The Critics Speak

The Terminal

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Tolerable
Released: June 18, 2004
Director: Steven Spielberg
MPAA Rating: PG-13, for brief language and drug references

Tom Hanks is a phenomenal actor. That being said, this movie has a swiss cheese of a plot. While some parts are delicious and beautiful...other parts have some serious serious holes.

The story is about Viktor Navorski (Hanks), a guy from an Eastern Europe country that falls apart while Viktor is in the air. So, he gets stranded in the Kennedy airport until his passport can be cleared...which takes a long long time since he kind of fell through the cracks in the system. Catherine Zeta Jones plays an airline stewardess named Amelia and some minor sparks fly between her and Victor. Stanley Tucci plays Frank Dixon, the lead official dude who has some kind of unexplained ego issue.

Hanks is able to pull off this incredible warmth and depth. The thing I love the most about him is that, even though he's Tom Hanks, big-wig actor, I forget about the actor and am absorbed in his character. Victor Navorski was believalbe and genuine from start to finish.

As for the holes... First of all, Frank Dixon is this low, shallow guy. Why? We don't know. He obviously has some kind of need bureaucratic power. Because we cannot see WHY, it makes his character seem two-dimensional and fakey. I don't know of a human that would seriously allow for someone to live in an airport that long...it's so inhumane and crazy. But, apparently Frank Dixon would and we're just supposed to believe that.

I read a bunch of reviews that said that Zeta-Jones was terrible in this movie. I expected her to not pull of sparks with Hanks because I think she's more of a cold-hearted actress. But, hey, let's give her a try. So, I'm watching the movie, when it dawns on me. This script sucks. Especially all of the parts where she's written in. Her character is a flakey woman who bends at the whims of her pilot (?) boyfriend. Why is she like this? Why does she care about Viktor? Why does she say such stupid things that no human would ever say? Again, we don't know. But, I do give kudos to Zeta-Jones for doing the best she could with such a shallowly written character.

There are a couple of scenes that I like because of the nice shots and great sets. I love the place where Navorski kind of makes his living space. There's some great flourescent lighting with cheesy airline music and all that. Beautiful work on set and lighting.

I have other issues with the plot, but don't want to tick off anyone who hasn't seen it yet. So, I say it's not worth seeing unless you're really really bored on some Sunday afternoon and it happens to be the featured flick on cable that week. Save your movie money or rental money for something *ah-hem*...better.

Something's Gotta Give

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Good!
Released: December 12, 2003
Director: Nancy Meyers
MPAA Rating: PG-13, sexual content, brief nudity, and strong language

First of all, Diane Keaton, who usually irritates me, is absolutely phenomenal in this movie! I was quite proud of her for really, finally, pulling off a real woman with quirks and needs and dreams and hilarity! So, kudos.

Beyond that, this movie is about an old dude named Harry (Jack Nicholson) who is known for dating the much-younger-than-him ladies. So, he's going out with Marin(Amanda Peet), who is absolutely sweet, but finds his aging circumstances make life more difficult as his body starts to fall apart. After a heart attack, he gets begrudgingly nursed back to health by Marin's older, divorced mom, Erica. When Harry & Erica begin to have feelings for each other, it leave the audience wondering if they can overcome their past issues to be there for each other. Subplots include Harry's doctor (Keanu Reeves) trying to get a piece of Erica for himself, Marin's dad getting hooked up with a young woman of his own, and Erica striving to write another award-winning play.

At first I thought this movie was just another hokey romance flick, but only watched it because some of my fave critics enjoyed it. It started slow, but I ended up laugh/squealing and hiding under my sweater as Harry tries to be all sexy. Nothing quite beats Jack Nicholson making "Mmmmmm" sounds while kissing someone on screen. Whoa. We see the men & women do their typical things (woman wants to commit, man can't do it)...but through the quirky lenses of people who are aging and & confused.

Keanu Reeves can't act, unless he is playing someone who is void of emotion (like in The Matrix). This charcter, unfortunately, required some signs of humanity, which he didn't quite pull off. I found myself waving my arms exclaiming for him to just leave the screen so I could watch Keaton & Nicholson some more.

This movie is especially fun if you watch it with your witty friends who are good at making comments at just the right place. I watched it with my mom and she kept screaming, "EWWWWWWWWWW!!!!! EWWWWWWWWW!!!" This just added to the hilarity of the whole experience. Fun movie.

Movie Rating System Explained

Before I continue with my reviews, I need to set some things up. First, I'm not the world's best writer, but I do have pretty strong opinions on films and like to get my thoughts out after watching a film. I always get mad when I remember a film I watched, but can't remember my thoughts on it. So, this is going to kind of archive my thoughts. Then I figured, "Hey, might as well stick them on my website. Just in case...you know...anyone actually cares what I think." So, here is my critics page. Enjoy.

My rating system goes as follows. Films will be ranked on a scale of zero to awesome. This is what each rating means:

• AWESOME: One of the absolute best films ever made, if you haven't seen this you're a total idiot. It has everything: phenomenal acting, great script, beautiful shots, meaning, symbolism, evolving characters. It also has a significant place in the history of films. I give this out rarely, and with great care.


• SOLID & THOUGHTFUL: The script is solid and well written, the artistry of the film is consistent and appropriate for the content. The characters are believably, if not exceptionally played and evolve throughout. It moves beyond being just a flick, and has something to say about the state of life or another important topic. It can still be a fun movie, but this one makes a nice package and keeps the old ticker ticking throughout.


• GOTTA SEE IT: Totally worth seeing & is memorable. It is close to being "Solid & Thoughtful" but may be lacking in at least one area. I really enjoyed watching this one.


• GOOD!: It was good! Not great, not bad, but good! I enjoyed it, it made me think a bit or smile a bit or is just a neat little package of a movie. It may have some flaws, but it's overall just plain good!


• FUN: Not necessarily the world's best movie, but it is fun to watch. There may be some holes in the plot or some poor acting, but it's just plain entertaining to see it, so why not give it a try? Just because it's not the best movie ever doesn't mean we should automatically through it on the crap burner. Watch it, sing along, learn all the words, watch it with a kid, take to heart the cheesy moral it tries to teach...whatever. It's just entertaining to watch.


• TOLERABLE: Meh. It was okay. Someone might like it. It just didn't do anything for me. If I could choose, I would probably take back those couple hours of my life...but it's really not worth fussing over. So...basically...this movie is "meh." That's right, M-E-H.


• "CREATIVE" or "UNIQUE": "C" is for "Creative," it's good enough for me. This flick is trying to do something interesting or different. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not always necessarily good either. This rating is for the film that started out good, then flaked at the end, or vice versa. If movies were all meant for therapy, this category would be the half-way-house between the sane and insane.


• LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR: This is the movie that is stupid enough that everyone will "get it." Not everyone will laugh, but we will all get it. Instead of having intelligent things to say, it will instead try to woo the audience through bathroom humor or degrading women or mocking something that shouldn't be mocked. Middle schoolers will love it...everyone else should hate it (unless they have the movie mentality of a middle schooler...which is actually a lot of people).


• CRAP FOR CRAP: The plot had holes in it, the filming was done by some person who didn't quite graduate from film school. It's probably some desperate attempt by some producer to make money off the unknowing public. It's probably a "Part II" movie that was written & directed by someone different than the original. The film should burn in a secret closet somewhere, and we should never speak of it again.


• I'D RATHER HAVE LYME'S DISEASE: Yeah. Painful. Ouch. What the heck were these people thinking??? And why didn't they just shoot me before entering the theater? It would have been a lot easier on all of us.


• ZERO: This is the kind of movie that makes everyone shake their head in disgust. If we could erase it from history, we would. But, it does serve as a marker for "how low can you go." Everything about it is terrible. Very few films reach these ranks...but the words "Gigli" and "Master of Disguise" do come to mind.

The Color of Paradise

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Solid & Thoughtful
Released: September 19, 2000
Director: Majid Majidi
MPAA Rating: PG

This film tells the story of Mohammed, a blind child in Iran who struggles to feel loved and to find God. His father, obviously shamed by the boy, tries to dump him off on other people so as not to upset the family of the girl he is trying to marry. Mohammed struggles to receive his father's acceptance, but is obviously limited due to his blindness. His spirit, however, is incredibly sensitive and in tune with the world around him. He listens to nature, saves a baby bird from death, asks what the woodpeckers are talking about, and tries to catch the wind.

The father, played by Hossein Mahjoub, shows a man who struggles to do the right thing, and fights the guilt he feels when he does the wrong thing. His life has been hard, he does not believe in God, and he is not thankful for the things he does have. Mohammed, played perfectly by Mohsen Ramezani, moves through nature giving thanks for everything he touches and hears. The contrast between the two men and the obvious irony in who truly has the true ability to see is subtle and beautiful.

Though a film is usually meant only for sight & sound, I felt all of my senses were awakened (touch, smell...). Great pains have been made to help us clearly hear the sounds in nature, to make the imagery so beautiful that it feels like I'm actually touching the grains of wheat and feeling the cold ocean water ebb on my feet.

There is also a lot of symbolism regarding nature. Director Majid Majidi uses nature to foreshadow events. We see images of a helpless bird dropped from a tree, a fish fighting for life in shallow water, a turtle stuck on his back, and a bird flying by itself during migration. These images help the solid storyline strike us even deeper.

At one point in the film, Mohammed is essentially abandoned at the home of a blind carpenter. Sitting outside, he weeps and shares the true pain in his heart:
"You know nobody loves me. Not even Granny. They all run away from me because I'm blind. If I could see...I would go to the local school with other children but now I have to go to the school for the blind on the other side of the world. Our teacher says that God loves the blind more because they can't see, but I told him if it was so, He would not make us blind so that we can see Him. He answered, 'God is not visible.' He is everywhere. You can feel him. You see him through your fingertips. Now I reach out everywhere for God till the day my hands touch Him and tell Him everything, even all the secrets in my heart."

This film is a beautiful one that pulls at the heart strings without being cliche or trying too hard. The script is solid, the characters are beautifully and subtley played, and the directing is symbolic and beautiful. I hope that this movie helps more Iranian films get released in America, because I think there is a great artisitic talent there that needs to be shared.

In America

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Gotta See It
Released: November 26, 2003
Director: Jim Sheridan
MPAA Rating: PG-13, sexuality and brief language

Jim Sheridan (of "My Left Foot" & "In The Name of the Father") does not dissapoint when he's in the director's chair. In America is a moving story about an Irish family and their struggle to move beyond the death of their son and make it in Manhattan. Some of the best acting I've seen was pulled off by sisters Emma & Sarah Bolger. These two young girls play the roles of young Christy and Ariel like they just graduated from Meryl Streep's boot camp. Playing their mother, Samantha Morton was believable down to the last detail. She was subtle and beautiful in her portrayal of Sarah.

Some of the key things I look for in good movies is a solid script, beautiful art direction, solid character acting, subtlety, and the ability to convey a variety of emotions. This movie approched all of these criteria with grace and sensitivity. There were moments that were funny, and several moments that ripped your heart right out of your chest. These are the moments that remind us that we are human, we laugh one moment and weep the next. We are afraid to love, yet we love so deeply. And we must never underestimate the value and worth of a child who, though she can't cure our ailments with lemon drops, makes life valuable and playful even when we're engulfed in pain.

Shrek II

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Fun
Released: May 19, 2004
Director: Conrad Vernon, Kelly Asbury, Andrew Adamson
MPAA Rating: PG, for some crude humor, a brief substance reference and some suggestive content

It got me to laugh several times, and I didn't have to look at my watch. Once again Dreamworks made a beautiful animated film. It is incredibly creative from the design of the buildings to the costume design. The script is fresh and funny, but it is obvious that it is a "part II" script. I thought Antonio Banderas kicked some booty as Puss n' Boots, and of course Mike Myers & Cameron Diaz were right on as usual. Though all of the actors were spot on in their voices, the true winners of this movie are the animators. They maintained their characters and attention to detail throughout, making the characters real and believable.

I loved when the gingerbread man crushed one Farbucks, and the people ran across the street in fear, to find shelter in the other Farbucks. Being a Starbucks fan, I got a good chuckle out of it.

One fear I have for this movie is that it is not timeless. It had a lot of cultural references which makes us laugh today. I don't think it has what it takes to be truly appreciated ten years from now.

I did really appreciate its fresh mockery of fairy tales. As a speech coach/judge, I grow tired of fairy tale mockeries. This one, however, has two strong characters (Shrek & Fiona) who are trapped in the common fairy tale, and do not conform. It is okay to be an ugly ogre if that's who you are. They accept and embrace who they are as they were meant to be, which is a lesson this tummy-tucked botoxed generation could stand to hear.