Tag: 1994

SLEEP WITH ME (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Rory Kelly 
Written By: Duane Dell’Amico, Roger Hedden, Neal Jimenez, Joe Keenan, Rory Kelly and Michael Steinberg  Cinematography: Andrzej Sekula
Editor: David Moritz 

Cast: Eric Stoltz, Meg Tilly, Craig Sheffer, Lewis Arquette, Todd Field, Parker Posey, Vanessa Angel, Susan Traylor, Dean Cameron, Thomas Gibson, Joey Lauren Adams, June Lockhart, Adrienne Shelly, Alexandra Hedison, Quentin Tarantino 

Sarah, Joseph, and Frank are BFFs. Joseph and Sarah get married but the evening before she tells Frank with a kiss that it could’ve been him. Frank continues to have a thing for Sarah.

Six different writers wrote a scene each of this romantic comedy featuring the marriage and turbulent relationship of Joseph and Sarah, with Joseph’s best friend Frank trying hard to cope with letting the love of his life marry his best friend. An interesting experiment though it might also explain why it

Seems like a bit of a mess. That seems endless and single-focused. After a while it feels like small talk, about a lot of things said but nothing of any depth that can be called interesting. It might have worked better as a play. 

A 1990’s relationship drama with some very little comedy thrown in. It seemed dated even when it came out. It feels like a dramatic episode of the television show FRIENDS.

The film involves a group of friends who are all married and/or in serious relationships and only seem to hang out with each other. They are still young and hip with no kids in sight. 

So, of course, they have only one friend who is single and this film Explores all the different couplings in relationships. The one that gets the most attention is Meg Tilly who is usually a joy to see on screen. As she is rather obscure. Whose character is engaged to Eric Stoltz’s character. Who is kind of a ladies’ man whose best friend, played by Craig Sheffer with some Ill-advised facial hair and even worse hippie wardrobe is in love with Tilly’s character and she knows it.

She comes across as cruel because she knows yet every time he brings a date to their get-together. She interrogates and then insults them. 

When she suspects her fiancé of cheating she sleeps with Sheffer’s character out of spite and when he thinks they have started a relationship she begins to feel bad and have feelings. When Eric finds out and informs her he didn’t cheat. So now the two guys are competing for her. 

Imagine the Andrew McCarthy-Ally Sheedy-Judd Nelson love triangle from ST ELMO’S FIRE. Only if Nelson didn’t cheat and it was the main part of the movie, only more dramatic and you are on the same page as this film. 

The film tries to be a broad comedy type of movie played subtly seriously. It comes across as a bunch of self-important characters. Who think they are cool but aren’t coming to grips with growing up and making it seem more dramatic and meaningful than it actually is.

It’s a shame as the film has a good cast and could have really been good under better circumstances. 

Somehow here the direction just seems to drain all the fun and interest out of not only the scenes but the characters. The script seems fine if not indulgent and self-important. 

One only wishes for a more skilled director. Who could have better handled the material and made the scenes a little more vivid and exciting. At least give it a kind of sense of humor about itself. 

Maybe also allowing the film to be more of an ensemble and not focus so much on the leads and give the side characters more nuance and more to do. So the love triangle could have been more of a side caper or we see how it affects the dynamics of everyone in the group. 

After a while though it seems Like every woman throws themselves at Stoktz’s character. This is easy to see when Sheffer’s Comes off more as creepy and he is the single available one. Who seems to mess up any chance he has with other women. While Stoltz’s Character is already married has nothing to lose. As he already has a wife. So he can talk to these women without seeming like he wants to bed them Or looking for something. Which in turn seems to make him a challenge for them 

The only true noteworthy scene is the cameo by writer-director Quentin Tarantino giving a rant or his theory on how the movie TOP GUN is really a movie about a man’s struggle with his homosexuality. (This was before the internet introduced many people’s wild outlandish film and television theories)

In fact, that is one of the only reasons I watched it. The other is Eric Stoltz and Parker Posey, actors I am a huge fan of. 

GRADE: D+

THE FAVOR (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Donald Petrie
Written By: Sara Parriott and Josann McGibbon
Cinematography: Tim Shurstedt
Editor: Harry Keramidas

Cast: Harley Jane Kozak, Elizabeth McGovern, Bill Pullman, Brad Pitt, Ken Wahl, Larry Miller, Holland Taylor, Kim Walker, O-lan Jones, Mindy Sterling, Heather Morgan,  Claire Stansfield 

With a 15-year reunion coming up, Kathy has sexual fantasies of her high school sweetheart. She’s married, so she sends her BFF to check him out and report back. Things get complicated.

This is a film I remember seeing the commercials and trailers for all the time when it was coming out. It was also heavily featured in the movie magazines I was reading then. Though never enough to get me to watch it.

Even at the time, it seemed like a seat filler. A film the studios put out and find that is kind of disposable but has enough of a concept that if it’s a slow week. It might be number one at the box office that week or at least make its money back and place within the top 5. Hoping for longevity.

The cast was another reason that I was interested. The film was more marketed as a film for women to see. As it offered three hunks to choose from as love interests. Brad Pitt, Bill Pullman, and Ken Wahl. Though more based on the up-and-comer Brad Pitt. As he is also the only male character to have an extended scene with his shirt off.

This is an example of a 90’s female buddy comedy. Where the two leads work well together but one is so insufferable and selfish. Thought is made out to be a frustrated housewife who has fantasies of what could have been. Now these films are a dime a dozen when it comes to men having midlife crises. So I can’t complain too much.

Throughout the film, there are setups of misunderstandings that keep happening that keep the story going and give the characters reasons to keep running into one another. It tries to be slapstick but isn’t that funny or strong.

 Not to mention for a movie that Runs on a sexual premise there isn’t that much. The few times that it is funny is in a birthing class that could ag e been bigger and longer and from Bill Pullman’s character. The scientist and middle-aged father and husband. Whose attempts to romance his wife are cute and a bit sad. 

These are the roles Bill Pullman has a tendency to play in romantic comedies. Usually the boring yet dependable mate or The quirky suitor. This is disappointing considering he began his career in RUTHLESS PEOPLE as a dumb hunk helping with a blackmail scheme or his lovable loser in SIBLING RIVALRY.

Elizabeth McGovern is an actress who is rare to see On The big screen. So one would think she would be pickier with her roles and one can see why she would want to play this type of character at the time. Even though it doesn’t leave her with much to do comedy-wise. Whereas Harley Jane Kozak gets to do all the scheming, running around, and physical comedy. Even if her character becomes unlikeable. 

Which is inductive if the problems of the film. The cast is way better than the material. They all deserve better. The film looks low budget in every manner, especially for a stupid film.

It’s Directed by Donald Petrie. Who can be hit or miss with films? At times he is gifted and makes a film that is memorable (MYSTIC PIZZA, MISS CONGENIALITY) or they come across as bad misfires like this (RICHIE RICH, HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN 10 DAYS) though even those films have a gloss to them. This looks like an independent film that decided to get a studio behind it. 

Ken Wahl at least gets to barely be in the movie but is the character who is talked about the most. By the end though it shows that he might be better off as a fantasy. 

It’s amazing that there is no divorce in the end  

Grade: D+

THE STONED AGE (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: James Melkonian
Written By: James Melkonian and Rich Wilkes 
Cinematography: Paul Holahan
Editor: Peter Schink 

Cast: Michael Kopelow, Bradford Tatum, China Kantner, Renee Ammann, Clifton Collins Jr., Kevin Kilner, Taylor Negron, Art Chudabala, David Groh, Jake Busey 

Determined to avoid another night of driving aimlessly around Torrance in the Blue Torpedo, Joe and Hubbs set out on a quest for fine chicks. Their paths soon cross with Tack, from whom they learn about a pair of radical chicks hanging out near the Frankie Avalon place. Over Joe’s objections, Hubbs worms Tack out of the deal, and the pair take a slow ride toward their destiny.

The trailer for this movie drag me in as it was so hilarious at the time that this was a must-see and I have to say definitely not disappointed.

I am probably remembering it as better than it probably is but I generally like this movie as I saw it when I was a teenager and to me, it was a straight-to-home video classic 

This is truly the 1980s suburban teenager dream party film as it is actually nasty funny witty at some points and actually just generally kind of fun. It never overstayed his welcome and it keeps moving forward in the kind of buddy comedy and of itself, only the buddies are already friends at the beginning of the film. This is just like watching their misadventures throughout the situation of the night.

As it had the rebelliousness of a teen movie, even though you could tell, nobody was really a teen in the movie, and it seem more of a throwback to maybe a more certain California suburban lifestyle. They don’t make movies like this at all anymore, which is why it stays memorable whereas at the time it might’ve been just another and this film is rude and crude and not afraid to offend anyone, nor does he go out of his way to do that either.

It’s also generally unrepentant when it comes to the material of the film, which really feels like a throwback to the 1980s teen sex comedy. Only there is a lot of talking about sex in the idealization of women as sex objects, but there isn’t that much actual sex there is nudity. 

Renee Ammann seems to be the sex object of the film that all men or most of the men desire throughout, she is the bombshell that brings all the boys to the yard literally but what I really liked was the ridiculous side characters and the comedy between them and how ridiculous they were. As she is treated like this precious object or treasure, that is meant to be held possessed, and had. Then discover while she is good, looking, she’s human, and not necessarily all that special.

Of course, by the end the main character realizes that it’s not all about sex it’s also about who you get along with, and who has a better personality, and you just generally vibe with, as far as chemistry. as he is more the romantic of the two, and though his best friend is a jerk. They still remain friends until the end. 

Think of this as a harder edge and less out their version of DUDE, WHERE’S MY CAR, and movies like that?

It’s also how I discovered the song Don’t Fear the Reaper by Blue Öyster Cult before it was heavily used again in the movie THE FRIGHTENERS. It also helped me to discover and appreciate the band also. Before they became legends with the infamous Christopher Walken, Will Ferrell Saturday night live cowbell sketch.

The film can be seen as two friends on a quest that never really goes out of anywhere that they are unfamiliar, but seeing it in a new light, and facing up to the challenges that they come upon on this quest. As after all, it’s about the journey, not the prize. They even learn something about themselves.

This is a general R-rated teen sex comedy. That’s a throwback and I appreciate it for what it is. It doesn’t try to be anything more. I mean the title loans to tell you what you’re in for so while it’s not great cinema, it is at least entertaining for the audience that would want to see a movie called The Stoned Age. And do not believe it to be a sequel to Encino Man. Which one of the actresses actually had a small role.

It’s just fun lowbrow humor. A fun, cold comedy that came from a short film and was intended to be the first of a trilogy starring the two main characters. 

You can look at it as a nostalgic throwback to dumb or stoner comedies along the lines of Pauly Shore, movies, or the dude where’s my car type.

Grade: C+

ASHES OF TIME… REDUX (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Wong Kar Wai 
Based On The Book “The Eagle Shooting Heores” By: Louis Cha 
Cinematography By: Christopher Doyle & Pung-Leung Kwan 
Editor: Patrick Tam & Kit-Wai Kai 
 Cast: Brigitte Lin, Leslie Cheung, Maggie Cheung, Tony Leung,

Ou-yang Feng lives in the middle of a desert, where he acts as a middleman to various swordsmen in ancient China. One of those swordsmen is Huang Yao-shi, who has found some magic wine that causes one to forget the past. At another time, Huang met Mu-rong Yin and under the influence of drink, promised to marry Mu-rong’s sister Mu-rong Yang. Huang jilts her, and Mu-rong Yin hires Ou-yang to kill Huang. But then Mu-rong Yang hires Ou-yang to protect Huang. This is awkward, because Mu-rong Yang and Mu-rong Yin are in reality the same person. Other unrelated plot lines careen about. Among them is Ou-yang’s continuing efforts to destroy a band of horse thieves. Oy-yang recruits another swordsman, a man who is going blind and wants to get home to see his wife before his sight goes completely. The swordsman is killed. Ou-yang then meets another swordsman who doesn’t like wearing shoes. Oy-yang sends this man after the horse thieves, with better results. We then find out what a man must give…

The original cut was released in 1994 I am reviewing the re-edited version of 2008

I will admit that I haven’t watched the original cut yet. This is the same film only re-edited to put emphasis on different things and look at the film in a different way. Sort of like what was attempted when the Mel Gibson film PAYBACK was put out on DVD and re-edited more to the director’s original vision before the production was taken outbid his hands and re-shot and re-edited it’s also similar to the APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX putting back in cut scenes to supposedly make the film richer in content and context.

This is a great movie… To have on in the background of a party continuously playing, but sitting through it is a challenge. I love Wong Kar Wai’s work but I couldn’t wait for it to end. It was like sitting through a music video with its camera work and rapid editing. Though a music video with a thin plot seems a simple reason to link scenes of action together.

This film feels moody as you have to be in a certain type of mood to watch, more open and accepting of the story it presents. I believe the reason I didn’t enjoy it as much as Wai’s other films are that one saw the masterpieces first and came back to watch this film which doesn’t match the greatness of his other films though you can see the seeds. It almost feels unfocused half of the time as to where it is going or what it wishes to convey.

While the film is visually arresting. The story begins to get confusing and boring. When the film is on the verge of getting too boring it redeems itself with an action scene.

Director, Wong Kar wai shows that he is capable of stunning action sequences, which are rather rare in his films, but then he messes them up in this film by making the. In slow motion. Almost like a delayed slow-motion capture. This messes up the fluidity of the choreographed action, but when the scenes run at regular speed they are a sight to behold. This film had an exhausting effect on Wong Kar Wai. While on hiatus during the editing process, he wrote CHUNGKING EXPRESS to “clear his head”.

This is a visually beautiful movie, low budget with a few too many close-ups for no reason it seems. I will prefer and enjoy the first cut just like APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX.

What is interesting about Wong kar wai when it comes to most of his films is that he is a visual stylist as a director, but not, in the same way, directors like Tim Burton works most of the time in his movies. The camera stays still and he lets the sort be about the characters as they reveal relationships and the big story. Now when this is happening the lighting and colors are usually immaculate and use the landscapes to their fullest. And when the camera moves the angles he uses in the scenes are strange, but breathtaking that you feel the movie so much more because at the heart of most of his films are relationships.

It’s like Woody Allen films with less dialogue, no comedy, and no archetypes yet more open and visual. More seems to be at stake and the characters are usually young with more modest incomes plus more sensual than sexual.

It hurts to give this film such a low grade. He has made strides since this film it is an early work that hints at his future vision and genius. Still one of the better and More Interesting filmmakers still working today

 Grade: C-

VANYA ON 42ND STREET (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Louis Malle
Screenplay By: Andre Gregory 
Based On The Play “DYADYA  VANYA” By Anton Chekhov
Play Adaptation By: David Mamet 
Cinematography: Declan Quinn
Editor: Nancy Baker 

Cast: Julianne Moore, Wallace Shawn, Lynn Cohen, Larry Pine, Brooke Smith, Jerry Mayer, Andre Gregory, George Gaynes, Phoebe Brand, Madhur Jeffrey 

An uninterrupted rehearsal of Chekhov’s “Uncle Vanya” played out by a company of actors. The setting is their run-down theater with an unusable stage and crumbling ceiling. The play is shown act by act with the briefest of breaks to move props or for refreshments. The lack of costumes, real props, and scenery is soon forgotten.

though you can tell it’s more performance, so stripped down and organic that it sometimes feels like the actors’ lives and drama might be bleeding into the performances. Keeping the audience on its toes and feeling magically

Though from time to time you can see the people watching. As an audience as well as the director. The film begins traditionally as the actors and director arrive to let us see the setup and give us a New York street view placing the location to a degree.

How it works, not such a staged production, but any distraction. No illumination. So that we are close in the middle of the action and relationships and characters as the camera stays close, rarely moving, and is always close in and tight on their faces. Feels like it is giving us intimacy with the characters.

Wasn’t quite sure exactly when the play started as it seemed more like a general conversation at first then all of a sudden moved on. Though serious it feels adventurous and experimental, open and free.

This is another collaboration that feels similar in spirit yet bigger and not as much of an endurance test. Whereas MY DINNER WITH ANDRE seems almost like a documentary of an intellectual dinner conversation between two friends that reflects so much personality and personality about the people involved. Though we know it is a put-on production, in reality, it was the actors using their real names and partial history but really two originally created characters. Here we have Andre Gregory break up the scenes and guide the audience a bit so that we are In New locations within the play.

Though we are with the camera and the theatrical viewers are right up on them they manage to establish being alone and to themselves quite well. So good it’s hard to tell the difference

Truly be amazing if done straight through act breaks need to explain what has passed and where we are at

Happy to see Brooke smith who over the years has quite a resume. Not exactly a star but a recognizable character actress over the years. Who has earned her success from small to significant supporting roles seems as if we can watch her grow up on the screen as I remember her early first role in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. One of my favorite immoral films in junior high school and high school where I earned the nickname Hannibal the cannibal by fellow students and Jeffrey danger because of the similar first name and I was also quiet and unassuming. It’s always a surprise to see her even at first if she seems miscast like in BAD COMPANY.

Grade: A

SURVIVING THE GAME (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Ernest R. Dickerson

Written By: Eric Bernt

Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli

Editor: Sam Pollard

Cast: Ice-T, Rugter Hauer, Charles S. Dutton, F Murray Abraham, Gary Busey, John C. McGinley, William McNamara, Jeff Corey, Bob Minor 

A homeless man is hired as a survival guide for a group of wealthy businessmen on a hunting trip in the mountains, unaware that they are killers who hunt humans for sport, and that he is their new prey.

At the time this might have seemed like an action film that was a fine by the dozen, but looking back it feels like it was a bit ahead of Its time.

As at the time it might have felt too basic or familiar. To a film like Jean Claude Van-Damme starring HARD TARGET. 

Casting Ice-T during a starring hot streak and then surrounding him with well-known character actors. As seemingly types though as the film goes alongside actually revealing decency or having specific reasons for their savagery and blood lust.

His casting works as he is not your typical action hero presence. So that gives him a kind of wild card status in which to impress and win over the audience. As he is the protagonist, we still don’t know exactly what to expect. 

Though race isn’t brought up it can easily be seen or interpreted. Even if the argument is over classism. As Ice-t’s character is a military vet who is homeless and most of the hunters are rich, successful white men. Racism and capitalism usually walk hand in hand. As for something to have value another must not have any. As really the only other person of color is Charles S. Dutton who helps discover him and convinces him to take the job.

The film offers plenty of surprises and double-crosses. It also offers ice-T’s character who was suicidal a reason to survive, a passion for life, and live again. 

The film comes across as a little bit more realistic in its action sequences. Which are quite impressive. As no one is an expert, some characters actually need to reload or rest. Though it never feels overplayed, overwrought, too expensive or stylish just to look cool.

The ending is a bit of a letdown by bringing up a point that is repeatedly brought up so many times. You know it will be integral later.

One of the reasons for the audience to enjoy the film is that most of the cast, the hunting party if you will, is made up of classic character actors who usually play villains. So it’s a murderer’s row hunting our hero down. Which gives the film and the lead a kind of bonafide status 

This ends up being one of the more memorable ice-t leading roles, especially in an action film. No less treated a certain way maybe because it is more contained. As far as cast size goes. 

Grade: C+

RIVER OF GRASS (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Kelly Reichardt
Story By: Jesse Hartman 
Cinematography: Jim Denault 
Editor: Larry Fessenden 

Cast: Lisa Bowman, Larry Fessenden, Dick Russell, Stan Kaplan, Michael Buscemi 

Cozy, a dissatisfied housewife, meets Lee at a bar. A drink turns into a home break-in, and a gunshot sends them on the run together, thinking they’ve committed murder.

This film is about a wanna Bonnie & Clyde. A makeshift couple on the run that is never romantic or lustful. 

The film starts off well and feels inventive and tells the story fast and vividly. Introducing us to the characters and their motivations. as even the small details help set up the main Characters and offer spontaneity in their day-to-day supposedly mundane lives. 

As it feels random at first. But the film catches up with that. As the story goes along we see how everything becomes connected and in this small town in Florida. They are literally passing by each other and not realizing they are the ones they are seeking.

A bored housewife seeks adventure in a loser would be a drifter and go on a crime spree of no regard though they think it is. As they go On the run. Not realizing no one is really looking. For them except for her. As her family wants to know why she has run away. Not to mention their crimes aren’t prosperous nor exciting. If anything they are more embarrassing but not in a broadly comedic way. They come off more as pathetic. As we watch the others their lives intersect with good ones.

Writer/Director Kelly Reichart films are very detail-oriented and more at the moment while we watch life and the characters move at a more day to day moment to moment pace. Her films are almost still Life may. They aren’t made with a broad canvas but are affecting if you are willing to watch and can take the slower pace and usually no frills.

This isn’t the first film Of her’s I have seen. Though this is one of her earlier ones and from the ones I have seen this is one of her quicker-paced and more conventional films.

This film shows an interest in a crime story. Where there is practically no crime. This was made before she went full-fledged into cinematic studies of life and characters At the moment.

NIGHT MOVES comes the closest of her later films where there seems to be some sort of action and offers more conventional entertainment.

In the end, this comes off as pathetic but a little soulful In its Eclecticness. So that it feels alive and free whenever offbeat 

GRADE: B-

READY TO WEAR (PRET-A-PORTER) (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Robert Altman 
Written By: Robert Altman & Barbara Shulgasser
Cinematography: Jean Lepine & Pierre Mignot
Editor: Suzy Elmiger & Geraldine Peroni

Cast: Julia Roberts, Tim Robbins, Marcello Mastroianni, Sophia Loren, Lili Taylor, Forest Whitaker, Richard E. Grant, Rupert Everett, Kim Basinger, Sally Kellerman, Tracy Ullman, Lauren Bacall,  Linda Hunt, Stephen Rea, Ute Lemper, Lyle Lovett, Teri Garr, Danny Arielle, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Amouk Aimee, Chiara Mastroianni, Rossy De Palma, Michel Blanc, Jean Rochefort, Francois Cluzet, Sam Robarbs, Georgianna Robertson 

A fashion show in Paris draws the usual bunch of people; designers, reporters, models, magazine editors, photographers. Lots of unconnected stories which all revolve around this show, and an all-star cast.

This was my third official Robert Altman movie to see. Though unfortunately not in a row. I remember the film having a successful music video and soundtrack before it even came out. Unfortunately the movie didn’t match the soundtrack’s success. That included the hit single “HERE COMES THE HOT STEPPER” 

After the success of THE PLAYER it seemed like Robert Altman was having a comeback and he wanted to take on another world/culture. His last film was SHORT CUTS and that was more interlocking stories then taking a look into or try to dismantle another popular subculture from the inside. That was more foreign abs international but also glamorous.

Allowing him to use his dual methods of ensemble casts. Where even though the actors are playing characters here it feels more like an out and out comedy. So they are all over the top. Not as serious, nor are there any serious moments throughout. 

It might be understandable him taking on this movie after the more serious and sad SHORT CUTS, but while this is more lighthearted it also is a challenge. As this would be his most mainstream film in a while. As he was taking on a subject that was very popular and most audiences might not be used to his films and their outlook. 

This film is set in that world of fashion to tell ongoing stories and big inertia where the characters cross paths. All in all, it stays humorous with Kim Basinger playing an on air television reporter. Who comes in and out to explain certain relationships but is clueless about fashion. So that it feels like a replay of the reporter in the film NASHVILLE.

The film ultimately never encapsulates any meaning or why we are so enraptured by the glitz, glamour and celebrity of the fashion world. So that in the end it comes across as misguided and empty as the world he is capturing. As fashion constantly reinvents itself. It proves there are No rules and seemingly no depth. Not to mention watching this film feels dated. It’s very episodic. 

Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren get to reference classic scenes and relationships from their career and previous collaborations and give a scene where you believe they are remaking a classic moment only for it to end with a joke. 

Which is pretty much the mood of the film. As all plots and stories seem to end in that kind of manner. 

The film’s cast as usual is filled with stars. The biggest of whom seem here in an unneeded story but help make it more commercial. As Tim Robbins and Julia Robert’s seem stuck here in a bad afterthought of a romantic comedy plot line.

This film seems to find Robert Altman riding his high horse. This film goes for more populism but leaves viewers puzzled. As it is more artistic and voyeuristic than plotted.

This film is like a bunch of short stories stretched over fashion week. 

The film is flashy and appeals to itself but ultimately is frustrating, especially with all the talent involved. Where you are left to wonder what could have been. 

Everyone is well dressed but we are left as confused as Kim Basinger’s reporter. Where we wonder what this was all about. 

It seems like the director was unfocused but having fun. Filled with recognizable names, good actors, supermodels and models of the time. Where the film feels flirtatious as it always has a wink to give off 

Can’t tell if the film was rushed or cut together fast with a murder mystery in the middle that largely takes a backseat or is forgotten. Ultimately the film comes across as a farce. That feels like it is being made up as it goes along. Though with a stylish hand guiding it. Who leaves to perplex the audience. 

Grade: C+

WOLF (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Mike Nichols 
Written By: Jim Harrison & Wesley Strick 
Cinematography: Giuseppe Rotunno 
Editor: Sam O’Steen 

Cast: Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeiffer, James Spader, Christopher Plummer, Richard Jenkins, Kate Nelligan, Eileen Atkins, David Hyde Pierce, Om Puri, Ron Rifkin, Allison Janney 

Worn down and out of luck, aging publisher Will Randall is at the end of his rope when a younger co-worker snatches his job out from under his nose. But after being bitten by a wolf, Will suddenly finds himself energized, more competitive than ever, and possessed with amazingly heightened senses. Meanwhile, the beautiful daughter of his shrewd boss begins to fall for him – without realizing that the man she’s begun to love is gradually turning into the creature by which he was bitten.

I remember being entertained when I first saw this movie on video. Watching it now It comes across as instantly dated. As that is only part of the problems one might have with the film. 

Watching this film you can tell Mike Nichols who is a great and legendary director. Is more of a character and actors director more than a genre director. He brings esteem to the proceedings in what could have been easily more exploitive fare. 

Who brings a well-known and established cast to the movie. Actors who wouldn’t necessarily be bothered to be in this type of film. At the later stages of esteemed careers. 

As much of this movie plays out as a drama and romance rather than a monster movie or horror film. As a first, the film chooses to showcase the peers he gets from being a werewolf that helps bring vitality to him

And his life. Where he stands up for himself. Then it becomes more of a burden in his romance with the boss’s daughter but only after he finds out his wife is cheating on him.

It seems like they either tried to keep the horror elements on the periphery or forgot about it at times and were only interested in the dramatic thriller aspects of the story. Because it seems like there are scenes of it largely being absent, then “oh yeah” moments. 

After a while he has to deal with corporate politics and then being a suspect in his wife’s murder and trying to prove his innocence. 

While Jack Nicholson looks a little ridiculous in his wolf persona. It does make him seem more seasoned and watching him actually get into a battle as one looks a little silly but also reminds you what type of film you are watching. That tries to distinguish itself away from the fantasy elements. As it seems to look more ridiculous when it selves into them, but It’s not like it’s Corporate storyline is all that sharp about a senior getting pushed out by a younger contender who he helped train.

The film ends up playing way too long and very predictable. As the film seems to go through the motions. As it involves mostly main characters, is that a message to the audience that the older you are the more then you take? and the more thorough it must all be. 

As the film seems to want to make an example between the battles of nature and the battles in the business world and how they are similar. 

James Spader does what he does best. Where he puts on a spin on his upper-crust yuppie character image, but once we get to the third act of the movie. You can kind of predict his character arc. Even though when he starts acting peculiar the special effects give it away. Even though he doesn’t act too differently.

Considering the talent involved in this film. This should have been more memorable. As it is actually kind of forgettable. There are barely any memorable scenes. Even though Michelle Pfeiffer is the only one who has a history more with genre films out of the cast. Plus her playing in a werewolf movie after playing Catwoman is an amusing film irony.

Michelle Pfeiffer almost comes across as just another big name in a star-studded well-respected cast because while she is the female lead. She is the damsel in distress throughout most of the film or just simply the love interest. 

The special effects involved make the final fight look ridiculous. Rick Baker designed them and while One can give credit as at least they are practical effects instead of digital. 

This seems to join the ranks with THE HULK films. Just as there isn’t anyone good of those films. It’s Really hard to find a really good to outstanding Werewolf movie but you are more likely to find the latter than the earlier one. Though it is a little long in the tooth when it comes to running time 

Grade: C+

MY GIRL 2 (1994)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Howard Zieff 
Written By: Janet Kovalcik 
Based On Characters created by: Laurice Ehlewany 
Cinematography By: Paul Elliott 
Editor: Wendy Greene Bricmont 

Cast: Anna Chlumsky, Austin O’Brein, Richard Mausr, Christine Ebsrsole, Dan Ayckroyd, Jamie Lee Curtis, Gerrit Graham, Ben Stein, Keone Young, Devon Gummersall


Vada Sultenfuss has a holiday coming up, and an assignment: to do an essay on someone she admires and has never met. She decides she wants to do an assignment on her mother, but quickly realizes she knows very little about her. She manages to get her father to agree to let her go to LA to stay with her Uncle Phil and do some research on her mother. Once in LA, she finds herself under the protection of Nick, the son of Phil’s girlfriend, who at first is very annoyed at losing his holidays to escort a hick *girl* around town. However, he soon becomes more involved in the difficult search.

This film is just as warm and charming as the first film. Though weaker overall in feel and subject matter

This is the last film that Howard Zieff directed, because he became increasingly debilitated by Parkinson’s disease. Carrie Fisher was also an uncredited script doctor on this film

It’s character from the first film we feel a connection with and want to see what is happening in their lives, but the movie offers less of a reason. So that it feels more like we are dropping by while something is developing . Which might have. Even the movies aim, it just never feels as compelling and things seem to happen more in a leisurely pace.

Which makes it seem like a film that adults might appreciate more then kids. Unless they are just connected to the characters from seeing the first film.

It goes more into the hippie lifestyle that she is around as well as delving more into a friendship than romance

The thing that is missing is that in the first film it was a coming of age story and we were introduced to her making her way through the world and seeing how her family worked while this outsider came in. As well as including a tragedy that you knew was coming

Though this film feels less needed than that film As it feels more like an unnecessary continuation of a story and characters where we leave half of the character from the original who appear more in a cameo. Which also loses some of the charm. As it’s nice to see them but we don’t get to see as much of them as we would Like.

And now she is dealing more with her uncle form the first film who here has a bigger part and we get to see him more humanized in his relationship with her and a romantic one. So we are dealing with the original character in a whole new landscape which seems smart, but isn’t as precious as the character is older and a lot more knowledgeable. It stays clean but she isn’t as naive.

Here the character is doing research more into her deceased mother which is what take up most of the films actions and time. She is also in a strange location for her. So she is exploring new territory. While being around the counter culture she still manages to stay innocent.

Strangely though older she is less boy crazy and fascinated by relationships. Which seems to be why by the end she finds herself in a minor one. Though still not really having any female friends. Which the film starts with her having but losing them to jealousy.

Anna Chlumsky has always been an earnest actress her performances have always felt truthful and soulful full of confidence. She is charming and is energetic in her performance. That feels adventurous and guides each performance she has. Though at least throughout she stay confident. Which leaves a good message and role model for little girls watching it and seeing themselves In the character. Luckily over the years she has come back as a major actress in adulthood and been Emmy nominated quite a few times on the award winning television show VEEP

Maybe it is that I grew up watching and dealing with the first film emotionally so that when the sequel was finally announced. –I looked forward to it and built it up on my head so that when i finally saw it I couldn’t help but find it disappointing. More as me and other might have grown out of it. As it came too little too late.

Now this is not a bad movie at all. If anything it feels heartwarming

Though it works as a continuation of a character like in the films MY AMERICAN COUSIN to AMERICAN BOYFRIENDS, also THE YEAR MY VOICE BROKE to FLIRTING, only skewing younger. Though offers motivation and moving into more adult themes for the characters here it maintains an innocence for everyone

The supporting characters are fun if not too memorable. The investigation is not that interesting or encompassing they seem only there to keep the story moving and the characters moving allowing for some developments.

Not too much of a side story by introducing another suitor for the uncle’s girlfriend.

This was a sequel that I was looking Forward to even though I was old enough to be skeptical and think how were they going to be able to equal the power (at least for me) of the original. As one Wanted to see the further adventures of Vada. 

Which is exactly what this film does. She is a little older abd the film transports her out of her hometown into sprawling San Francisco. Bigger city for bigger adventures. As this film comes off more as episodic.

The seed are planeted early in the film. When her friend who we last saw her playing. With st the end of the original. Is jealous and ditches her for a boy who seems to constantly be flirting by with vada and vada In turn has no interest in nor picks up on it. 

So as she searches for stories about her mother. The movie revolves around relationships. Her uncle and his girlfriends. Her and the girlfriends son who accompanies her everywhere In her fact finding mission and even her relationship with her mother and accepting her stepmother and her soon to be born Sibling.

That is what most films are about relationships. This one offers a bit of romance between her and the girlfriends son but other then a kids that is as deep as it gets.

One of the charms of the original so is that it came out of nowhere and had a more natural sense of character as well as generally good innocent humor for the most part. So that it felt like a gem out of nowhere that was also felt classical in A small town novel way. It felt comfortable.

Where as this film feels like most of the film it is stretching and feels way too planned out. It feels more designed then coming off natural and it kind of spoils it.

The film Still has some off the wall charm but not enough to make this film feel like it is worth the effort.

Though then Again I might be wrong as I was younger when the first film Came out and more cynical when the sequel came out and might have believed I was above it all. Kids might actually like it. So might those who took the first film to heart. Even though I did and still found myself disliking the sequels

Grade: C