we are treated to the spectacle of a terminal malingerer who lacks the courage to either live or find healing, yet is resourceful enough to methodically arrange his own death with pathological flourish.

Consider next the woman. The film makes a big thing over the fact that she gets so much out of her relationship with the man that his meaningless death somehow redeems her. But to accept this, we must first accept that giving ones love to an unworthy soul is a noble thing. Indeed, that love need not connect to anything of value whatsoever. What makes him worthy of her love? His boyish looks? His terminal vulnerability? His flashes of inebriated wit and shallow charm? There's nothing on offer but style. This man lacks any sort of character or substance. And the consequent superficiality of their relationship cheapens love and turns her ostensible redemption into cliché.

It is too easy to criticize this love story by comparing it to a classic screen romance like, say, Casablanca. So let us compare it to another little known art film by the magnificent Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa. In Ikiru, he tells the story of a different dying man; an insignificant cog in a vast grey bureaucracy who, after finding out that he is dying, falls in love with a co-worker and decides to devote himself to realizing the perhaps one and only meaningful achievement in his life. Kurosawa elevates a life of little significance into one we deeply care for and builds an affectionate romance out of seeming straw because he understood something that the creators of Leaving Las Vegas do not: that for love to move us, it must be earned. The little bureaucrat earns our compassion because he shows himself worthy of his co-worker's affection, and thereby, of ours. If he accomplishes nothing else before he dies, he has managed to create a small space of happiness for others to enjoy. We appreciate and respect him. And it is this respect, even for the smallest of heroes, that is at the heart of all tragedy. Without it, tragedy cannot exist. Without it, erstwhile tragedy is exposed as fraud.

Leaving Las Vegas is a manipulative fraud, because in Cage's character, there is nothing worthy of respect.

Most of the professional critics went gaga over this one. This just confirms my suspicion that film critics are routinely subjected to so many bad films that they take leave of their sanity when style is well flaunted, even when it overwhelms all substance. Nicholas Cage and Elizabeth Shue certainly make two very photogenic losers. And their performances are undeniably superb. But the margins of society are not photogenic. Meaningless suicide is not superb. And death by alcohol makes no deep existential statement about the fragility of life, of love, or of anything else.

In the film, Cage's character was employed as some sort of screenwriter. There is an unintended irony here. Only a product of Tinseltown would consider the character portrayed by Cage as noble or as one worthy of considered reflection. This film is but another example of Hollywood charm used in the service of cool superficiality, art-house dissipation and mannered depravity. Hollywood's continuing worship of such smelly banality exposes the depth of its moral sink.

That said, every emotion in this film rang true for
me. These people seemed real and very vulnerable, especially Elizabeth Shue. It was just spare enough to say the important things in the relationship, leaving out all the detritus and other pointless details.

Mike Figgis really looked closely at these people at their worst moments and didn't flinch. I was fascinated - it spoke right to the deepest part of the human condition.

This is a rare work of art that will outlast us.

While I don't think this is an excellent film, it was definitely enjoyable and not as cheap and shallow as I thought it would be. There are several truly humorous parts, and I don't think the movie really mocks God - while I don't agree entirely with the portrayal of God, or the theology behind the movie, I wasn't really offended, and I think the movie brought up some good questions about the nature of God and free-will.

Bottom line, the movie was humorous and enjoyable. I dunno if I'll buy the dvd, but it's definitely worth renting.

It stars Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston and it is rated PG-13, probably for language and a little sensuality.

While I don't think this is an excellent film, it was definitely enjoyable and not as cheap and shallow as I thought it would be. There are several truly humorous parts, and I don't think the movie really mocks God - while I don't agree entirely with the portrayal of God, or the theology behind the movie, I wasn't really offended, and I think the movie brought up some good questions about the nature of God and free-will.

Bottom line, the movie was humorous and enjoyable. I dunno if I'll buy the dvd, but it's definitely worth renting.

It stars Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston and it is rated PG-13, probably for language and a little sensuality.

While I don't think this is an excellent film, it was definitely enjoyable and not as cheap and shallow as I thought it would be. There are several truly humorous parts, and I don't think the movie really mocks God - while I don't agree entirely with the portrayal of God, or the theology behind the movie, I wasn't really offended, and I think the movie brought up some good questions about the nature of God and free-will.

Bottom line, the movie was humorous and enjoyable. I dunno if I'll buy the dvd, but it's definitely worth renting.

It stars Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston and it is rated PG-13, probably for language and a little sensuality.

It stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as Col. John Matrix (where's Keanu Reeves?), an ex-commando who has retired from the Army to live a peaceful life with his annoying pest of a daughter, Jenny (Alyssa Milano, pre-babedom). Scene to look for during the introductory sequence: Arnold petting a wild deer with his daughter. No, don't laugh, it gets better, trust me.

John's old commando team members start getting killed off by a bunch of assassins, including Bill Duke (who later went on to star in "Predator" [1987] with Arnie, too). John is warned of this too late - Mr. Duke invades Arnie's home and steals his daughter.

Why, you ask? To give Arnold a reason to blow stuff up and kill an uncountable number of human beings, that's why. Oh, you mean the "plot" of the movie? A Cuban dictator (Dan Hedaya, with a truly horrible foreign accent) wants to overthrow the "Presidante" of Cuban so he can become the next prez. So he tells John Matrix to do it - or he'll kill Johnnie's daughter. The horror, the horror.

Arnold kills many people and escapes from a flying jet plane while its pulling up into the sky (don't ask). He manages to land in a pond but reappear without any water on his clothes at all. He then seeks revenge on all of the people who threatened him and his daughter. Good line: "Remember, Sully, when I told you I'd kill you last? I lied."

The film was directed by Mark L. Lester, the man behind the misfired comedy-action flick "Armed and Dangerous" with John Candy and Eugene Levy. The early signs of an untalented director shine through here - the film almost mutates into a self-mockery of itself. I come back to the scene where Arnold is petting a deer with his daughter and cheesy music plays in the background. They can't be serious!

The script is an utter mess of recycled action film plots, cliches, and dialogue. Arnie gets teamed up with a black chick (Rae Dawn Chong); luckily they do not get in a romance. I suppose the script had so many stereotypes in it they figured it wouldn't hurt to skip over a few.

"Commando" is such an appalling film it is one that people love to watch and make fun of. It was Arnold's first film since "The Terminator," and it was the start of his one-liners ("Hey Bennett, I'll be back!") so if you're a fan of Arnie this film deserves some credit. The first time I saw this movie I didn't get it - I thought it was stupid and boring. Now I think it's just stupid.

Best Lines:

"Hey Bennett, I'll be back!"
"You're a funny guy, Sully, I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last."
"And ma'am? Please don't bother my friend. He's dead tired."
"Remember, Sully, when I told you I was going to kill you last? I lied."
"Fly or die!"
"Slitting a little girl's throat is like cutting warm butter."
"These guys eat too much red meat!"
"Let's party."
"John, I'm not going to shoot you between the eyes. I'm going to shoot you between the balls!"
"Let off some steam, Bennett."
And the Award Winner for Best Line in the Movie: "I eat green berets for breakfast. Right now I'm very hungry."

Best Continuity Errors:

The length of John's ammo belt.
A truck flips over grassy knolls many times, only for it to be intercut with shots of the vehicle driving on flat terrain.
John, where's the water on your clothing?
Is that a rope holding up Sully's leg?
Didn't that guy die twice? Yes he did.
Did something just throw that guy into the air?

"Remember when I promised to kill you last?"..."That's right, Matrix, you did!!"...".....I lied...."....."AHGhghhghghhghHHHH!!!!!"

"Put the knife away, and shut your mouth"

"I eat green-berets for breakfast! And right now, I'm VERY hungry!"

"=v(K you @55hole!" *click* *click* "=v(K YOU @55hole!"

"Let off some steam, Bennet!"

"I DON'T NEED NO GUN! * tosses the gun aside and whips out a knife* I GONNA KILL YOU NOOOOOWWWWWWWW!!!!!"

"He's one gigantic mofo!"

"Wanna see me kick some @55?"

Well folks, that about sums it up. Commando rocks.

...and I'm an idiot!'

That's not the case of 'Kissing Jessica Stein'. The Jessica in question, is actually straight. However, Helen comes into the mix after Jessica spontaneously answers Helen's 'woman seeking woman' ad, and the two have a earnest relationship that is a bit rocky at first, then soars for awhile, then comes to a halt. I won't ruin the ending, but it recieves mixed reviews. Some like it, some hate it. I personally liked it, as it shows the completion of both Helen and Jessica.

The film is a delicious fusion of romantic comedy, lesbian film, Jewish wit and love. It drives forth the idea that we don't know ourselves as much as we think we do, and that love doesn't involve falling for a sex, but a person.

Professor Grady Tripp (Michael Douglas) is a middle-aged writer and English professor, teaching at a small Pittsburgh university. Having found spectacular success with his first novel, he now suffers from a seven-year case of writer's block on his second, which has ballooned up to more than 2600 single-spaced pages. Compounding this professional crisis is an array of personal woes: his third wife has just left him; his young student Hannah Green (Katie Holmes) is constantly hitting on him; he's just discovered that his mistress, Sara Gaskell (Frances McDormand), is pregnant. She drops her little bomb on Tripp on the eve of WordFest, a writers' conference, which Tripp's editor Terry Crabtree (Robert Downey, Jr.) is attending in hopes of finally reading the professor's long-awaited sophomore novel. To boot, Sara is the chancellor of the university where Tripp works, and her husband Walter (Richard Thomas) is the head of the English department--Tripp's boss. In an effort to escape this morass of problems, but only exacerbating them, Tripp smokes pot more or less continually, as well as drinking and popping the occasional pill.

But no amount of self-medication helps when Tripp's brilliant, depressive student James Leer (Tobey Maguire) shoots Walter Gaskell's dog and steals his prize piece of memorabilia, sparking a chain reaction of improbable and hilarious events. In trying to shield his young protege from the fallout, Tripp is forced to deal with his own personal and professional shortcomings, and to decide once and for all what he truly wants from his life.

For the most part, the script is terrifically funny, offering up equal doses of dark humor and pathos. The university environment is lampooned particularly well, with all its swollen egos and artsy pretentiousness. Tripp is an imminently likable central character: gruff and crusty, full of mordant humor, but warm and compassionate despite his detached writer's irony. He's a nice guy who has managed to get his life completely screwed up, but his weaknesses make him all the more appealing. The viewer never stops wanting him to pull himself together and live up to his potential.

The performances are almost uniformly excellent. Douglas is great as the decidedly unglamorous Tripp: bleary-eyed, unshaven, limping about in an old bathrobe, smoking joint after joint. Maguire is his usual brilliant self, bringing exactly the right touch of intelligence, charm, and confusion to the troubled Leer (a scene where he gets drunk and stoned in Tripp's in-laws' house is a highlight of the film). McDormand also shines in her role as the university chancellor; she and Douglas have an effortless chemistry together, their body language and facial expressions communicating the long history of the characters' love for each other. Downey provides a lot of smarmy fun as Crabtree, but he's equally effective in the character's more introspective moments--the viewer easily sees his concern for Tripp and the professional toll that the writer's sophomore slump has taken on his editor. Thomas is fun in his small role as the stereotypical pompous university administrator, and Holmes, while mostly there to provide some eye candy, has a nice scene where she tries gently to advise Tripp on what's wrong with his second novel.

The film's greatest stylistic flaw is that it goes way overboard in its efforts to be quirky and off-beat; screenwriter Steve Kloves and director Curtis Hanson try to create an entire stew from an ingredient that should ideally be used as a spice. While it's certainly true that academia is known for having its fair share of eccentrics, it seems that nobody in this story can be an ordinary, normal person. Crabtree brings a tuba-playing transvestite to the party; Hannah always wears red cowboy boots; Walter is obsessed with the Marilyn Monroe-Joe DiMaggio marriage; the dog is blind; James can recite celebrity suicides in alphabetical order; Tripp lounges about in a long, pink bathrobe; the pregnant waitress at the bar is married to a James Brown lookalike; an English professor (Rip Torn) calls himself "Q." While all this oddball stuff is undeniably amusing, at times it threatens to be distracting; Kloves and Hanson really needed to dial the weirdness down a few notches.

The main problem in terms of character is that seemingly nobody has to face the consequences of their actions. Everyone is let off with a literal or figurative slap on the wrist, and the ending, while very sweet on one hand is a little too pat on the other. The characters are sympathetic enough for the viewer to want things to work out for them, but nobody seems to learn or change or grow as a result of their misadventures. This robs most of the characters of any real development, and the story's conclusion loses some punch as a result.

For all that, however, Wonder Boys is a solid, enjoyable film, one that handles a number of potentially thorny topics (drug use, unexpected pregnancy, adultery, homosexuality) with a commendably deft touch. In particular, Crabtree's pursuit of the sexually confused James is depicted amazingly well, resulting in a sweet and funny romantic interlude that is presented in a remarkably straightforward manner. Kloves and Hanson thankfully refrain from the embarrassing "gay acceptance" grandstanding that less able writers and directors might feel obliged to include. For this reason, and many others, Wonder Boys is definitely worth checking out as a rental or even adding to one's permanent DVD collection.

That aside, it's a fine movie. You don't know what to expect. It's more of a character piece than an action movie, but it keeps you entertained from start to finish. The characters are nicely drawn, and there's plenty of humor. The acting is excellent throughout. Tobey MacGuire is particularly good, as is Robert Downey, Jr. (even in spite of the fact that they play those dreaded gay characters!). Michael Douglas also gives one of his better performances in many years. He's actually not even annoying in this one.

His wife left him, his lover is the chancellor of the college, his publisher wants his next book that he can't seem to finish and above all else a student needs his guidance and attentions. What else could go wrong you name it its in here.

I loved the characters all flawed but in a touching gonna be alright sort of way and lots of laughing with a little heart ache to keep you interested.

I loved this film and wondered about the novel it was based on. I will more than likely read the novel but definetly see the movie ..top notch acting and great story...........

I watch the movie and i'm touched by the portrayal of the introverted chick, she's fleshed out and completely credible, worthy of empathy. I had no bloody idea what the movie was doing, i was just rooting for the chick, i hope she made good, i knew so many chicks like her.

Then all of a sudden it turns surreal and the part that the actors couldnt salvage comes up. I can picture an alternate universe where this was a quirky little independant movie with a happy ending that made good. Watching this immediately after amelie may induce suicide.

But i digress, on to spoiling the movie. The lovable introverted chick, on the verge of true love and being able to have a happy life, flips out and everything turns awful. I was dismayed to see this, parts hit too close to home and a few suicidal ex-girlfriends. But when she gouged out her eye, i just puked. Really and truly kids.

Now i'm 18m and not at all easily rattled, and i cant remember the time i barfed before that.

Such whimsical behavior in fact leaves the senator feeling so liberated that his death wish vanishes, and the movie turns into a frantic chase to track down his anointed assassin and cancel the plans. This lends the movie some of its hilarious moments and what could even have been an adorable pace.

But the movie and its pace are thrown to the wind as we quickly get swamped with empathetic odes to negro stereotypes -- young black kids under 10 years of age selling dope on the streets using F-words as punctuation, abject poverty (15 people in a small shoddy home for e.g.), rusty cars from 1625 A.D. for the black folk but Rolls limos for everyone else, white cops badgering the afrincan-american drug salesmen and the kids of course replying in an F-laden rants with allusion to parental family members etc etc.

As though this was not enough, a dreadful overdose of rap music compounds our woes (no no, I love rap music with a capital C) with the possible exception of Ghetto Superstar (yeah). Even the senator develops a rap-tongue and cannot seem to speak in anything but rhyme, whether on TV or in private tete-a-tetes with Halle Berry.

Beatty's wrinkles show up in this movie but do little to add to his expressionless expressions, although he is convincing in his role. Halle Berry is confident as usual, but in her african-women-can-be-intelligent-too anti-stereotype role, seems to have a medical inability to smile because, clearly, intelligent people are always serious. The senator's chief of staff campaigner has a perpetual frown with all this bizzare callousness, which is somewhat grating. Everyone else does his/her job well - no more no less.

Overall, a unique theme with a lot of promise that could easily have been a 5/5 material had Beatty not been so smitten with his inane takes on the minority agenda. Still worth a watch if you are interested in (what is almost) a "political satire".