DAILY CATHOLIC FRI-SAT-SUN August 28-30, 1998 vol. 9, no. 169
MOVIES & MORALS |
TOP TEN MOVIES FOR THIRD WEEK OF AUGUSTProbably the most cutting embarassment of the entire summer was the fact a quality movie was shaved by another of those late summer trash movies - so much so that the newest entry to this genre - "Blade" slashed through the meager competition to oust four time leader "Saving Private Ryan". Contributing to the summer malaise was the fact that the rest of the movies garnered only single digit numbers for the week, making it the most least-watched week of the summer that has had its share of sexploitive films such as "There's Something about Mary" and "How Stella Got her Groove Back" which followed up the pack at third and fourth and we won't even say "respectively" beacause there's nothing respectful about either of those two bombs. The Nicholas Cage dud "Snake Eyes" rolled a five for the second straight week and another senseless two hour drone on man's sensibilities was wasted with "Dead Man on Campus" which came in a weak sixth. The remaining four were the only movies of any redeeming quality that weren't ranked "R" including the new release "Dance With Me" which finished 8th behind "Ever After" and just ahead of The Parent Trap. Outside of "Blade's" surprising showing, the biggest surprise was how far the British spy movie "The Avengers" plunged - from third to tenth in only its second week, guaranteeing it a failure at the box office. One good thing was the complete disappearance of highly promoted bad films "Halloween H20" and "The Negotiator" from the top ten. Now if only several more will only topple soon!As you'll see with each review there is almost always something objectionable about each movie so go in with an open mind and keep in mind the best advice before you plunk down your hard-earned money at the box-office: Would Jesus and His Mother Mary watch it with you? If not, think twice about seeing it.
|
|
This one could be dubbed "Dracula meets Dorff" or "Dud the Vampire Slayer" because it truly is a dud that stretches the imagination and bores the heart, soul and mind. Oddly, the villain's name is "Dorff" - no relation to the comic midget character played by Tim Conway in so many videos. There's nothing funny about Blade's Dorff and there's nothing redeeming about the excessive amount of blood and violence throughout the entire plot. The characters are shallow, including the lead played by tough guy Wesley Snipes who looks more like Dennis Rodman on steroids. How it ever topped "Saving Private Ryan" is one of the great mysteries of moviedom trivia even though it tried to out-violent and out-gross Stephen Spielberg's realistic scenes. The results: Gross out! No folks, this one is definitely one to be missed. Let's hope it finds the box office graveyard soon like the rest of the terrible fare released in August. Below is the bishops' review:
Before "Blade" slashed into its one month reign, this movie had all the makings of being one of the top blockbusters of the summer. When you consider that a third of the population refuse to see it because of its mind-numbing graphic content that can stir nightmares like nothing "Halloween H20" could ever do, that says a lot for this film's staying power and powerful cast which still finished in double figures for the week. Like his award winning, but disturbing movie "Schlindler's List" Steven Spielberg brings us another powerful, poignant and purposeful masterpiece with a message that will have audiences buzzing for weeks to come. This one is not "entertainment" per se but a realistic look at the horrific casualties of war like no movie ever has. But it is not just for shock value as so many movies try to do today, but, true to the Spielberg purpose of expressing his heart and soul for a cause, the master director takes us there to show us how it really was and the saving grace and triumph of man's soul in the face of insurmountable odds. Below is the Bishops' review:
While all the others continued to plummet, this sexploitive film continued to hold its own which - when you consider this movie's contents - is an oxymoron. Speaking of morons, that's what we must call the American movie-goer who plunks down hard-earned cash for this garbage. It is, to put it simply, a story that is blatant profanity and something with absolutely no redeeming value. This "R" rated movie exploits others and holds sex on such a vulgar level that it is so bad that the best thing in the movie is the dog - even in full body cast he's more believable than any of the human characters who don't seem to have a clue what good acting is. How these kind of films get made and the poor calibre of actors and actresses that are being churned out is beyond our comprehension. This is definitely one to avoid like the plague! We have to disagree with the Bishops' review below when they said "the sentimental story helps keep its tasteless humor from becoming seriously offensive." Sorry, your excellencies, but it is seriously offensive! Below is the Bishops' review:
Though this farce is targeted to exploit black audiences, white audiences are also falling for the bait which will land something that definitely should not only be thrown back, but thrown out. Why is Hollywood so out of touch with reality and morality? This film answers the question only too vividly by glorifying something God has said is sinful - with no exceptions. As for any redeeming qualities to this movie, don't look for it. Below is the bishop's review of this film:
Those who loved Nicholas Cage's performance in "Face Off"), will be greatly disappointed with his latest vehicle "Snake Eyes". Cage, a fast talking detective on the take is definitely good in it, but the story and supporting cast are very shallow. This one bears the label of that great bugaboo among today's script writers: no motivation of character. The violence is very graphic and midway through the film, after they reveal the villain, everything is anticlimatic and boring from there. This is definitely not a movie to bet big on. Below is the bishops' review:
Why should we be surprised that such a movie as this could get made when you consider the work ethics of today's youth. Students at this fictional college elevate the cheat-at-any-cost and anything-goes mentality and spend more time trying to finagle out of things than they could actually studying. The premise is lame at best and the sick pranks and ammoral behavior that follow are sure to remind anyone who ever went to college of Pscyhology I01 or Introduction to Chemistry, in other words: BORING! Not only is it boring, tedious and offensive but completely lacking in taste. But then aren't most films of this genre? Below is the bishops' review:
At last they might have found a movie where overused and undertalented Drew Barrymore fits in with the scenery and times - the Renaissance era of 16th Century France. This is a different kind of Cinderella story than the one your parents told you and with all your imagination, believe us, Barrymore was not who you pictured, we're sure. Having only her name to sustain her, she is better in this film than all the rest put together since "E.T." and she wasn't very good in that one. It's a romantic fantasy that could well put the men to sleep - you could call it "Sleeping Beauty." with an attitude. Below is the Bishops' review:
Despite a solid cast, this one tries too hard to be the "Saturday Night Fever" or "Dirty Dancing" movie of the 90's but falls short because of its limited beat and weak story line that diverts in too many directions before honing in on Kris Kristofferson's secret. To its credit it could have been a sensual, sexual romp but the director took the high road and keeps the moral curve in tact. It will be a popular video at Blockbuster with its Latin rhythms but as for box-office it won't tango for long. Below is the Bishops' review:
Trapped in a void, that's what Disney is with this remake of the successful and funny film of the same title back in the sixties when Hayley Mills became a household name. This one is a cruder remake of that one with nothing new and everyone, other than the young and spunky Lindsay Lohan as identical twins. Who would you believe is more credible as parents: Randy Quaid and Natasha Richardson from the 98 version or Brian Keith and Maureen O'Hara from the 61 film? Thought so. This is basically a harmless film that shows Disney must be hard up for originality. Below is the Bishops' review:
Perhaps because Warner Brothers did not preview this film it did poorly in its opening week. But there is no excuse for the second week which assures this latest rip-off of a popular TV series of being declared a disaster. It could be that followers of the cult-like sixties TV series are staying away in droves since Uma Thurman cannot hold a candle to Diana Riggs, though Ralph Fiennes carries off his role as John Steed almost with the same British aplomb as his predecessor Patrick Macnee, though the role given to Sean Connery lacks the punch and depth normally expected from such an exalted actor. In fact, Connery himself, a connosieur of good scripts, regrets being a part of this one, refusing to promote the film. That speaks to his integrity and the shallowness of this British-oriented film which, even with Emma Peel has no apeal for American movie-goers. Below is the bishop's review of this film:
|
Reviews provided through Film & Broadcasting Division of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and figures provided through Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. |
Movies & Morals DAILY CATHOLIC |