#1996movies

[adamwatchesmovies]

Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996)

Beavis and Butt-Head Do America follows two stupid teenagers - we’re talking truly, deeply idiotic - but the movie itself is smart. It's surprisingly sophisticated in its satire and even if you’ve never seen the show, it’s very funny.

Beavis and Butt-head (voiced by series creator and film director/writer Mike Judge) are TV-loving, unsophisticated, barely literate, juvenile delinquents, with no adult supervision. When they wake up to discover their prized television stolen, they search for a new one, inadvertently getting sucked into a nationwide search that involves a biological weapon, assassinations, government agents, cavity searches, misunderstandings, and lewd humor.

Forgive me if I'm reiterating what everyone already knows about these characters, but I’ve never seen a single episode of Beavis and Butt-Head. What surprised me most was the spot-on satire throughout. These teenagers are portrayed as total idiots but it's done accurately. Beavis and Butt-Head perfectly embody everything frustrating about 13- to 19-year-olds. They are too narrow-minded to appreciate the world around them and dismissive of important things they don’t deem cool. Often destructive (even accidentally so), they believe themselves the center of the universe. These two couldn't pronounce "assassin" without laughing if their lives depended on it.

Even the way the animation and character designs reinforce this idea. Our protagonists are drawn crudely while everyone else being illustrated in a fairly realistic manner. It emphasizes how underdeveloped these two tv lovers are. There’s a lot of amusing subtlety in the details.

The irony is that Beavis and Butt-Head are our heroes. Most of the time they get out of situations ok - if only because they’re too dimwitted to realize what’s happening. Hilariously, they don’t ever get to suffer the consequences of their actions. That's what everyone else is for. Like any good show turned into a movie the plot is bigger, it delivers sights you won’t normally see on TV and gives you something new. You'll find many memorable and iconic moments that I would say you'll love to quote, but how funny they would be out of context is hard to judge. Even seeing a clip of one of the film’s best moments, a hallucination set to  White Zombie's Ratfinks, Suicide Tanks And Cannibal Girls, pales in comparison to how funny it is when it comes up naturally in the story. There's a lot of re-watch value here.

If you didn’t grow up with MTV and you’ve always wondered what Beavis and Butt-Head was about, check out their movie. If you previously dismissed it as cheap trash for dumb teenagers, it isn’t. This is the kind of movie I’m looking forward to watching again. Alone, and with different crowds to discuss and dissect all of the little elements. Also just to hear how people will react to the duo. Will they find the teens be called annoying, or simply hilarious? I had a good feeling about Beavis and Butt-Head from the start and I certainly wasn't disappointed. (Full-screen version on VHS, October 15, 2015)

[sonic-cinema]

1996 is when I graduated from high school, but it was a significant year for me as a moviewatcher, as well. It’s the year I started watching indies en masse, going to art house theatres, and seeing as much as I could, and sometimes, as many times as I could. Pictured are myself in my senior yearbook picture, my parents and grandfather at my graduation, and 25 of the movies that meant the most to me from 25 years ago. My 10 favorites from that year are: “The Whole Wide World,” “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie,” “Broken Arrow,” “Independence Day,” “Swingers,” “Fargo,” “Twister,” “The Rock,” “Ransom” and “Scream.” The other 15 films pictured here, including “The Frighteners,” “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills,” “Jerry Maguire,” “Trees Lounge” and “Emma,” are reflective of not just how varied that year was, but how rich it was to experience. #1996movies #classof1996 https://www.instagram.com/p/CKaV5WapdLu/?igshid=kz540jajptrw

[tw01999]

What's you favorite disney film??

My is James and the Giant Peach.

I hate insects but I thought Mr. Centipede was dashing.

Mr. Grasshopper had a nice suit because he looked like a butler.

Mrs. Ladybug had a bag that had everything.

Miss Spider must make the warmest beds and blankets.

Mrs. Glowworm glows nuff said.

And I especially liked it when Mr. Earthworm became bait for birds so that the peach could be flown.

[jenniferneyhart]

Favorite Movies of 1996: 1. That Thing You Do! 2. A Time to Kill 3. Jerry Maguire 4. Mission: Impossible . See the rest at www.jenniferneyhart.com (Link in profile!) . #thatthingyoudo #atimetokill #jerrymaguire #missionimpossible #tomcruise #tomhanks #movies #favoritemovie #favoritemovies #1996 #1996movie #1996movies #film #films #MovieBuff #FilmBuff #MovieNerd #MovieGeek #FilmGeek #MovieAddict #FilmNerd #MovieJunkie #MovieFanatic #MovieFan #MovieLover #ILoveMovies #iLoveFilm #Cinephile #Cinema #FilmJunkie

[adamwatchesmovies]

X (1996)

When I started watching X, I could hardly understand what was going on. This isn’t the epic conclusion to an epic series; it’s a film filled with so many characters and so confusingly put together that it becomes an incomprehensible mess, a disaster that's so bad it’s good.

In 1999, teenaged Kamui Shiro (voiced by Alan Marriott) returns to Tokyo after a six-year absence. Through a dream in which his mother’s clothes spontaneously combust and she pulls a sword out of her guts, he is told that the fate of the world depends on him. Armageddon approaches and the greatest warriors on Earth choose sides: either to save the world or destroy it. Prophetic dreams pit Kamui and his best friend Fuma (voiced by Adam Henderson) against each other in a battle to end all battles!

I’m calling this one “so bad it’s good” but I could see some enjoying it unironically. The animation is high-quality. The battles are exciting, the visuals varied and it feels appropriately epic, particularly when buildings are torn apart or lethal blows are delivered.

The biggest problem with X is the amount of characters. In a long series of manga, there’s plenty of time to introduce 1) a hero upon which an unwanted destiny is thrust 2) a trio of friends who hold each other dearly but are torn apart by an epic conflict 3) a battle that will decide the fate of the world and includes celestial dragons 4) 2 armies of 6 people 5) a whole bunch of mystical stuff concerning destiny, dreams, betrayal, visions and a mother who never appears except in her son’s dreams. In 98 minutes? Cramming everything in will leave you as lost as the city of Atlantis. X is a roll call of people with vaguely established powers, whose relationships you won't understand or care about unless you take notes, and who gradually get exed out of the plot - much to the audience’s relief. It’s not even that the plot is that complicated. Had the super-powered Lolita with the ghost dog, the lady who decided to not become a superhero and instead work in a brothel (wait, what?!), the hacker in love with her supercomputer, the dude with the electrical powers, that weirdo with the tornado powers, and the woman with the plunging neckline been eliminated, we might have had the screen time necessary to make us care about the friendship being torn apart. How about a scene where we see them get along instead of being repeatedly told they're buds?

I understand that what we have here is a heavenly battle, the kind that’s been foretold long ago and that has to happen because of myth and such, but there's a lot to swallow in this story. Maybe it’s a Japanese thing, because I couldn’t understand what the villains’ plans were. Dreams tell Fuma that his sister Kotori (Voiced by Larissa Murray) will be murdered. That's upsetting, but if the entire world will be destroyed, won't she die too?

I wasn’t able to make heads or tails of X, except when it was so obvious that you’d have to be missing the upper half of your head not to. That doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy myself. It’s so confusing and some of the characters are so insane I couldn’t not have a great time. Maybe seeing it again would help me unscramble the plot and I’d enjoy it as something legitimately good, but for now, it's something recommend you view with some loud, easily excitable friends at home. (On VHS, March 22, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Adventures of Pinocchio (1996)

All filmmakers can rest assured that no matter how bad their adaptation of Pinocchio may be, they will never top the overwhelmingly misguided and unintentionally creepy 2002 Roberto Benigni version. Don't think that gives you an automatic pass. 1996's live-action The Adventures of Pinocchio isn't good either.

Years ago, romantic Geppetto (Martin Landau) carved a message of love into a tree. In doing so, he imbued it with magic. When he happens upon the same tree years later and carves a puppet from, it "Pinocchio" (voiced by Jonathan Taylor Thomas) comes to life. The wooden son gets into all sorts of mischief as he tries to understand the world around him and ultimately seeks to become a real boy.

I was going to start by telling you what this film does well. I’m drawing a blank. Are the performances good? I guess they’re ok, but nothing worth noting. What about the story? Here again, it’s fine for the most part, but significant changes to the story make the whole thing confused. If you're familiar with the fairytale, you probably remember the story’s multiple villains. There's the Cat and Fox who con Pinocchio out of his money… who in this film are just humans, with the Cat (Bebe Newirth) being the intelligent one and the Fox (Rob Schneider) the dimwit. An unnecessary change, but why not mix things up a bit, right? Then you look at the character of Lorenzini (Udo Kier) who is a combination of the Coachman, the Terrible Dogfish/whale, and the puppet master you definitely remember from the 1940 Disney film. This change just doesn't make sense. Why is the man bothering with puppet shows when he can make millions with his Island of Toys (you might know it as Pleasure Island)? For Pinocchio to have a "proper" family, Geppetto and his brother’s wife, (I’m not sure if she’s widowed or not) Leona (played by Geneviève Bujold) are given a romantic sub-plot. What does that add to the overall package? Couldn't tell you. These complaints may sound like nitpicking but they add up. This story just doesn't feel right.

What I’m trying to convey is that initially, The Adventures of Pinocchio doesn’t seem all that bad. It’s not a chore to watch or anything, but the magic is missing. If you let go of any affection you have for the story, the film falls to the ground like a puppet whose strings have been cut. I don’t want to compare this film to the Disney version from 1940. One is animated, the other isn't. Neither is a perfectly accurate translation of the book by Carlo Collodi. Could I ever picture myself recommend this one over the other? No, which makes this one's existence hard to justify.

I’d say the special effects are worth paying attention to, but that’s only true half of the time. In close-ups, our hero looks great. Jim Henson’s Creature Shop proves itself once more. In long shots, the illusion is broken. Other special effects, like Pinocchio’s talking cricket friend Pepe (voiced by David Doyle) looks so bad you think you’re looking at a Playstation 2-era video game. Worse, he's annoying, loathsome, and never, EVER funny. His presence alone makes this film fireplace-worthy.

The Adventures of Pinocchio feels watered down. There’s nothing to make it stand out and the ending is particularly weak. It's the kind of movie you remember liking but when revisited reminds you of how bad your taste in media used to be. (On VHS, March 10, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Black Jack: The Movie (1996)

I’m sure I would've enjoyed Black Jack: The Movie a lot more if I was previously familiar with the character. This film is self-contained but it also doesn’t explain much, leaving me scratching my head in confusion more than once. Instead, the picture strength comes from the enticing story.

Black Jack (voiced by Sean Thornton) is a surgeon operating without a license whose legendary skills come at an exorbitant price. He and his assistant Pinoko (voiced by Julie Kliewer) get wrapped up in a particularly difficult and mysterious case. As humanity hails the beginning of a new age of “super humans” - artists, musicians, and athletes with incredible talents - a strange illness begins affecting the new record-setters.

You look at our protagonist and immediately know this guy must have a crazy story. He lives like a recluse, only takes the craziest, most desperate cases, genuinely cares for the wellbeing of his patients… then demands as much money as possible from them. Where did his “magical hands” come from? What’s with the giant scar on his face? Did he have to perform reconstructive surgery on himself? If you are equally intrigued by these questions, you’re out of luck. Don’t know why Black Jack lives with a little girl who serves as his assistant? Neither do I! Most of the time, I criticize older anime films for having too much dialogue and clunky exposition. Here we have the opposite problem. Could I have done some research ahead of time? Yes but you can watch “Blade” without knowing anything about the character and you’ll never be lost.

As for the plot, it’s got you. Is Black Jack one of these superhumans? Does that explain his magic hands? Will he succumb to the illness? As it turns out, only our hero (who’s not all that good of a guy) can decipher the mystery. It’s a solid puzzle that becomes even more interesting once Black Jack undertakes a risky operation to try and get to the bottom of things. It's telling that although I was often confused, I was never bored and always intrigued.

The animation is pretty good, with the best visuals coming whenever the star athletes, musicians, and artists are on-screen, ill or not. The voice acting is decent. I like the movie overall. Is it going to stick with you? I don't think so because of the ending, which isn't imaginative. You'd watch more adventures with this character but this is a tough sell for those who don't already love anime. I mean the people who love it no matter what genre, tone, director, or quality we're expecting, and what’s the point of reviewing a movie for those kinds of people? They’ll watch it anyway. For everyone else, I say Black Jack: The Movie is ok. Nothing to put any work into obtaining, but if you just happen upon it like I did when a friend dropped off a bunch of VHS tapes at my place, I say give it a try. (On VHS, February 11, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Happy Gilmore (1996)

If Adam Sandler is an acquired taste, I still haven't developed the palette for his genre of comedies. I've tried but since the day a swimming instructor jokingly called me “Adam Sandler”, I've been holding an irrational grudge. I’ll always defend him for his role in Reign Over Me but his comedies just aren't my thing. For years, I've been told that his newer movies ain’t so good, that his classics are what have garnered him a fandom. I've finally seen Happy Gilmore. My opinion of him hasn't changed.

Happy Gilmore (Sandler) is a violence-prone psychopath who inexplicably wants to become a hockey player even though he can’t skate. When his grandmother (Frances Bay) learns her house is about to be repossessed, he is convinced by a former pro golfer (Carl Weathers) to try golf instead of hockey. An upcoming tournament could get him the money he needs to save his grandmother’s home.

Despite my best efforts not to, I came into Happy Gilmore warily. I've been told many times that it’s a comedy classic but it's been done again so many times it comes off as desperate, cheap, and lazy - trademarks of the Happy Madison brand. As predicted, we see Adam Sandler making funny voices, his character going to a fast food place, cameos by sports figures or his typical posse of “comedians”, jokes at the expense of people who look different (fat, of an ethnicity other than white or otherwise physically “abnormal”), and the "joke" that is people falling over. Maybe in 1996, you wouldn't have foreseen Happy Gilmore screaming at people and turning to violence as a first solution when confronted with an obstacle. Today, you could set your watch to it. Despite innumerable opportunities considering golf is all about waking white balls with metal sticks, I didn’t see any crotch shots, however.

Maybe you don’t care that there’s an absurd amount of scenes where Subway’s logo is pasted front and center. Perhaps you find cameos endearing. What irked me most were the characters. In any other film, Happy would be the villain. The only thing there is to like about him is that he’s good at hitting golf balls. He’s rude, he’s loud, he holds a record for attempting to stab someone with a hockey skate and in at least one scene he’s about to stab a rival of his with a broken bottle. The only reason he isn't a murderer is that his paper-thin love interest intervenes! Julie Bowen plays Virginia Venit and she’s a non-character. We already have a conflict in the movie: Will Happy beat his slime of a rival (played by Christopher McDonald) and save his grandmother’s home. Wasn't that enough? Did we need to tack on a romance too? What does she see in him anyway?

Despite all my criticisms and my overall dislike for the film, I do see why its popularity has endured. Out of all the Sand Man's comedic efforts, this is probably the best one. It has memorable moments (Bob Barker's cameo is great), and the villain is also fun to hate. It is also infinitely more interesting to watch than a real game of golf. Maybe I'll change my mind about this one down the line but for now, I can only recommend it to those who are already fans of Happy Gilmore and its ilk. (On DVD, January 19, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Chain Reaction (1996)

I should’ve started my review of Chain Reaction much sooner than I did. I’m already having trouble remembering some of its finer details. Partially because this is one of those generic 90’s "on the run" action movies where nothing is particularly interesting or memorable. Also, it’s as boring a history lecture - even with the explosions that reduce entire city blocks to rubble.

So, the movie begins with this machine that creates free energy out of water, man! Keanu Reeves plays the hero Eddie, and like, the team he works on, including this hot doctor named Dr. Lily Sinclair (Rachel Weisz) finish the machine. But these bad guys come in and destroy the machine, kill everyone involved except for our heroes, and like, it’s a conspiracy cause the “man” doesn’t want us to have free energy, man! Oh yeah, and Morgan Freeman is in the movie too. He plays a guy involved in the project, but I don’t know… he doesn’t seem too trustworthy to me.

The most fun you’ll have with Chain Reaction is making stoner conspiracy jokes and laughing at the perpetual non-science. In the film, we've developed a way to generate clean energy by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning the hydrogen for fuel. It’s so efficient, a single glass of H20 could power all of Chicago! This kind of story might've worked in the ’50s when there weren’t things like the internet or email. In 1996, several plot points are hard to swallow. For the discovery of a lifetime, all these scientists sure are slow to tell the world...

If questionable decisions (including assassinations by amateurs and massive explosions that could have killed thousands, but conveniently didn’t) and conspiracies that aren’t entirely believable were the worst this movie had to offer, it wouldn’t be all that bad. Unfortunately, this film is 107 minutes of unmemorable. I don’t know if I started viewing it when it was too late, or if I was feeling off that day, but the struggle to stay awake was gargantuan. I had to re-watch key moments because I couldn’t keep my attention on the television.

Chain Reaction is the kind of movie that I’m likely to end up viewing again. Not because it’s good, or because I feel like I missed out on anything. I'm nearly certain that in a few years down the line, when I’ve finally managed to get rid of the big box of random VHS tapes I’ve picked up at garage sales over the years, I’ll be out and about on a Saturday morning and I’ll see another copy on VHS of this film for 50 cents. “Morgan Freeman and Keanu Reeves?! How can I lose for 50 cents?” I doubt even a second viewing of Chain Reaction would help me retain the events that comprise the plot or make me realize that I’ve seen it already. (Fullscreen version on VHS, November 1, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Microcosmos (1996)

For those who can get past the fact that Microcosmos is about bugs, it’s wonderful fun. This is the kind of movie I would love to show children because it will spark their imagination and give them a whole new view of our world.

This documentary doesn’t tell a story or feed us any particular facts through testimonies or pages of text. What it does is bring us face-to-face with the insects that live outside and allow us to witness their strange, slightly disgusting, and simultaneously beautiful realm.

This is a perfect family movie. Firstly, there’s very little dialogue. When the film began I saw the credits come up in French. I was worried I would miss out because the DVD I have only offered the English dub. At most, there are 5 lines of dialogue from our narrator (Kristin Scott Thomas) before we go out and meet the creatures who live among the blades of grass, one or two sentences in the middle, and then a few closing words at the end. The images do the talking. Secondly, this movie is short: only 80 minutes. It flies by like it's nothing despite the absence of a plot. It leaves you wanting just enough to make you think about going outside and exploring on your own.

You’ve ever heard someone call a story so crazy it had to be true. The creatures in Microcosmos are so crazy, so wildly interesting you couldn't conjure them up in your dreams. You’ll be amazed at the array of colors, their strange designs, and equally unique behavior. Sometimes you’ll even wonder which end is the head, and which is the butt. It's like there's no need to speculate how bizarre alien life might be. Compared to the insects we see, they'll be mundane.

While marveling at the forms of these invertebrates is more than enough for the price of admission, the behavior they exhibit is what I enjoyed seeing most. So many moments feel like lightning caught in a bottle, the kind of things the camera people and editors must have just stumbled upon and thought “wow, I bet you no one in the world has ever seen this! and if they did, they'd never admit it because no one would believe them". These tiny animals can be surprisingly inspirational - who knew you could feel emboldened at the sight of a dung beetle pushing its ball around the ground. Other times, it gets scary and tense. I'll never think of a pheasant the same way again. Then, there are the sounds. The noise all those little legs make, the rustling, the wind, the leaves, and the soundtrack - perfectly selected to convey the mood of each scene.

Microcosmos doesn’t tell a big story (literally) and doesn’t do anything except show you segments lives you would've never been aware of otherwise. Yet, it manages to do so much. By yourself, it's great. You'd have an even better time with others so you can talk about what you just saw. I’m unaware if Microcosmos has a Blu-ray release, but if it hasn’t I hope it gets one soon. (On DVD, August 22, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Executive Decision (1996)

I picked up Executive Decision solely because the title amused me. I was expecting junk but it proved to be a pleasant surprise. There are plenty of twists and tension throughout to keep you entertained.

When a Boeing 747-200 is hijacked by terrorists, Dr. David Grant (Kurt Russell) believes they are after more than just their leader's freedom. He suspects the plane will be used to unleash a deadly chemical agent when the hostages are released. He, along with a special ops team (which includes John Leguizamo, Joe Morton, BD Wong, Whip Hubley, and their leader, Steven Seagal) plan on sneaking aboard the Boeing before they make it into U.S. Airspace. Then, things go terribly wrong.

Bad guys take over a plane. Our hero and his entourage have to sneak around and take out the threat while the hostages are threatened. Outmanned and outgunned, the risks are high. This plot isn’t all that original. Stuart Baird nonetheless gives us enough new material to make it feel like its own thing. Firstly, it's a great setup. One wrong move and our heroes give away their position or get themselves killed. They only have a limited amount of time before the plane gets shot down by U.S. Navy Fighter Jets and then there’s that deadly chemical onboard. All on a plane. That means explosive decompression, running out of fuel, storms/turbulence, and your life in the hands of two pilots who have guns pointed to their backs. Your nerves are bent to the point of breakage.

There are also some nice touches added to give you that little bit of extra. Halle Berry plays a helpful stewardess. Her character is a lot of fun. Think our heroes are underdogs? She doesn’t have any weapons to defend herself with.

I've got to credit writers Jim and John Thomas for keeping the twists coming and making the most of this setup. When you think it’s over, it isn't. Not even close. I also have to tip my hat to a choice made with Steven Seagal’s character that blew me away. He's known for his ego so this was an unexpected turn. I was convinced that I was mistaken when I had just seen it with my own two eyes! Actually, this film makes great use out of all of its characters. Even Oliver Platt, who I had pegged as just comic relief, plays a much more important role.

All that said, 133 minutes is excessive. Just a bit, not a huge deal. The familiar story is also noteworthy, but not a sinking blow. I did feel uneasy about the choice of villains here though. I wish the baddies here were anything other than Middle-Eastern terrorists, particularly with David Suchet as their leader, and the multiple references to the Quran… it’s just a bit too much. You might let that one go as well but one thing's for sure: the love story tacked on at the end? Completely unnecessary.

Executive Decision contains big surprises, plenty of scenes to make your palms all clammy, and makes imaginative use of its location. It needed some trimming but that’s ok, few movies could be called perfect. I’ll give it a 3.5/5. Check it out. (Full-screen version on VHS, October 12, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Sling Blade (1996)

I don’t know who won the Oscar for “Best Actor” in at the 69th Academy Awards, but it must have been one of the greatest performances of all time to steal it from Billy Bob Thornton. He's so good in Sling Blade it's worth recommending just for him. It's a touching, emotional, thought-provoking, and incredibly well-crafted film.

Karl Childers (Thornton) is an intellectually disabled man just released from the psychiatric hospital where he's resided since the age of twelve. Unsure where to go, he returns to his home town and makes a humble life for himself there repairing engines. He befriends 12-year-old Frank (Lucas Black), a boy whose childhood seems to be going in the same tragic direction as Karl's.

Sling Blade features a disabled character as fully realized as any person you've seen on-screen. After the film is done, you have such an understanding of him you reckon you'd be able to pick out exactly what food he'd keep in his refrigerator on a Saturday morning. You completely understand the ins and outs of his friendship with Frank. They relate in a unique manner. Karl is an adult. He sees the world differently than the young man because of his experience but is able to understand him as no "normal" adult could. Karl's growth has been stunted at the age of 12 because of his institutionalization and his disability. Based on their lives' similarities, it's like they were destined to meet and it's a fascinating thing to watch.

That friendship is the film's core and the way it touches you raises the stakes as much as any plot counting down to the annihilation of the entire planet. Throughout, you sense that something is going to go wrong. Is it because you’ve been programmed to believe nothing good can last forever? Maybe. It could also be that there is something inherently tragic about Karl. He’s in a world that is ill-equipped to handle him. It isn't even that he's mistreated; it’s that nobody really knows what to do with him except for a boy who is on a tragic path himself. It becomes a question of who, if anyone is going to make it out alright.

Written and director by Thornton and based on his play, Sling Blade unleashes a stampede of emotions. Karl and Frank fill you with hope. Despite the danger looming in their future, they are innocents. They have some funny moments, their interactions make you think of your own children/parents. The film's villain, Doyle (Dwight Yoakam). He's dating Frank's mother, Linda (Natalie Canerday), and will make you want to tear your ears off in a rage. If only he was a cartoon you'd be able to distance yourself from him, you'd be immune to the aura of hatred which he exudes. Dwight Yoakam delivers such a powerful, and hateful performance that fills you with despair. You know there are people exactly like him out there. You want Linda and Frank to escape him so badly you'll die if they don't but who's she going to run into the sunset with? Karl? her gay best friend Vaughan (John Ritter, also terrific)? That's a fantasy. This is real. What you feel was already there, deep inside you. We know life contains both the jubilation of being given a new chance and actions that remind you of how awful human beings can sometimes be.

Down to the last moment, Sling Blade is just about perfect because it doesn't chicken out. You don't get the ending you were hoping for, you get the one you deserve and yes, it hurts. Like an assassin that’s been training for years in some hidden temple, it strikes you square in the heart. Sling Blade is a great film. The second it's over, you want to him "Play" right away and watch it again. (On Blu-ray, April 15, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Craft (1996)

Though I don't love The Craft, I recognize why it has a cult following. Fairuza Balk gives a terrific, memorable performance. The way witchcraft is handled makes the familiar story appealing. Despite its weak ending, the way elements of sisterhood are combined with the supernatural will instantly click with teenage girls.

Sarah Bailey (Robin Tunney) has just moved to Los Angeles with her father and stepmother. At school, she befriends a trio of outcasts - Nancy (Fairuza Balk), Bonnie (Neve Campbell), and Rochelle (Rachel True). Delighted to finally have “a fourth”, they introduce Sarah to witchcraft. Whether their deepest desires concern love or vengeance, they get what they want but the power they wield is no plaything.

For only the briefest moment, the film keeps you wondering whether the supernatural stuff we see is simply teenage imaginations run wild. Despite having no basis in reality, the characters and their bond feels authentic. Nancy is the alpha of the group and her friendship with Sarah is… peculiar. They’re the kind of friends who would drift away as soon as high school ends but for now are inseparable. They're far closer to each other than to Bonnie or Rochelle but Nancy's jealousy of Sarah is obvious.

The girls’ late-night conversations about boys, the people they hate at school, and what they’re discovering feel like they've been lifted from real life. The picture gets so many details right you’ll be shocked to learn the screenwriters were both men. Even the rituals performed on stormy nights feel legit by being kind of hokey. The magic's rules - deliberately fluid and ambiguous - also help sell the story.

Many young women - perhaps young men too - will see a part of themselves in the quartet as they decide to carve out an even deeper niche for themselves by dabbling in sorcery. Then, "The Craft: runs out of things to do and a standard villain emerges. We forget about Bonnie and Rochelle so Sarah and Nancy can be placed into firm “good” and “evil” boxes. The film doesn’t ultimately know what to do with its sisterhood. So much of what we saw before dealt with the characters purging their insecurities and talking frankly about what bothered them. Then, POOF! Fight! Once the dust settles, this whole thing doesn’t seem quite as fresh and original as you thought.

Many elements of The Craft are terrific. Focus on those and you’ve got a movie you’ll hold near and dear to your heart. Too bad the good stuff is concentrated in the beginning and middle. While it seems impossible to get another actress who would hold a candle to Fairuza Balk, and setting the film in modern times would give it an entirely different feel, this is exactly the kind of movie that should get remade. Twisting the horror nobs down and upping the drama would do wonders for this story. Until then, The Craft is worth checking out. There’s a good chance it’ll resonate with you. (On DVD, February 21, 2020)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Ed (1996)

Before I talk about Ed, I have to talk about Air Bud. That’s the movie about the dog who can shoot hoops and joins his lonely owner’s school basketball team. For years, I eagerly anticipated what I imagined the film was like. When I finally saw it... major letdown. What does this have to do with Ed? To put it bluntly, this Matt Leblanc/monkey costume duo is exactly what I pictured Air Bud would be. Ridiculous, hilarious - often unintentionally.

It’s about a rookie baseball player who gets stuck babysitting the team mascot, a chimpanzee named Ed. Jack Cooper (Leblanc) is inexperienced. Ed is a natural, easily throwing balls with such strength that he could decapitate anyone if he wished to. The film follows a series of comedic hijinks and would-be romantic moments as the two bond, Jack starts dating Lydia (Jayne Brook), the hottie next door (her daughter plays with the ape while they’re out on dates), and THE BIG GAME approaches.

Ed is bad in a good way because it's completely earnest. The people in charge are making a comedy, but they're trying to make this a legit movie. Jack isn’t playing Major League Baseball, he’s playing in a league just underneath them because "Well! Having an ape playing on a PROFESSIONAL level would just be ridiculous!" There's character development and time spent showing the realism of the relationships. The script is filled with jokes for the kids and makes a herculean effort to sell you its premise. They even have a line akin to that of “There is no rule that says a player has to be human to participate!”

This film bounces between being genuinely funny and so unbelievably brainless you're having one laugh after another. Every single cliché of these “animals that end up playing sports movies” is proudly displayed. They even have a bumbling, mustache-twirling villain that doesn’t believe Ed is capable of emotion because there isn’t enough going on here with the friendships, the romance, and the big game. After seeing the ape drive, bend steel bars, throw, catch, pitch, and bat, who would ever call it “just an animal”? I half expected the chimp to lead the world into a Planet of the Apes.

As a pick for your “Bad Movie Night”, you can't do much better. Firstly, it delivers everything you want to see. It has the iconic lines you would expect from a movie of this “genre”. It has the corny romance, the physics-destroying baseball games, the blatant disregard for logic, and once it in a while even has some funny jokes. There is a scene in which we see Friends playing on TV. I couldn't wait to see what would come next. Is this a world in which Matt Leblanc and Jack are twins, separated at birth? Did Matt Leblanc get hit in the head and develop amnesia, retreating to the country, and becoming a baseball player? Is it like Last Action Hero rules, where the actor playing Joey on Friends is a different person?

I would never tell anyone that Ed is good, even if there are some legitimately humorous moments and decent special effects. I would recommend it as a piece of entertainment. You’ll be laughing with it, or at it. Either way, you'll be doing it consistently. This is the definitive “Animal playing professional sports movie”. It’s ridiculous. I loved it! (On VHS, March 6, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Independence Day (1996)

In many ways, Independence Day embodies the action/sci-fi films of the ’90s. Heavy on the action and special effects and not all that concerned with cerebral ideas or science. There are some clear flaws. I’d even call the film clichéd and predictable at times. All that's painted over with a nice, thick coat of watchability. If being entertaining isn't the most important quality in a film, I don't know what is.

On July 2, 1996, the sun above every major city on Earth is blotted out by enormous flying saucers. When the aliens attack, it’s time for Earth to fight back! The film follows an ensemble of characters: U.S. President Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman), computer expert David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum), U.S. Marine Corps Captain Steven Hiller (Will Smith), and among others, Randy Quad as Russell, an alcoholic crop duster and Vietnam veteran who seeks to give the aliens that supposedly abducted him years ago a piece of his mind. United together on the 4th of July, humanity prepares for a last-ditch assault against the extraterrestrial menace.

If you like War of the Worlds, but you think the ending is stupid, you're wrong but instead of arguing, let's agree that Independence Day delivers when it comes to the entertainment. This picture is essentially a less cerebral version of the H.G. Wells story combined with Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. That’s not a bad thing. This film’s got some modest goals, and it achieves them. Director Roland Emmerich wants to show humanity banding together against the ultimate threat via eye-popping special effects. The grandiose epic is told through a bunch of charismatic characters while hitting your emotional buttons via a bunch of “regular” people with “regular” problems. This film’s got so many things going on, it’s impossible not to find a character or situation to like/relate to.

Whenever anyone criticizes Independence Day, it’s always for the same reasons. No one believes that a critical plot point in the film, an instance where human and alien computers are compatible, is remotely plausible. There’s not even an attempt to give a reason why it would work like a revelation that all our computer technology is derived from this alien wreckage or anything like that. Why does it work anyway? Because of the emotional tone of the film. You believe it because it remains true to its spirit the whole time.

I’ll give you that there are too many sub-plots, but they’re all fun to see play out. Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum make a heck of a team. They’re both incredibly charismatic and together, they push you past the flaws and compel you to stand up and cheer. Cutting out any of the other stories would take away some of the feel-good sentiment used to contrast the devastation caused by the alien attacks. The moments of levity through comic relief and the wide range of stories make you feel like the whole world is united, ready to take up arms even if we briefly see what's going on outside of the U.S.A. The endlessly quotable and cheesy speech by President Thomas Whitmore says it all. It perfectly encompasses how the film makes you feel.

When you take into consideration how many times you’ll be blown away by the breathtaking sequences of destruction, our earlier critiques feel like nitpicks. Don’t care for razzle-dazzle? How about memorable quotes by charismatic actors, feel-good moments of selfless heroism, and genuine excitement as mankind face one of its deadliest foes yet? There’s something inherently watchable about Independence Day. It effortlessly draws you back to it, drawing you back so you can memorize the best moments and cheer at the right spots. On the 4th of July, with friends who are ready to have a great time, it sure hits the spot. (On Blu-ray, July 13, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

Whenever a film begins with the words “based on true events”, you have to assume that a certain number of liberties will be taken. Real-life just isn’t cinematic and some stuff you want to condense, cut out, or accentuate to tell a compelling story. Even so, The Ghost and the Darkness takes it a bit too far. I still recommend it but this picture would’ve been better if it stuck closer to real-life.

In 1898, Lt. Colonel John Henry Patterson (Val Kilmer) is working to complete a crucial bridge in Tsavo, Kenya. The project comes to a halt when two man-eating lions begin attacking the workers.

This is one of those tales so crazy, it had to be true, which automatically makes it interesting. On a technical level, it impresses. As a period piece, the sets and costumes look authentic. When the lions are attacking people, the film is frightening and convincing. I’m not entirely sure how they managed to train these large African cats to not actually eat humans, but you'll swear they had a lot of dead cast members by the time shooting ended. As the lions attacked over and over, I found myself frightened, wondering if the characters I cared for would make it out alive in the end. In this sense, the movie is successful. It’s engaging, scary, and exciting.

The movie's flaws aren't big, but they are enough to make this a film that splits audiences down the middle. Val Kilmer, for example. He begins with an Irish accent and it disappears within 30 minutes. Several plot points feel slightly artificial. I can forgive the lions being given manes (they didn’t in real life) because that’s a detail. Less so is the inclusion of Michael Douglas’ character, a big game hunter named Charles Remington. He’s a complete fabrication and ultimately, necessary. Douglas is given top billing for a role that should be minor at best.

At first, I didn’t understand why The Ghost and the Darkness was polarizing. The special effects, story, editing and stunts are too good for me to call it bad but I can see those not being enough to counterweight the flaws. It’s interesting and worth a watch, just rent it before you decide to purchase the super special limited edition. (On DVD, December 30, 2016)