James-Van-Der-Beek Movie Reviews

First of all, I want to say that I am a very big fan of Miyazaki's work. I've seen Nausicaa, Totoro, Spirited Away, Kiki's Delivery Service, Castle of Cagliostro, and Princess Mononoke, and been very impressed by all of them.

I guess there had to be one that fell a little flat, and this is it, at least for me.

That's not to say it's a bad movie. It's a bit old, and the animation and audio aren't as clean as newer releases, but this isn't something I can fairly hold against a film made over 15 years ago. No, my problem with Laputa is that the characters just aren't as developed or likable as in most of Miyazaki's films. Sheeta, unlike such heroines as Nausicaa, Kiki, or Chihiro, just doesn't seem to go through any personal growth or changes. The villain in this film is simply power-hungry without apparent motive. Pazu is likable for his eagerness, and the air pirates are interesting, but they just couldn't carry the entire movie for me. Also, the ending felt vaguely unsatisfying; it didn't seem as though much was really resolved. Also, I was watching the subtitled version, and the timing on the subtitles is occasionally fairly bad. This seems to happen mostly with minor dialogue. It isn't really a big problem for someone who understands some basic Japanese, but it's still very distracting at times.

All in all, I have to reiterate that this is not a bad film by any means. It just didn't click with me on the level Miyazaki's other films have. I recommend fans of his work rent this one before buying.

Hayao Miyazaki's CASTLE IN THE SKY was apparently his third
full-length feature and the item that put him on the map, and
it's easy to see why.

The story takes place in what appears to be the early 20th
century in an alternate universe, where the skies are full of
giant airships, ranging from luxury liners to flying
battleships. In the beginning of the film, a mysterious girl,
whose name is later revealed as "Sheeta", falls from the
sky from an airship, only to be rescued by the strange jewel
she wears around her neck. She floats down, unconscious, into
the arms of a lad named Pazu who works at a mine.

From this start the two end up in a search for the long-lost
flying city of Laputa, pursued by an evil government agent
but aided by a gang of sky pirates who aren't as unpleasant
as they first seem, leading up to an apocalytic finale.
Along the way the Sheeta and Pazu have many adventures and
encounter many marvelous machines and places.

While I have little familiarity with the Belgian cartoonist
Herve and his famous TINTIN series, from what little I saw
of it when I was a youngster it seems that Miyazaki took
Herve as a strong influence. In any case, CASTLE IN THE
SKY shows a strong European flavor in its design, and also
has a certain old-fashioned storyline for kids, with Sheeta
and Pazu jumping from one peril to the next.

The story line, if not generally all that plausible, lends a
great deal of charm to this story, and Miyazaki's emphasis
on clever machines and inventions makes the whole mix very
engaging. (The opening credits are a particular exercise in
invention.) The artwork is very good and impressive, though
it might be argued that by modern standards it fails to
quite reach consistent perfection -- then again, it is
probably not fair to compare it in this regard to later works
like Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY.

In any case, the end result is a fine work of craftsmanship,
though it is relatively lacking in the gentle parables that
characterize Miyazaki's more modern works.

The only warning I can give, at the risk of sounding politically
correct, is that the end is violent by modern standards, with
the bad guys biting the dust in big numbers. This sort of
thing was admittedly more common in the past, but I have to
agree that it was good for it to go out of style -- this is
a gentle movie targeted for kids (that can be thoroughly
enjoyed by adults) where the violence is jarring. As the
story is a charming fantasy, there is no particular use or
purpose for brutal realism.

That being said, I have to go back to the bottom line: this
is an excellent movie and highly recommended.

Injections of new ideas and thoughts are typically a good thing. In the case of "Castle in the Sky," the 1986 Hiyao Miyazaki film, the approach to animation is a great thing. The world created by Miyazaki is surrealistic and futuristic. The landscapes are immense and provide an other world feel though the flora and fauna are that of Earth. While the central characters are very young, the theme and story rival some of the best science fiction and fantasy live action movies produced in The United States. Animation provides a media that allows limitless creation bounded only by the imagination of the artist.

Sheeta, voiced by Anna Paquin, is being chased by a variety of people, including what appear to be government types, the military, and pirates. At first it's difficult to understand who is a good guy and who is a bad guy, which mirrors Sheeta's own confusion in separating the two. Sheeta soon meets up with Pazu (voiced by James Van Der Beek) who dreams of visiting far off lands. When Pazu discovers that Sheeta has a connection to the mythical floating castle Laputa Pazu resolves to help Sheeta, though he has yet to discover where assisting Sheeta might take him.

Sheeta finds herself continually chased throughout the film by various persons with different agendas. Most are after the treasure of Laputa, but some are after power. Sheeta herself is just the girl next door who also happens to be a princess and whose only goal is to grow up without people chasing her around. Along the way she demonstrates her love for nature and the desire to protect beautiful things.

What is amazing in this film is the technology. There are a host of flying machines that reminded me of Jules Verne's "Master of the World." The castle itself is a technological marvel of an advanced civilization with its own set of interesting features. Military armament is sophisticated and powerful, and yet can appear graceful. Contrasting with the advanced technology is the wide-spread use of steam power and the relatively lower technology evident for civilians.

The characters are often over the top, and include Cloris Leachman, Mandy Patinkin and Mark Hamill. While they are often caricatures, the combination of humor and seriousness tends to be a trait of Japanese animation.

This movie is generally suitable for most of the family, but the violence at some points may be unsuitable for the pre-school members of the family. If you enjoy creativity in your animation, and enjoy a story with a bit of science fiction and fantasy, kick back with a bowl of popcorn and enjoy this one.

When I first saw Varsity Blues, I wasn't expecting it to be a great movie. But overall, I enjoyed it very much. This movie, created by MTV, only cost $16 million bucks to make and brought in over $52 million at the box office, because this movie is mainly aimed at high school juniors and seniors or in the age range of 16-21.

The story takes place in a fictional town called West Canaan, Texas, a small, steamy town in southwestern Texas where high school football is a way of life. The town is the home of the West Canaan Coyotes, a football team which has won 22 consecutive district championships and 2 state championships. The head coach of the team, Coach Kilmer (Jon Voight), has a "win-at-all-costs" attitude, meaning he has a reputation of playing his players injured or sick. He has also coached many of the current players' fathers, who seem to be re-living their glory years through their sons. When the all-Texas star quarterback Lance Harbor (Paul Walker) goes down with a season-ending knee injury, backup quarterback Jonathan "Mox" Moxon (James Van Der Beek from Dawson's Creek) reluctantly assumes the duties of filling Lance's shoes. Once he miraculously leads his team to victory, his life begins to drastically change. He becomes very popular in school, gets free under-the-counter alcohol, and even easy sex from the former quarterback's girlfriend. So as the movie goes on, Mox continues to lead his team to victory, while dealing with the pressure of his coach and the love triangle that he has gotten himself into. In the final game at the end of the movie, he shows what it is like to be a high school hero after the coach abandons the team. As the movie ends, we hear a voiceover of what became of the characters.

So in conclusion, it's a pretty good movie from MTV which shows what high school life mixed with football is really all about. That is why I mentioned that this film should mainly be viewed by high school/college students. There are some really funny scenes in this movie; the most notable would probably be when one of the players hijacks a police car and parades around town with a bunch of naked girls in the backseat, and when they discover that their science teacher has a job at a local strip club. Adults might want to stay away from this one. 3 1/2 stars.

Okay. It ma y appear that I am overreacting with giving this movie five stars. The critics didn't care for it. Most parents probably won't like it either. What we have here is basically a 90s verion of the 1980s classic "Johnny Be Good". This one was also reemed hard by the critics. They don't seem to realize the significance of a film like this. They aren't teenagers and the movie is not aimed to please them. It is aimed at people around my age "18" who enjoy watching movies that they can relate too. Since I enjoy just about every movie from Sling Blade to The Toxic Avenger, I found Varsity Blues to be very entertaining and heart felt. I did not play football in high school (acting is my trade) ,but I enjoyed it nonetheless. It is deeper than just football and sex. It shows teenage life and the everyday pressures that fall on our shoulders. It also makes for a great date flick. You don't have to keep glued to it to really undestand what is going on. If you ask me, it's worth owning. It has the endless replay value of Back to the Future and you will never get bored. The Texan accents are pretty good too. I would have to say the funniest scene is where Scott Caan Steals the cop car and goes parading around town naked with a bunch of girls.

Does anyone know if the story behind Varsity Blues is related or drawn from the book, 'Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team, and a Dream' by H. G. Bissinger?
It's about the Permian High School Panthers of Odessa, TX; where the the team, for better and for worse, is the town.

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance...

When I first saw Varsity Blues, I wasn't expecting it to be a great movie. But overall, I enjoyed it very much. This movie, created by MTV, only cost $16 million bucks to make and brought in over $52 million at the box office, because this movie is mainly aimed at high school juniors and seniors or in the age range of 16-21.

The story takes place in a fictional town called West Canaan, Texas, a small, steamy town in southwestern Texas where high school football is a way of life. The town is the home of the West Canaan Coyotes, a football team which has won 22 consecutive district championships and 2 state championships. The head coach of the team, Coach Kilmer (Jon Voight), has a "win-at-all-costs" attitude, meaning he has a reputation of playing his players injured or sick. He has also coached many of the current players' fathers, who seem to be re-living their glory years through their sons. When the all-Texas star quarterback Lance Harbor (Paul Walker) goes down with a season-ending knee injury, backup quarterback Jonathan "Mox" Moxon (James Van Der Beek from Dawson's Creek) reluctantly assumes the duties of filling Lance's shoes. Once he miraculously leads his team to victory, his life begins to drastically change. He becomes very popular in school, gets free under-the-counter alcohol, and even easy sex from the former quarterback's girlfriend. So as the movie goes on, Mox continues to lead his team to victory, while dealing with the pressure of his coach and the love triangle that he has gotten himself into. In the final game at the end of the movie, he shows what it is like to be a high school hero after the coach abandons the team. As the movie ends, we hear a voiceover of what became of the characters.

So in conclusion, it's a pretty good movie from MTV which shows what high school life mixed with football is really all about. That is why I mentioned that this film should mainly be viewed by high school/college students. There are some really funny scenes in this movie; the most notable would probably be when one of the players hijacks a police car and parades around town with a bunch of naked girls in the backseat, and when they discover that their science teacher has a job at a local strip club. Adults might want to stay away from this one. 3 1/2 stars.

Okay. It ma y appear that I am overreacting with giving this movie five stars. The critics didn't care for it. Most parents probably won't like it either. What we have here is basically a 90s verion of the 1980s classic "Johnny Be Good". This one was also reemed hard by the critics. They don't seem to realize the significance of a film like this. They aren't teenagers and the movie is not aimed to please them. It is aimed at people around my age "18" who enjoy watching movies that they can relate too. Since I enjoy just about every movie from Sling Blade to The Toxic Avenger, I found Varsity Blues to be very entertaining and heart felt. I did not play football in high school (acting is my trade) ,but I enjoyed it nonetheless. It is deeper than just football and sex. It shows teenage life and the everyday pressures that fall on our shoulders. It also makes for a great date flick. You don't have to keep glued to it to really undestand what is going on. If you ask me, it's worth owning. It has the endless replay value of Back to the Future and you will never get bored. The Texan accents are pretty good too. I would have to say the funniest scene is where Scott Caan Steals the cop car and goes parading around town naked with a bunch of girls.

Does anyone know if the story behind Varsity Blues is related or drawn from the book, 'Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team, and a Dream' by H. G. Bissinger?
It's about the Permian High School Panthers of Odessa, TX; where the the team, for better and for worse, is the town.

Anyone know?

Thanks in advance...

Let me start by stating that I am a huge fan of SNL. The DVD is funny, at times very funny, but there are some problems. The skits that they show mainly last about 15 seconds. Just when you get rolling with your favorite skit, and start remembering it they shoot to the best scene of another skit, not giving you a chance to enjoy them. Another problem is that this was taped in front of a large audience of today's stars (Tom Hanks, Sarah Michelle Gellar etc.) and when they are playing the clips from past episodes the laughter from the audience TOTALLY drowns out the sound of the skit resulting in alot of missed words and "what did he say"'s. This in my case is very dissapointing, especially due to the fact that as I mentioned earlier the skits last 10-15 seconds, and when you miss 5 seconds of a skit due to laughter it doesnt leave much more to enjoy. When making the DVD they should have surpressed the live audience track alot, but I am not sure if thats possible. All in all its not a bad DVD, but surely not what I expected. I dont plan to watch it again :-(

Some do. How? I don't know. But all I know is that this is hilarious. The only reason that I didn't give it all 5 stars is because of all the profanity. It seems like the ausidence started cracking up every time someone said ass. Other thsn that its a great show with really bad lanugage.

Amidst the perennial criticism of _Saturday Night Live_, it's easy to forget just how big an impact the show has had on our national artistic identity. This retrospective is a great place to begin that (re)discovery. Through its vast collection of clips from the show's 25-year run, one gains a real appreciation of the hundreds of colloquialisms, impressions, and comedic commentary this program has added to our national identity.

What makes this show uniquely satisfying, however, is that it has significant original programming, including remarkable new material from Billy Crystal, Tom Hanks, Bill Murray, Mike Meyers, Robert Smeigel, various "Weekend Update" anchors, and the Eurythmics.

There's also a fascinating montage on the production of a typical episode of SNL. True, this segment is in some ways cleverly-edited eye candy, but to my knowledge, it's the only SNL-produced filmed exposition of the backstage process at SNL. (There are three press bits on the DVD-version of the product which greatly amplify one's appreciation of the show, but SNL itself has still not produced a significant exploration of its own machinations.)

It is a difficult thing, I would imagine, to make an anniversary show where so much material already exists. The temptation for Lorne Michaels was probably to air many more clips than his staff ended up including. For every bit that was included, there were at least five that I personally might have included as well. What Michaels and company were going for, though, was not an anthology, but an anniversary party. And that's what they ended up with. The show is in no way like the "Best of [insert performer's name here]" series that SNL has recently been releasing. You won't find this to be a exhaustive record of any aspect of the SNL experience. You won't even find that many complete sketches here. And you certainly won't discover anything but oblique references to the show's colorful off-screen history. Rather, _SNL 25_ very much feels as though they've gathered a few hundred of their closest friends (some of whom pointedly refused to show up) and have said "Hey, remember when we did this?"

Happily, not only do we remember how good they were, this anniversary special lets us see how good they still are.

Claire Danes, Jeanne Moreau, and Jude Law are great in this film. I love the scenes between Danes and Law--they really do have great chemistry. I also love the scenes of Danes' character, Daisy, and the "secret tree". The scenes are so cute. In fact, it kind of reminds me of something that I used to do...

The story deals with several issues, such as relationships, heartaches, and love. The film concentrates on Daisy, as well as her family history, beliefs, and attitudes. We see how she deals with the hardships of adolescence and how she struggles to find her own identity. With the love and support of her grandmother (Moreau), Daisy tries to tackle her daily insecurities and the problems she faces at school and with Law.

The movie is good. Watch it.

If you like Claire Danes, you'll like this movie. She gives a very moving performance as Daisy, an adolescent who is ignored by her parents and enjoys spending time with her cool grandmother. Julia Stiles, Jude Law, and James Van Der Beek also appear. I enjoyed this film because it deals with something we all go through directly or indirectly in our lives--judging people because of what they are, not who they are. Claire's performance, as always, is magnetic and real.

This would be an excellent DVD for teachers or for discussion with a young people's group, christian, Jewish or any faith about how disturbing it can be to deal with the past. In this case, Claire Danes is a young woman plagued with visions about her grandmothr's past as a holocaust survivor and how the stories her grandmother tells her parallel her own life. Not telling anyone even her grandmother of the disturbing line she is walking between feeling mad and sane because of her imagination and desire which she doesn't know how to deal with, the edgeyness of the performances continues to a worthy climax as we learn more.
Her parents are away on a vacation and have left her with her grandmother who is an accepting, loving person, who helps her accept her identity. One great scene, is when Danes, opens to her grandmother and begins to trust another human beng, by revealing what she thinks about sex. Jude Law is okay in his role, but the two women, Claire Danes and Jeanne Moreau, really stand out in this one. Sometimes I wonder if Claire was reading lots of Sylvia Plath for inspiration for at times the movie feels like an untold part of Plath's biography, a missing link, as it were, though it is not at all intended that way. Some of the scenes may not have the smoothest transition. Perhaps the director didn't quite know what was to be done with Jude Law's character, whether to make him a caring human baing or a shallow person who acts as though he has no problems of his own, but perhaps that's part of being a teenager.
It was superb, however in the parallel in the heroine's mind between her life and grandmother's. I gave it five stars for the climax when heroine faces the angel of death and the acting by two female leads. Good as a suspense/romance film, as well.

If you've seen the previews for this movie, you'd think it was a stoner comedy starring Dawson Creek. But as we all know, movie marketing isn't bound by truth in advertising laws. This movie is actually a drama about struggling farmers who turn to growing marijuana to survive. Much of the movie handles the subject in a neutral fashion, and that is when it's most affective. The plight of the farmers is realistic and handled well. The story of the farmers themselves and the investigation by a local sherrif and a DEA agent are the best parts of the film. Unfortunatley another key part of the film is a story about one of the farmer's son (Dawson Creek is in about three scenes as his stoner friend). The movie turns him into the bland moral voice of the film, and it loses the neutrality which was one of the film;s strenghts. The son objects to his parents growing pot not because he's afraid of their well being with the DEA sniffing around, but because he believes it's just a bad thing to do. His motivations are muddled because he's always hangin out with stoners (though he never smokes). While the film is not all out anti-marijuana propaganda, this certainly gives it a slant that it would be better off without. Also, all the users and dealers are depicted as complete jerks. A couple of the farmers are the only characters involved with pot that have any redeeming value whatsoever. They are just doing it to survive, but the film couldn't lend that even handedness and honesty to the other characters? Still, when it is neutral it is an engaging and interesting film worth renting if you're interested in the subject.

I bought this DVD because I thought that it had a great chance to be really good. When you open the DVD you will see that they are promoting the fact that James Van Der Beek is in the movie. His picture is actually on the DVD itself and there is a large one inside the insert. When you read the back cover it says in Big Red Letters "James Van Der Beek", then it proceeds to tell you that he leads his friends in this story. I didn't find it to be true. He wasn't in the movie very much at all, and he was hardly the lead character as they lead you to believe. Overall I found that it really was okay, but I was dissapointed that they pushed the fact that James Van Der Beek was in the movie, then he really didn't play that big of a role.

The movie itself was brought to the viewer from a different angle than any other drug related movie I had ever seen. I thought that it was all right and that it expressed the story that they were wanting to tell. You could imagine the situation being a farmer in a small area and really not making a living. So when some of the farmers turned to producing drugs to get by, you see how eventhough it wasn't a legal thing to do they felt that they had very little options left.

In conclusion if you are interested in a story about another aspect of drugs in America, this movie is for you. If you want to see this movie only because James Van Der Beek is in it, I would probably pass on this one. I am not saying that his performance was bad, but he really didn't have a large enough part for a JVDB fan only to see this movie. If you are looking for more Dawson, this is not the place to find him. Then again if your not looking for Dawson, maybe you can find a different side of James Van Der Beek in the movie "Cash Crop."

CASH CROP is an a nice, sweet, small film with subtle performances, humor, and drama that's not too over the top. The story is about struggling farmers in a rural community town in Pennsylvania that start growing and selling marijuana to make ends meet. Word gets around that there is a marijuana problem among the local high school kids, and an agent from the DEA (Mary McCormack) is dispatched to investigate the local farmers who she suspects of growing the "herb". She is aided by the local Sherriff (John Slattery) who may or may not know who is involved. He wants to do his job right, but at the same time, feels for the plight of the farmers (who have elected him to be Sheriff) and wants to give them the benefit of the doubt. Yet, has his suspicions. Also, one of the farmers involved (Jeffery Demunn) justifies his actions because he has to save his farm so it can be passed on to his son (Wil Horneff). However, the son has no intentions of being a farmer, but wants to be a musician. The twist is that the son is a non user even though a lot of his friends smoke pot. When he finds out his father is one growers, he takes it hard, but will not sell out his parents. The story is very low key and is very atmospheric of the small town locations and farming community. The characters are identifyable and the use of marijuana among the teen characters is not overblown, but typical of the kind of usage one would see in "anytown U.S.A". Advirtizing for this movie has been a little misleading. The film was touted as a vehicle for tv's DAWSON'S CREEK James Van Der Beek. However, he is actually in a minor role as one of the stoned out teens and a best friends of Wil Horneff's character. Also, the film is not a Cheech and Chong type drugged out type comedy. It is a very thought provoking dramedy with some very likable and interesting characters to care about. Good film overall!

If you've seen the previews for this movie, you'd think it was a stoner comedy starring Dawson Creek. But as we all know, movie marketing isn't bound by truth in advertising laws. This movie is actually a drama about struggling farmers who turn to growing marijuana to survive. Much of the movie handles the subject in a neutral fashion, and that is when it's most affective. The plight of the farmers is realistic and handled well. The story of the farmers themselves and the investigation by a local sherrif and a DEA agent are the best parts of the film. Unfortunatley another key part of the film is a story about one of the farmer's son (Dawson Creek is in about three scenes as his stoner friend). The movie turns him into the bland moral voice of the film, and it loses the neutrality which was one of the film;s strenghts. The son objects to his parents growing pot not because he's afraid of their well being with the DEA sniffing around, but because he believes it's just a bad thing to do. His motivations are muddled because he's always hangin out with stoners (though he never smokes). While the film is not all out anti-marijuana propaganda, this certainly gives it a slant that it would be better off without. Also, all the users and dealers are depicted as complete jerks. A couple of the farmers are the only characters involved with pot that have any redeeming value whatsoever. They are just doing it to survive, but the film couldn't lend that even handedness and honesty to the other characters? Still, when it is neutral it is an engaging and interesting film worth renting if you're interested in the subject.

I bought this DVD because I thought that it had a great chance to be really good. When you open the DVD you will see that they are promoting the fact that James Van Der Beek is in the movie. His picture is actually on the DVD itself and there is a large one inside the insert. When you read the back cover it says in Big Red Letters "James Van Der Beek", then it proceeds to tell you that he leads his friends in this story. I didn't find it to be true. He wasn't in the movie very much at all, and he was hardly the lead character as they lead you to believe. Overall I found that it really was okay, but I was dissapointed that they pushed the fact that James Van Der Beek was in the movie, then he really didn't play that big of a role.

The movie itself was brought to the viewer from a different angle than any other drug related movie I had ever seen. I thought that it was all right and that it expressed the story that they were wanting to tell. You could imagine the situation being a farmer in a small area and really not making a living. So when some of the farmers turned to producing drugs to get by, you see how eventhough it wasn't a legal thing to do they felt that they had very little options left.

In conclusion if you are interested in a story about another aspect of drugs in America, this movie is for you. If you want to see this movie only because James Van Der Beek is in it, I would probably pass on this one. I am not saying that his performance was bad, but he really didn't have a large enough part for a JVDB fan only to see this movie. If you are looking for more Dawson, this is not the place to find him. Then again if your not looking for Dawson, maybe you can find a different side of James Van Der Beek in the movie "Cash Crop."

CASH CROP is an a nice, sweet, small film with subtle performances, humor, and drama that's not too over the top. The story is about struggling farmers in a rural community town in Pennsylvania that start growing and selling marijuana to make ends meet. Word gets around that there is a marijuana problem among the local high school kids, and an agent from the DEA (Mary McCormack) is dispatched to investigate the local farmers who she suspects of growing the "herb". She is aided by the local Sherriff (John Slattery) who may or may not know who is involved. He wants to do his job right, but at the same time, feels for the plight of the farmers (who have elected him to be Sheriff) and wants to give them the benefit of the doubt. Yet, has his suspicions. Also, one of the farmers involved (Jeffery Demunn) justifies his actions because he has to save his farm so it can be passed on to his son (Wil Horneff). However, the son has no intentions of being a farmer, but wants to be a musician. The twist is that the son is a non user even though a lot of his friends smoke pot. When he finds out his father is one growers, he takes it hard, but will not sell out his parents. The story is very low key and is very atmospheric of the small town locations and farming community. The characters are identifyable and the use of marijuana among the teen characters is not overblown, but typical of the kind of usage one would see in "anytown U.S.A". Advirtizing for this movie has been a little misleading. The film was touted as a vehicle for tv's DAWSON'S CREEK James Van Der Beek. However, he is actually in a minor role as one of the stoned out teens and a best friends of Wil Horneff's character. Also, the film is not a Cheech and Chong type drugged out type comedy. It is a very thought provoking dramedy with some very likable and interesting characters to care about. Good film overall!

Based on Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name, Roger Avary's first film in five years is a rather tedious tour through the social malaise of some rich, young and miserably hip kids at a swanky New England liberal arts college where the good-looking come to breed. The story, what little there is of it, involves an abortive love triangle between Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek), brother of the infamous Patrick from "American Psycho", Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) and her bisexual ex, Paul Denton (Ian Somerhalder). Paul loves Sean, Sean loves Lauren, and Lauren doesn't want either of them. She's saving herself for Victor (Kip Pardue): oversexed, "only a little gay", and currently summering in Europe. If I could convince myself that in its catatonic banality "The Rules of Attraction" meant to iterate both the boredom and degenerate emptiness of the lives it recounts, then I'd be able to say it succeeds. As I can't, I'm stuck with saying it's bad. Not even well-intentioned-but-ultimately-unsuccessful bad, just plain bad. And irritating. There's a thin line between confrontational and banal, and Avary spends way too much time on the wrong side of it. He seems to think that showing otherwise self-consciously cool characters throwing up, picking their noses, wiping their asses, and masturbating to internet porn somehow makes them gritty and real. Here's a better idea: how about writing a decent scene? His direction is either self-consciously gimmicky (split screen and reverse running used to little effect) or relentlessly dull. Not even his take on the guns-and-knives drama of a drug deal gone sour, or a teen suicide, can raise your pulse. There is one moment of inspiration: a fast-paced retelling of Victor's trip to Europe, shot in the style of a camcorder travelogue. The performances, in general, are weak. James Van Der Beek tries to scowl away the ghost of Dawson Leery, but can't. Ian Somerhalder seems to have accepted his past and plays just the kind of character his Versace-model looks equip him for - pity it's not a more interesting one. Fellow "Young Americans" survivor Kate Bosworth is entirely forgettable. Only Shannyn Sossamon manages to convince you that beneath the well-heeled teen angst and doe-eyed disaffection there's a living, breathing human and not just a teen TV star looking to make the leap into film. But it isn't quite enough. By the end, I was wishing Sean's maniacal and more interesting brother Patrick would arrive from New York with his axe and Armani raincoat. "The Rules of Attraction" is not half as cutting as it thinks it is, and nowhere near as clever. By failing to give us anything more than satirical superficiality, it alienates its audience. As Sean says to Paul in what I assume to be the film's climactic moment of epiphany: "You'll never know me." The tragic impenetrability of the social persona seems to be Avary's point. But with characters this hateful, you can count it as a blessing.

I think the best thing about this movie is that it is often very funny. James Van Der Beek 's performance as an amoral but goofy drug dealer and sex addict is extremely comical. His performance was excellent in getting Sean's personality down pat. The end of the movie gets very weird with a succession of rejections including Sean's rejection of a gay guy who seems to prefer straight guys, as well as Sean's rejection by Lauren whose ex has forgotten her. I think that this is what is strongest about the movie:it is very funny at times, has great acting by almost everyone, is a movie that you can not easily forget. In some ways the movie is original although previous movies have mixed fantasy with reality in a manner in which it is unclear what is fantasy and what is reality(such as Rosemary's Baby and Mullholland Drive). What is probably most original about this movie is the backward movement of the timeline. Another interesting aspect is you never know when people are telling the truth or lying including on the voice overs. Any way I would recommend the movie for anyone interested in an offbeat dark comedy and not offended by sexual content.

I saw The Rules of Attraction at the theater a few weeks ago and found it out quite good. Though the film has been getting mixed reviews (so did American Psycho) but it will always be remembered and well-liked just as much as Psycho. I never actually read the novel by Bret Easton Ellis (a great author) but I should since I've been hearing the book is more detailed (aren't most?). It's a satire about a sexual triangle involving a hedonistic drug dealer Sean Bateman (Van der Beek, surprisingly good performance) who is the younger brother of American Psycho's Patrick Bateman, who has a crush on a bored girl named Lauren, who has her eyes on a guy who's on a trip in Europe so she's waiting for him. Lauren's ex-boyfriend Paul is a bisexual who's lusting after Sean. The film can be disturbing for people w/ it's suicide theme and seeing all these college students pissing their lives away by constantly snorting coke and having emotionless sex w/ one another. Also another reason why someone would hate this movie is because all the characters are hedonistic and shallow so if you hate movies w/ nasty characters.. pass on it. But it's very typical Ellis characters. And no, Rules of Attraction definitely not a teen movie. It's not appropriate for most teens due to it's drug-fuelled, sexual, suicidal and violent subject matter.

Based on Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name, Roger Avary's first film in five years is a rather tedious tour through the social malaise of some rich, young and miserably hip kids at a swanky New England liberal arts college where the good-looking come to breed. The story, what little there is of it, involves an abortive love triangle between Sean Bateman (James Van Der Beek), brother of the infamous Patrick from "American Psycho", Lauren Hynde (Shannyn Sossamon) and her bisexual ex, Paul Denton (Ian Somerhalder). Paul loves Sean, Sean loves Lauren, and Lauren doesn't want either of them. She's saving herself for Victor (Kip Pardue): oversexed, "only a little gay", and currently summering in Europe. If I could convince myself that in its catatonic banality "The Rules of Attraction" meant to iterate both the boredom and degenerate emptiness of the lives it recounts, then I'd be able to say it succeeds. As I can't, I'm stuck with saying it's bad. Not even well-intentioned-but-ultimately-unsuccessful bad, just plain bad. And irritating. There's a thin line between confrontational and banal, and Avary spends way too much time on the wrong side of it. He seems to think that showing otherwise self-consciously cool characters throwing up, picking their noses, wiping their asses, and masturbating to internet porn somehow makes them gritty and real. Here's a better idea: how about writing a decent scene? His direction is either self-consciously gimmicky (split screen and reverse running used to little effect) or relentlessly dull. Not even his take on the guns-and-knives drama of a drug deal gone sour, or a teen suicide, can raise your pulse. There is one moment of inspiration: a fast-paced retelling of Victor's trip to Europe, shot in the style of a camcorder travelogue. The performances, in general, are weak. James Van Der Beek tries to scowl away the ghost of Dawson Leery, but can't. Ian Somerhalder seems to have accepted his past and plays just the kind of character his Versace-model looks equip him for - pity it's not a more interesting one. Fellow "Young Americans" survivor Kate Bosworth is entirely forgettable. Only Shannyn Sossamon manages to convince you that beneath the well-heeled teen angst and doe-eyed disaffection there's a living, breathing human and not just a teen TV star looking to make the leap into film. But it isn't quite enough. By the end, I was wishing Sean's maniacal and more interesting brother Patrick would arrive from New York with his axe and Armani raincoat. "The Rules of Attraction" is not half as cutting as it thinks it is, and nowhere near as clever. By failing to give us anything more than satirical superficiality, it alienates its audience. As Sean says to Paul in what I assume to be the film's climactic moment of epiphany: "You'll never know me." The tragic impenetrability of the social persona seems to be Avary's point. But with characters this hateful, you can count it as a blessing.

I think the best thing about this movie is that it is often very funny. James Van Der Beek 's performance as an amoral but goofy drug dealer and sex addict is extremely comical. His performance was excellent in getting Sean's personality down pat. The end of the movie gets very weird with a succession of rejections including Sean's rejection of a gay guy who seems to prefer straight guys, as well as Sean's rejection by Lauren whose ex has forgotten her. I think that this is what is strongest about the movie:it is very funny at times, has great acting by almost everyone, is a movie that you can not easily forget. In some ways the movie is original although previous movies have mixed fantasy with reality in a manner in which it is unclear what is fantasy and what is reality(such as Rosemary's Baby and Mullholland Drive). What is probably most original about this movie is the backward movement of the timeline. Another interesting aspect is you never know when people are telling the truth or lying including on the voice overs. Any way I would recommend the movie for anyone interested in an offbeat dark comedy and not offended by sexual content.

I saw The Rules of Attraction at the theater a few weeks ago and found it out quite good. Though the film has been getting mixed reviews (so did American Psycho) but it will always be remembered and well-liked just as much as Psycho. I never actually read the novel by Bret Easton Ellis (a great author) but I should since I've been hearing the book is more detailed (aren't most?). It's a satire about a sexual triangle involving a hedonistic drug dealer Sean Bateman (Van der Beek, surprisingly good performance) who is the younger brother of American Psycho's Patrick Bateman, who has a crush on a bored girl named Lauren, who has her eyes on a guy who's on a trip in Europe so she's waiting for him. Lauren's ex-boyfriend Paul is a bisexual who's lusting after Sean. The film can be disturbing for people w/ it's suicide theme and seeing all these college students pissing their lives away by constantly snorting coke and having emotionless sex w/ one another. Also another reason why someone would hate this movie is because all the characters are hedonistic and shallow so if you hate movies w/ nasty characters.. pass on it. But it's very typical Ellis characters. And no, Rules of Attraction definitely not a teen movie. It's not appropriate for most teens due to it's drug-fuelled, sexual, suicidal and violent subject matter.

Hot off the popularity of their television shows, James Van der Beek (Dawson's Creek) and Ashton Kutcher (That 70's Show) attempt to score big on the big screen. That has since happened, but this film wasn't the reason why.

The producers were obviously attempting to throw quantity not quality at the big screen, since they employed a host of well known television actors and a couple of singers. You have Dylan McDermott as the Captain in charge, Robert Patrick, Matt Keeslar, Usher Raymond, Tom Skerritt, and even Randy Travis. As an after thought they've even thrown in Rachel Leigh Cook as the token female character.

The acting is never bad, it's just that there's really not much going on here to warrant any excitement. You can sit and watch this film from beginning to end without blinking and you'll swear that you must have missed something. That's what makes this simplistic film bad.

The plot is super simple: bad men kill innocent people. Young studly guys band together as the "Texas Rangers" to right the wrongs, but not for revenge.

Unfortunately, this story doesn't have oomph to make it any good. Alfred Molina, as the bad guy, just never comes off quite as bad as he should. The reason? A fine actor, Molina seems to be bored and somewhat ashamed to be in such a stinker. He does bad things but he never comes off as evil or homicidal or even psycho. This movie really begs for a Bruce Dern in "The Cowboys".

And the good guys...these guys are apparently sharing one brain among the 30 of them. In one fight scene, they come charging in a single line across the plains to a wooded area where the bad guys are holed up with tons of places to hide. Of course the good guys are masacred. Since no one bother to introduce us to any of the good guys beyond the major players, we really can't care too much if any of the good guys get killed. In fact, I was hoping that more of them would be killed off - they really started to annoy me.

In short, Texas Rangers is long on being a Teen Beat homage and short on being a real western. There is very little character development in either the good or bad guy camps and there is no storyline, but the central one. I think there was an attempt to throw in a love story angle, but it gets lost when Kutcher jumps in the tub with van der Beek.

This film isn't the worst I've seen, but it certainly isn't even noteworthy.

If you want to see a bunch of your favorite television studs in a cowboy outfits, then by all means rent this. Otherwise rent a decent western, such as The Cowboys, Rooster Cogburn, Shane, or Tombstone.

Texas Rangers, one of the earliest organized law enforcement in America, has been treated in movie industry, and probably the best one remains King Vidor's version made in 1936. Since then, the name has been used as a TV series, and even as a baseball team, so it is time for someone to pick up this ledendary figures to make a film out of their eventful history. And here is a film based on this important part of American history again.

The film starts with massive killings of innocent people by the villainous John King Fisher (Alfred Molina). And in order to regain the justice in the land of Texas, young gunmen get together under the command of Leander McNelly (Dylan McDermott), whose way of carrying out justice seems sometimes very dubious. James Van Der Beek is one of these brave youths recruited for the purpose, as are Usher Raymond and Ashton Kusher. Robert Patrick also appears as Sgt. John Armstrong who supports McNelly, and you will find Rachel Leigh Cook, who falls in love with one of them. Also, Leonor Verela ("Blade 2") appears, but her role is a very painful one, I warn you, fans.

OK, and about the film ... well, first, don't expect something that might enlarge your knowledge about American history. Though the character of McNelly is a real one, and the location of the film is very beautiful and authentic, the story itself is nothing new, nothing inspired, just what you have seen in other western films. Though the film at least doens't stop to muse, and during this short running time there are enough shootings to keep you absorbed, you will feel something missing in it.

The actors including Van Deer Beek are not bad, but it is McDermott who attracts the viewers most, with his comparatively complex characterization. However, I find Alfred Molina, usually a very reliable actor, is fatally miscast as a villain, and Rachael Leigh Cook looks very uncomfortable (though she was once in a costume drama "True Women.") Probably it is because we know (and she knows) that her role is just an obligatory one.

Director Steve Miner, like his "Lake Placid," keeps the story going anyway, but he neither hits the right mark, nor misses it too wide. Surely "Texas Rangers" is entertaining, but needs something more to be really original.

This Movie Was Excellent. I Loved It. I Wan't To See It Again. I Saw It On HBO, And They Show The Best Movies Like Every 9 Months, Then They Show The Dum Movies Everyday. Also Dylan McDermott who plays Ranger McNelly Is So Sexy. He Make's The Movie Worth Watch Just Because He's In It. This Is The Best Movie I Have Seen In A LONG LONG TIME. That Has To Do With The West. You Know How All Thoe's Other Western Movies Something Like This Are Boring, Well This One Isnt. EXCELLENT. 100% Grade A+ Work. I Loved It. Exspecally Dylan McDermott.