#1998Films

[riffcityphotography]

Lumix G95 and various apps used to appear as old dusty 35mm film.

🤘

[thebobby1432world]

Parent Trap Reunion Steals the Show at 2023 SAG Awards!

The 2023 Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards featured a Parent Trap reunion with actresses Elaine Hendrix and Lisa Ann Walter. The two actresses, who played the characters of Meredith Blake and Chessy, respectively, in the 1998 film, presented an award together at the ceremony. During their appearance, Hendrix and Walter reminisced about their time on set, noting that it had been over 20 years since they had last seen each other. They also spoke about the impact that the film had on their lives and careers, expressing gratitude for the opportunity to be a part of such a beloved movie. The Parent Trap, which was directed by Nancy Meyers, starred Lindsay Lohan in a dual role as identical twins who were separated at birth and reunited at a summer camp. The film was a critical and commercial success, grossing over $92 million worldwide. Hendrix and Walter were both praised for their performances in the film, with Hendrix's portrayal of the cunning and conniving Meredith Blake earning particular acclaim. In the years since the film's release, both actresses have continued to work in Hollywood, with Hendrix appearing in films such as Romy and Michele's High School Reunion and TV shows like Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll, and Walter appearing in shows like The Parent 'Hood and Breaking News in Yuba County. The SAG Awards, which honor outstanding performances in film and television, were held on February 12, 2023. The ceremony was broadcast live on TNT and TBS. Read the full article

[shefancdotcom]

Check out this listing I just added to my Poshmark closet: Dance With Me DVD Randa Haines(DIR) 1998 No Scratches.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Disturbing Behaviour (1998)

Disturbing Behaviour is a science fiction film so devoid of imagination you can predict beat-for-beat what its next move will be. It’s the kind of film that leaves you wondering why it was even made.

When Steve Clark (James Marsden) moves to a new town with his family, he befriends misfits Gavin (Nick Stahl), U.V. (Chad E. Donella), and Rachel (Katie Holmes). Everything seems normal, except for a clique of students, the “Blue Ribbons”. They're all former troublemakers who suddenly changed into model students with radically different personalities and now have a tendency to become uncontrollably violent. Gavin insists he knows what’s behind this strange group, but will he be able to convince his friends before they become just like them?

Seriously, why was this movie made? It’s just a lame version of The Stepford Wives with teenagers. This means there’s no satire or commentary, just a bunch of attractive young performers moving through a story that’s been done a thousand times. Even Goosebumps and the 2002 remake of The Twilight Zone took a crack at it.

If you look at it as an "update" of a familiar story, it's still ineffective. You know right away that there’s something foul going on because of a scene at the beginning of the film that shows the Blue Collars as pure evil. It destroys all possible questions as to whether or not something shady is actually going on and doesn't make sense either. This story can’t be taking place in a big city so the idea that weird behaviour - stuff that escalates all the way up to murder - wouldn't be making headlines is inconceivable. I don’t care how deep this conspiracy goes, someone would blow the whistle. There just aren’t that many people going missing without someone noticing.

Setting the story in high school further hinders it. Disturbing Behaviour relies on tired clichés. I couldn’t believe it when we were introduced to a group of nerds who actually brought their laptops to the cafeteria and all wore glasses, the goths, and every other clique ripped right out of a children's cartoon. Added to performances that range from ok to wooden, writing that makes the adults behaving as no human would, and you’ve got a bad movie. The ending is particularly weak, with a “shocking twist” that should have been left on the cutting room floor - along with the rest of this film.

Disturbing Behaviour is dull. It contains no twists, no new ideas. It’s only exciting when it’s truly awful and most of the time it isn’t even that. It’s completely unremarkable, which is worse than being awful because at least then you’d remember it. (On VHS, March 28, 2016)

[caroline-osullivan-topicsinfilm]

Pleasantville

For my first blog post, I wanted to focus on a particular film that was released in 1998, the year I was born. The movie I decided to focus on was Pleasantville, which was released by New Line Cinema and directed by Gary Ross. According to Roger Ebert reviews, Pleasantville ranked number two on the best ten movies of 1998. According to Ebert, the film encapsulated the freedom that computer-generated images provided for filmmakers and an inspiration for social reflection (Ebert, 1998).

The film covers the lives of two present-day siblings David and Jennifer. Both teenagers came from a broken home and lived with their divorced mother. David is excited to watch a “Pleasantville” marathon which is a sitcom portraying the lives of a nuclear family living in the 1950s. Jennifer insists on watching an MTV concert. Like many normal siblings, the two begin to fight over control of the TV, which soon breaks the television remote. To save the day, a creepy TV repairman brings David and Jennifer a high technology remote. The two are taken back in time and begin living in the 1950’s black and white “Pleasantville,” assuming the roles of the two main characters Bud and Mary Sue. Amidst an unchanging plotline of the sitcom, David and Jennifer bring forth futuristic guidance to the sitcom characters, which soon introduces colored television to the sitcom.  

A major delight of the film was pondering the cause of the color shifts. Based on the events of the film, it seemed that change (sexual and personal), and self-understanding, were the two major influences on these shifts. Further, many found delight within the innovative use of paradoxes in a world “closed to space and time”(Ebert, 1998).

In a review done by the Washington Post, it is not just sex but deep emotions, including sadness and anger that change the evolution of color throughout the film. Film director Gary Ross successfully creates this “elaborate conceit,” whose life is dependent on the obedience of a “fanciful premise” (O’Sullivan, 1998).

This film did cause some disagreement between the greater public. Many believed that the 1950’s backdrop provided a safe, comfortable environment that was better than the current “social upheaval” that people currently lived in (Ebert, 1998). However, others posit that the 1950s were more controversial and revolutionary and could benefit from taking a trip back in time.

According to a review done by author Joe Leydon for Variety, the movie Pleasantville showed that those who may have enjoyed sitcoms from the past were the justification of satisfying “advertisements for a paternalistic, rigorously regimented society that valued conformity over all else” (Leydon, 1998).

Leydon also commends director Gary Ross for his success in having it “both ways” (Leydon, 1998). Within the sitcom, we see a town with individuals playing close to the lines of authoritarianism and suppression until their life is faced by a new threat that could offer some positive insight. Throughout the film, Jennifer finds that the longer she stays in “Pleasantville”, the more she begins to grow within her self-concept, and the less of a need to be the 90’s teen she once was. Variety believes that Gary Ross tends to take the easy route and would have benefitted from a “tighter,” clear-cut storyline (Leydon, 1998).

Sources 

[adamwatchesmovies]

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Saving Private Ryan manages to do the seemingly impossible. This war film shows intense battle sequences without glorifying combat or condemning it as completely futile either. It’s intense, emotional, and thought-provoking.

On the morning of June 6, 1944, American soldiers land on Omaha Beach during the Normandy Invasion. After the casualties are recorded, it comes to the attention of General George Marshall (Harve Presnell) that three of the Ryan brothers have all been killed. Seeking to spare their mother the burden of having lost all of her sons, he orders Captain John H. Miller (Tom Hanks) and the remains of his battalion to find Private James Ryan and return him home.

You’ve probably heard of the intense half-hour opening and the way war is unflinchingly presented on-screen. Even decades later when it isn’t uncommon for war films to be gory, it's shocking. For every moment of heroism, there is another where someone is matter-of-factly killed by enemy fire. An act that would make you cheer is quickly followed by such brutality and inhumanity you struggle to avoid becoming numb - the only emotional defense that could protect you - then, the camera will turn towards one of our main characters and those emotions you tried to shoo away rush back. A movie could never truly capture the stress of the battlefield, but this is probably as close as you’re ever going to get. For that first exchange alone, the film is a masterpiece. In reality, that’s just the setup to a complex and gut-wrenching dilemma.

Even if a character is only on-screen for a little bit, they still feel alive. It makes the picture's central question that much more difficult to answer. Is the quest to save Private Ryan futile? Is it immoral? There’s no guarantee Captain Miller, Technical Sargeant Mike Horvath (Tom Sizemore), Privates First Class Richard Reiben and Adrian Caparzo (Edward Burns and Vin Diesel), Privates Stanley Mellish and Danny Jackson (Adam Goldberg and Barry Pepper), medic Irwin Wade (Giovanni Ribisi) and greenhorn technician Timothy Upham (Jeremy Davies) will even find Ryan. He’s a needle in a haystack being constantly fired upon. Even if they do, how are they bringing him back? Why him? There are thousands of soldiers dying, thousands of families, lovers, and children waiting for them at home. Even if they won’t be missed, their lives are no less valuable than the others'.

On the other hand, seeing the savagery these men go through, that chance of a single person being spared another day of combat is enough to convince you that the mission is necessary. This film doesn’t aim to depict war as useless or necessary; you make your own conclusion. Until the final scene, you won’t know how to feel about it. Even after, you're unlikely to. No ordinary picture can do that.

Saving Private Ryan changes you. It doesn’t sugarcoat anything. Not the combat sequences, the trauma and emotions that follow, or the moral quandaries that accompany the battlefield. Its characters, story, and the way each little moment, each detail builds up to that final, heart-wrenching scene makes it a picture for the ages. (On Blu-ray, November 17, 2017)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Babe: Pig in the City (1998)

I try not to care when other people's opinions differ from mine but if you tell me you didn't like Babe, my heart breaks. Not enjoying its darker sequel, I understand more but I still say give it another look. It's uniquely whimsical and very stylish. It also wins a lot of points for being a true sequel, rather than a mere rehash of the first.

After the events of the first film, Babe (voiced this time by Elizabeth Daily) accidentally causes an accident that hospitalizes The Farmer (James Cromwell). The Farmer’s Wife (Magda Szubanski) must now travel with Babe to a faraway sheepdog herding contest. One missed plane, a lot of misunderstandings later, and the pig finds himself alone in a world he doesn’t understand.

The plot of Babe: Pig in the City is nothing like the first. A pig winning a herding competition is a big deal and people have taken notice. What follows is a strange adventure, one that focuses entirely on Babe, the Farmer’s Wife (instead of the Farmer), and the animals the pig befriends while in the city. With the farm in jeopardy, Babe is forced to make sense of what is happening to him without his mother or his human owners.

Some of the original's magic isn’t quite here. That’s not enough to make the movie unworthy of a recommendation. What was good before is still good now. This isn’t just a movie for little children because it’s got layers and nuanced characters. Those who appear villainous often turn out to be misunderstood, or reasonable once you get to know them. There’s a sadness that accompanies anyone who acts as an antagonist. It’s like in the real world where most problems can be solved with an act of kindness - something Babe has an affinity for.

Visually, Pig in the City has a lot to offer. Look at the city we're stranded in, the contrast between this artificial world and the fields of the country, the characters that we meet, how events that are truly outrageous seem to take place in a way that would be eyebrow-raising in the regular world, but feel right at home in a universe where pigs can herd sheep and ducks can act like roosters. It operates in its own un-reality. A world that’s like ours… but not and yet not so fantastic that dragons or aliens could show up. It’s about the mood and the details placed deliberately to help accentuate certain ideas, plot points, and messages.

I admire this picture for making seemingly incompatible elements fit hermetically. It challenges you, it presents you strange sights and then asks “so what do you make of this?” We're not talking weird for weird's sake. Director George Miller is reinforcing a specific mood, showing off the vision of a small, simple creature with a gentle heart that - for better or worse - doesn’t understand the harshness of the big city.

When searching for a movie the whole family can enjoy, Babe: Pig in the City is the kind of thing I’m looking for. It might be too intense for really little kids if they saw it alone by with a parent nearby to comfort them, they'll be ok. Adults might find it unexpectedly strange but seeing their children instantly recognize what's going on will make it all make sense. This is an intelligent, unique, and strangely wonderful story. I don’t think a sequel to Babe could have ever surpassed or been on the same level as the original, but Babe: Pig in the City is a worthy follow-up. (On Blu-ray, January 7, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Letters from a Killer (1998)

From the cover, Letters from a Killer made me expect a bad movie. Look at that photo of Patrick Swayze with a bowie knife and the tagline of “Don’t Open the Mail”. It’s selling itself as a killer mailman slasher movie. Thankfully, this is a better film than it advertises. Unfortunately, the further you get into this thriller’s plot, the worse it gets.

Patrick Swayze plays Race Darnell, a man convicted and sentenced to death for a murder he didn’t commit. On death row, he receives letters from 5 women with whom he forms “relationships”. When a retrial exonerates him, one of his girlfriend pen pals discovers that she wasn’t the only one, begins killing her rivals, and framing Race for their murders.

This is a picture that would be much better if it were worse. There’s no law against dating multiple women at once. Race isn’t committing any crimes. Actually, sitting on death row wrongfully for 7 years means he's the victim. You might call him a scumbag but put yourself in his shoes. If you didn’t believe you’d ever be freed, would you turn down a woman who writes to you affectionately? Keep in mind the emotional tax of being in prison, surrounded by criminals and vindictive guards every day. He's not sleeping with any of them. I say go for it.

The picture gets interesting once Race is released. Suddenly there’s a woman who swears she’ll have her revenge on him and he doesn’t know who it could be. This, on top of some compelling drama. People think he’s a reptile who's managed to slime his way out of a just sentence. He just wants a normal life but he's stuck dealing with his five "relationships" - and not in a comedic fashion. There are good scenes as he is asked whether he’s admitting the truth to the women because he genuinely feels guilt, or just to save his own skin.

As Letters from a Killer progresses, the crazier and more obvious it becomes. The killer is free to go about as they please, killing left and right and leaving no clues behind except for that thing that will help propel the story forward. In more than one scene, someone suffers a severe injury and carries on as if nothing's happened. Not because it’s a “flesh wound” but because it has to be a surprise that they’re not dead or to generate some artificial tension. While the plot makes sense and everything is explained, this is a movie that could've easily been solved much, much faster if someone just called the police or sat down and had a conversation. With the way the ending plays out, I’m reminded of several action movies where yeah the city was saved or whatever, but the hero would be thrown in jail for causing huge amounts of property damage, breaking countless laws, and blatantly disobeying orders. Even with the excuse that Race encounters some of the most trigger-happy police officers I’ve ever seen in a thriller, he would have had a lot of explaining to do and some serious jail time.

You’re not getting Johnny Castle cutting up women foolish enough to answer chain letters in Letters from a Killer. Actually, the killer doesn't send letters at all; only audiotapes. It begins with a good premise but by the end, it's frequently laughable and preposterous. I can’t even call it lousy. It’s just ok, the kind of mediocre that makes you feel that ultimately, this is one of these films you would watch and never, ever meet anyone else who did. (Full-screen version on VHS, October 14, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

He Got Game (1998)

The last thing I expected out of a movie about basketball was to leave with a mind buzzing with thoughts. He Got Game is an intelligently written film with profound themes, engaging drama and sharp performances.

Jesus Shuttlesworth (Ray Allen) is a promising high school basketball player sought by colleges and the NBA alike. With so many options pulling him in different directions, it’s hard to keep track of who's actually looking to give him a chance and who is trying to use him to further their own ends. Serving a prison sentence for the accidental murder of his wife, Jesus’ father, Jake (Denzel Washington), has been promised a reduced sentence by the state governor if he can convince his son to sign for the "right" college. Will do what’s best, or best for himself?

We’ve all heard the stories about players who somehow manage straights A’s while making their teams shine. This movie makes it clear the education of these young (often black) athletes is not the priority of those who hand them scholarships. Jesus might “have it made” because everyone is at his feet, but has few real friends. He hasn't even signed up for anything and he's already surrounded by silver-tongued leeches who are promising him his heart's desires. I was never sure if his girlfriend was actually in love with him, or the kind of jezebel that would have sex with him just so she could get pregnant and later collect child support from a future sports superstar.

This film isn’t about basketball. It’s all about the hype and the potential money it can bring. We’ve got this whirlwind of difficult decisions and at the centre is a father. Jake has failed his son and is faced with a whopper of a dilemma. Does he try to get Jesus to go for the college that will mean his freedom? If he does, he'll be just like everyone else: someone else looking to take advantage of the boy. On the other hand, if he gets out, it’s an opportunity to be with his family. Maybe it’s worth taking the risk of being hated just so he can leave prison. You’re always trying to figure out people’s motivations and hoping the young man will find the right path.

He Got Game explores the complicated relationship so many youths have with basketball. On the one hand, it’s a way out of poverty. Even if they don’t make it professionally, a scholarship is nothing to dismiss. On the other hand, that dream of being a good enough player means many parents push their children much harder than they should, forget that at the end of the day it's a game, and disregard the importance of being a family for the possibility of a way out of the ghetto.

There’s a lot to make you think here, which makes the film's hard R-Rating (a lot of language, strong sexuality, some drug use and violence) almost a shame. This is a great film about what it means to be a father and about growing up. Spike Lee isn’t afraid to ask difficult questions. It ends in a climax more exciting than any real-life professional game could be because you've become so invested in the personal stories of Jake and Jesus. I strongly admire Lee (who also wrote the film) for his uncompromising take on the subject. The performances are strong, even from Ray Allen, who is a real-life athlete; not a professional actor. Even if you don’t know anything about basketball I'm confident you will be swept up by He Got Game. (On DVD, May 17, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Enemy of the State (1998)

You’ll have to swallow a whole lot of ridiculous operations and technology to believe Enemy of the State. Well, I say get yourself a big glass of water and get ready to massage your throat. This suspense thriller is worth suspending your disbelief for.

Labor attorney Robert Clayton Dean (Will Smith) has his life turned upside down when an old acquaintance slips him an encoded disc capturing the murder of a congressman by NSA official Thomas Bryan Reynolds (Jon Voight). The problem is he doesn’t know he has the video. When his bank accounts are frozen, his name smeared in the newspapers, he loses his job and his marriage, he has no idea why. Bugged and dogged by a government who is convinced he knows more than he lets on, he has no choice but to go on the run.

I’m going to do what I should have done from the beginning and address the technology and the contrived plot so we can move on. In this world, all security cameras shoot in 1080P, are always on, are as accessible as public libraries, and are powered by magic. At one point, a computer analyzes Robert's bag, compares it to the one he had been holding a second ago, uses the shadows and its shape to emphasize the differences by generating a rotating 3-D model - all from a stationary camera. You also have to believe everyone hired by the NSA are robots that follow orders no matter what - including murder. In that case, why didn’t they just skip the part where they weave all of these elaborate lies, wait until Robert was at home with his family, cut the phone line, enter through the front door and force him to find the video at gunpoint?

Once you get past that, Enemy of the State is successful. The villains are despicable and you hate them, so you want more than anything to see the conspiracy they’ve woven torn down and their dirty deeds exposed. But how? The odds are stacked so high against Dean you have no idea how he’ll get out of this jam. Actually, there's hope because he's smart. Sometimes it takes him a little bit to wrap his mind around what is going on, but when the plot requires him to run and improvise, he does it well. With his quick wit and an ally that comes in later (I hesitate to say who because it would give things away, but if you’re dying to know his name is on the movie poster), if someone can get through this mess, it’s them. I’m not saying it’s a great film, but as a rental, or something you watch on a lazy Sunday, it checks the boxes you want it to.

Enemy of the State would've been a better - I'd even dare say “important” - film if it was more realistically done and took itself more seriously, particularly when we consider how much of our activities CAN be surveilled today. As is, however, it certainly entertains, it makes the 132-minute running time feel like nothing, and the ending is terrific. I can’t recommend it highly but I'd certainly watch it again. (On VHS, February 13, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Snake Eyes (1998)

I only watched Snake Eyes because I had it on VHS tape and the box was badly damaged. If it was any good I’d upgrade to DVD. If it wasn’t, the space it occupied could be used for something else. Final verdict? I wouldn’t call it a classic, but I enjoyed the film more than I didn’t.

Rick Santoro (Nicolas Cage) is a corrupt police detective attending a boxing match with his friend Kevin (Gary Sinise). When one of the fighters knocks out his opponent, an assassin guns him down. Everyone panics, particularly Kevin - he was the victim’s bodyguard. While Rick follows the clues to try and solve the case and help his friend, he uncovers a conspiracy that will test even his blackened soul.

There are some big twists in the film and I want to avoid spoiling any surprises. The revelations are not particularly devastating. It's merely that figuring out who did what and how that person is connected with this other one is the fun part and the knots to unravel vary greatly in difficulty. The enjoyable aspect of the film is that it’s about people running around trying to find each other in an attempt to get a leg up on the situation, expose someone, or take them out. The clues gradually discovered by Rick are fun to examine and as some scenes are shown a second time from a different angle to reveal new information, Brian De Palma’s trademark cinematography and shooting style shine. We get several long shots that had to require careful rehearsals or sharp improvisational skills from the performers. A standout scene is a point where a characters’ vision (or lack thereof) is used to create unique situations and tension. The supporting characters, how they tie into the main plot - or turn out to be mere red herrings - are fun boxes to tick. Nicolas Cage’s character has some good moments as he finds himself reconsidering the things he’s done during his not-so-stellar career.

The film is at its weakest during the conclusion, which is conventional and introduces an unnecessary romance. Not helping is the puzzling final shot. Still, it's enjoyable while it lasts and the good outweighs the bad.

Snake Eyes doesn't have much re-watch value, but that’s ok. It’s the kind of movie you rent (or go see in the theatre back in 1998), enjoy, and then not think about ever again. I’ll be generous and give it a 3.5 / 5. (On VHS, September 24, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Bram Stoker’s Shadow Builder (1998)

What’s this?! Bram Stoker’s Shadow Builder? The same Bram Stoker who wrote Dracula? With such credentials, this movie is going to be awesome. I bet the story it’s based on is a horror classic just waiting to be discovered!

Those are the thoughts that passed through my head when I first glimpsed at the holographic VHS tape cover of this horror film. Having now seen it, I can understand why this film has remained obscure. It’s dull and unoriginal. I bet a lot of people wanted to expand on the flimsy Wikipedia article, but after seeing the film, couldn't muster up the energy.

When a group of Satanists summons a demon to destroy the world, Father Jacob Vassey (Michael Rooker) is our only hope. If he can stop the Shadow Builder from capturing young Chris Hatcher (Kevin Zegers) before a solar eclipse taking place in a few days, he will prevent the end of days.

I know it’s unfair to compare this film to others that came later, but the way Shadow Builder plays out, it’s essentially a boring End of Days. A demon is going about sewing destruction and determined to end the world while a tough gun-toting hero who doesn’t play by the rules is tasked with stopping him. I’m not saying the Arnold Schwarzenegger picture is good - In fact, I'd say it's bad, but in a fun way. “Shadow Builder” is not frightening, it doesn’t have any interesting or new ideas and none of the characters are compelling.

You could sharpen Michael Rooker and use him to kill vampires he's so wooden. I’m not sure if director Jamie Dixon was thinking he'd seem extra gruff and gritty by wheezing his way through his dialogue, but he’s never convincing. Characters die, others survive. You don't care. There’s no gore, only a little bit of sleazy nudity to jog you awake. The demon walking around is somewhat interesting to look at. I like the concept of him turning people into solid shadows which crumble when exposed to light. Don't think it's worth watching the movie for. It's more interesting in concept than in execution.

This is the kind of movie you immediately forget. Was there a point to Tony Todd as the eccentric outcast? Not really. His actions could have been done by a more prominent character to eliminate the unnecessary plot strands he brings. Why do the bad guys want to end the world? We’re given a quick explanation that proves that all movie Satanists are morons who will end up getting themselves killed by their own dark lord. How does the movie end? I barely remember.

I can’t say I disliked Shadow Builder, but it’s not bad in a fun or memorable way. I bet many horror fans have seen this movie because copies of it keep getting bought for a couple of bucks and then pawned off or sold at garage sales for someone else to watch and then forget. I can’t fathom anyone not putting this one in the box of movies “to get rid of”. (On VHS, September 22, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Dark City (1998)

Sometimes, a "Director's Cut" is a gimmick to sell DVDs. Dark City is not one of those cases. See this movie but make sure you find a good Blu-ray that contains the original vision, his "cut". Any issues you might've had with the original film are not present in it.

John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up one night in a bathtub and learns that he is being sought for a series of ritualistic murders. Suffering from amnesia, he has no idea if he did the crimes or not. If he didn’t, why is he the prime suspect? What do the strange figures in black cloaks that seem to be everywhere have to do with this?

I saw the theatrical version of the film, which means I have to address its flaws (I'll review the Director's Cut later). Let's begin with the film's premise. Sounds pretty spooky, doesn’t it? Amnesia. A serial killer. A quest to clear your identity that might turn into a shocking revelation. Eerie people in black cloaks. I can already picture your mind trying to make sense of it all. Wonder no longer if you're watching the theatrical cut. It tells you right away what's actually going on. It sucks the scares right out of this movie. Not completely but enough to make you go "what were they thinking?"

Dark City has a great premise and its worldbuilding is spectacular. It's unfriendly and sleazy. There's a ton of atmosphere. You don’t know if you’re supposed to be excited to learn John's true identity or if you should be frightened of what he's about to discover. In this way, the experience you feel is the same as his. There's so much you don't know you're unsure if you should be scared or getting ready for an action scene. What happens in this “Dark City” gave me chills. What we learn is so bizarre and nerve-wracking it made me fall in love with the film despite the initial hurdle.

This is a great-looking picture. Some of the CGI effects are a bit dated but nothing’s too glaring. The practical effects are where the wonder's at. They sell this world. So do the performances. I’m not sure if it’s difficult, or easy to play an amnesiac but Rufus Sewell does an impeccable job. He makes it look easy. The side characters are terrific too. Jennifer Connelly is a particular standout, followed closely by Kiefer Sutherland as Dr. Daniel P. Schreber. Is he a hero, or a villain? It’s hard to tell but a compelling question to ponder.

It isn't enough for me to tell you how I feel about Dark City. I need to spread the word. If you want a film that makes you think, that combines fantasy, film noir, horror, and science fiction, this is what you've been looking for. I had some issues with it, but it seems as though they'll all go away with the Director's Cut so learn from my mistake and get on it. It's a visually arresting, smart, and memorable film. A real brain-twister. (Theatrical version on Blu-ray, May 1, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Mulan (1998)

1998’s Mulan is a cut above most animated films. Wonderful art direction (particularly in the character designs), a rousing soundtrack, a great story, and memorable characters make it an instant favorite.

In ancient China, the Huns have traversed the Great Wall. The Emperor (Pat Morita) orders one man from every family join the army to defend the country. Fa Mulan (voiced by Ming-Na Wen) realizes her father will be killed if he enlists and disguises herself as a man to takes his place. Accompanying her on this journey is the disgraced family guardian, a pint-sized dragon named Mushu (voiced by Eddie Murphy).

Let's get the film’s weaknesses out of the way so we can focus on what makes it so good: the animal sidekicks. Eddie Murphy as Mushu brings plenty of laughs to balance out the intense sequences of combat and drama. He’s given a “buddy” - a lucky cricket named Cri-Kee. The insect is ultimately unnecessary and could’ve probably been merged with Mulan’s (non-anthropomorphic) horse.

Unlike most other female-led Disney animated films, the romance is downplayed, replaced with themes of duty and family honor. Mulan is a well-developed protagonist you instantly relate to. As a woman, she’s expected to look good, cook, and bear children. She wants more but doesn’t reject the expectations placed on her. She’s not a brat. There are moments of comedy when arrives at the boot camp but overall, this story plays out seriously. Mulan risks execution by taking her father’s place but when told to quit and return home, she chooses not to. She’s determined to prove herself, to bring honor to her family. Ultimately, she turns what others would perceive as her weaknesses into strengths - a recurring theme.

Mulan has visuals that stand out and they're working overtime. Few of the menacing Huns have any dialogue. Shan You (Miguel Ferrer) barely gets more than a dozen lines but one look and you know all you need to. We don't need to be told what makes him and Mulan different, why they're opposed. The real struggle is our heroine versus the expectations placed upon her.

The watercolor-like aesthetics make each scene pop, particularly when it uses blacks and whites. The best example comes in a massive battle set in the mountains. The scene is a microcosm of everything good about the film. Mulan gets to show off what makes her a hero, the humor and peril flow into each other seamlessly, and the score is terrific.

Mulan gets to be quite intense in several emotional scenes. These moments, along with its titular character make it a film that endures much more than the comedy, the visuals, or even the soundtrack - which is memorable but features surprisingly few songs. Although there are a couple of blemishes that could’ve been polished, it’s hard to imagine another crack at this story reaching the legendary status this one's earned. We’ll just have to wait and see. (On Blu-ray, March 15, 2020)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Richie Rich’s Christmas Wish (1998)

It never fails. Whenever a property has no idea what to do ‘round Christmas time, it always resorts to ripping off It’s a Wonderful Life, or A Christmas Carol. I’m an adult, watching Richie Rich’s Christmas Wish years after it was released but I’d bet every present underneath my tree that no kid who saw this film in 1998 liked it.

After Richie Rich (played by David Gallagher this time) is led to believe by his supervillain-esque cousin Reggie Van Dough (Jake Richardson) that he ruined Christmas, the richest boy in the world wishes he was never born. Thanks to Professor Keanbean (Eugene Levy) and his latest invention, his wish comes true!

You can predict every beat of this story because you've literally seen it a thousand times. This may be the crappiest, most unimaginative ripoff of It’s a Wonderful Life I’ve ever encountered. Even if you can imagine a world in which either a) the Frank Capra classic doesn’t exist or b) Richie hasn’t seen it, the character and the story are poorly written. Over, and over, and over, and over he attempts to explain to people who no longer know him who he is, that he is the heir to the Rich fortune, that this world is not the way it should be, etc. It’s hard to see the appeal of Richie Rich. All of his problems seem trivial compared to ours. When you also make dumber than a sack of pennies, he becomes so unlikable the only way to make the audience cheer him on… is to create a villain so outlandish you can’t take anything seriously. You thought Hill Valley had it bad when Biff took over the town in Back to the Future Part 2? At least the man didn’t have the power to set people’s bail at whatever he wanted or cancel Christmas!

It's almost comical to see a film about the richest boy in the world made so cheaply. No one on the production team must've ever touched or seen snow. It’s as green as summer in the tropics… except for some cotton spread out here and there, and a few key branches. Those poor child actors must’ve been dying inside their snowsuits! Then, we get to the CG, which is just a notch above the quality that we see in today’s Asylum films. It’s 1998, also direct-to-video, but come on. How expensive can it be to blow up a sled? I’ll do it for free!

The people in charge must not have cared, at all. In the “real” world, Richie notices that his butler, Herbert Cadbury (Keene Curtis) has a tattoo on his leg. Using your dummy detective skills, you immediately realize that, in this alternate reality, Cadbury will still be a musician, that this is how the two of them will meet. Unfortunately, what are the odds the world-famous band will be performing on Christmas Eve in the apocalyptic wasteland that is the Reggie-owned Richville? I could go on and on at all of the plot holes and coincidences, but do any of them matter? This is the kind of VHS garbage that screams “Hold on! It’s gonna be a stinky ride!” within seconds. This has been a rough day. Between this, the Christmas-themed episode of “Back to the Future: The Animated Series” where they travel back to the time of Charles Dickens to re-create A Christmas Carol and Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2, it’s enough to make you wish you had died in a fiery wreck that morning instead of getting up to watch movies with your friends. (On VHS, December 17, 2017)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Lost in Space (1998)

Lost in Space should've tried for some campy fun. Without a bit of self-deprecating humor, all you have left is an astonishingly poorly written sci-fi story. The plot holes are abundant, the dialogue sounds like it was written by an alien and the special effects haven't aged well at all. There’s little to look forward to if you happen to stumble upon this space waste.

The Robinson family - emotionless, robotic father John (William Hurt), neglected mother Maureen (Mimi Rogers), their sexy daughter Judy (Heather Graham), their annoying, squeaky-voiced second daughter Penny (Lacey Chabert) and prodigal son Will (Jack Johnson) are blasting off to finish construction of a space gate that will allow the rest of humanity to escape Earth, which is becoming increasingly uninhabitable. Accompanying them is Major Don West (Matt LeBlanc) and the transparently evil, mustache-twirling villain Dr. Smith (Gary Oldman). After an accident, the crew finds themselves lost... IN SPAAAAACE!

The film uses computer-generated images extensively, and they look awful. I'd be willing to cut it a break but the effects in “Jurassic Park” hold up. What's this movie's excuse? Worse, the effects become increasingly awkward the longer you watch. At first, it's merely mechanical components moving around. They look weird, but you can look past them. Then, we're introduced to a pet alien for Penny. It looks like a cross between an ugly Furby and a Pikachu but at least it can’t get any worse right? Wrong. Wait until you see the final antagonist, a spider-like humanoid whose design looks like it came from 10-year-old doodling in science class.

To populate this lousy-looking film, we have some of the worst-written characters I’ve ever seen. Evidently, writer Akiva Goldsman has never heard of subtlety. In fact, they've probably never heard a human being speak. The worst offenders are John Robinson and Dr. Smith. William Hurt had to know how awful this enterprise was because he gives his performance the same level of enthusiasm as someone being walked to the gallows. You can’t imagine anyone falling in love with him because he seems incapable of emotion. In the film's best (worst?) scene, John is about to venture into the unknown, perhaps towards certain death. He approaches his wife and whispers in her ear “I love you, wife”. Who wrote this?! As bad as he is, Gary Oldman's blows him out of the water. All of his lines have to do with how he can’t be trusted because he’s “a monster”, or something to do with death, or some other creepy line. He’s so bad he’s good.

If by some kind of unexplainable virtue you're able to ignore the flaws already listed, there's more.

Towards its conclusion, Lost in Space introduces a time machine without any understanding of how it might work. The Robinson family’s ship crashes on a habitable planet. Nearby, they discover a time distorting generated by an older version of Will (Jared Harris) who has retrofitted his ship and is living all alone with an older version of Dr. Smith - everyone else being long-dead.

“Why are the two ships in different spots?”

We learn an alien spider bite has mutated Smith into a spider-like human/alien hybrid. After dispatching his younger self, he announces his plans to steal the time machine, travel to Earth's past and take it over.

"Why would you hurt your past self? Did Spider Smith carefully calculate the blow he delivered to himself? He risked accidentally erasing himself from existence with that attack. Wouldn’t that have been a wild development? Spider Smith just ceases to exist because he killed himself in the past? And why does Spider Smith want to take over the world? I get wanting to amass power and money but what would he gain by killing every single person on the planet?"

After a bewildering weakness is exploited, Smith is gone. Now, it’s time to wrap it up. The planet's crumbling, the present-day ship blows up, killing everyone but daddy. But wait, they can use the time machine to prevent all this death! so how far back does dad travel to? A mere 2 minutes; barely enough time to fix anything.

“Why?!”

I can’t get over this climax. It’s just so poorly written. There are plot holes filled with more plot holes, no one acts logically. No rules are established as to what can and can’t happen. There's so much wrong with Lost in Space it is fun to pick apart, but if you’re looking for something that’s “So Bad it’s Good”, I’d hesitate to recommend it. Yes, it's that painful. (On VHS, January 16, 2015)