Jared-Harris Movie Reviews

Disappointing because it had potential. Alison Elliot in the lead is a complete stiff and shows virtually no range. Lots of shots of her in the second half of the movie staggering around (as the wife or the witch) looking distraught. There's your drama and it just ain't enough. Jared Harris does a better job as the husband. Tough to get involved though when the married couple they portray comes off as a bit repellant. Walken does his usual thing (which I like) and breaths a bit of life into the midpoint but the story turns to complete mush after he leaves (too soon). As the site review mentions above, the underwater photography is quite pretty. Not intended as a "serious" horror movie to be sure but Nadja (also an underachieving movie) had the better sense of humor.

Eternal is an OK horror film. The idea is that Nora and her Husband Jim, along with their son Jim, travel to Ireland to visit her ailing grandmother. While there she stays with her Uncle Bill (Christopher Walken) who seems to be as ecentric and insane as he described her Grandmother. FOund this 2000 year old druid witch mummy in the bog and seems to be trying to ressurect her. HE succeeds and he dies. From there the witch is trying to fuse with Nora and live her life out again for another 100 years or so. As it turns out however that Nora Grandmotehr is Good Witch and with Nora help slays the evil witch.

This movie is only Ok and is a weekend rental. There is mild violence and gore, and really the R rating goes for the [f]word ... being said a few times, a slit throat, and a lot of drinking.

For anyone wondering about the origins of the first track of
this film, it's a song titled "Rockets" by Cat Power. I've
always loved this song and was quite surprised to hear it in
a film. This movie surprised me quite a bit. Much better than
I expected, especially considering the horrible DVD cover that
the studio gave it.

Disappointing because it had potential. Alison Elliot in the lead is a complete stiff and shows virtually no range. Lots of shots of her in the second half of the movie staggering around (as the wife or the witch) looking distraught. There's your drama and it just ain't enough. Jared Harris does a better job as the husband. Tough to get involved though when the married couple they portray comes off as a bit repellant. Walken does his usual thing (which I like) and breaths a bit of life into the midpoint but the story turns to complete mush after he leaves (too soon). As the site review mentions above, the underwater photography is quite pretty. Not intended as a "serious" horror movie to be sure but Nadja (also an underachieving movie) had the better sense of humor.

Eternal is an OK horror film. The idea is that Nora and her Husband Jim, along with their son Jim, travel to Ireland to visit her ailing grandmother. While there she stays with her Uncle Bill (Christopher Walken) who seems to be as ecentric and insane as he described her Grandmother. FOund this 2000 year old druid witch mummy in the bog and seems to be trying to ressurect her. HE succeeds and he dies. From there the witch is trying to fuse with Nora and live her life out again for another 100 years or so. As it turns out however that Nora Grandmotehr is Good Witch and with Nora help slays the evil witch.

This movie is only Ok and is a weekend rental. There is mild violence and gore, and really the R rating goes for the [f]word ... being said a few times, a slit throat, and a lot of drinking.

For anyone wondering about the origins of the first track of
this film, it's a song titled "Rockets" by Cat Power. I've
always loved this song and was quite surprised to hear it in
a film. This movie surprised me quite a bit. Much better than
I expected, especially considering the horrible DVD cover that
the studio gave it.

Ack, how did this steaming pile of cinema ever get made?
Matt Leblanc proved his acting talents peaked with "Friends", but then again with such a lousy script, I'm not even sure Harrison Ford could have attempted such lines and come out with his career unscathed.
William Hurt is miscast here. He just doesn't strike me as the idealistic scientist type with his low key mumbling. The space uniforms were very wierd....watching Lacey Chabert (presumably 14 years old at the time) wearing a skintight outfit ... makes ya feel wierd, though I didn't mind it much on the older chicks.
Gary Oldman plays his tired evil-guy sniveling role yet again, and while its nice to have cute kids and robots in movies, this is definitely not a kiddie film with all the violence and stuff blowing up.

LOST IN SPACE is one terrific looking film. Every penny spent on special effects pays off in spades. The production design is well represented on screen. The salaries must have been high... William Hurt and Mimi Rogers are the Robinson parents with Heather Graham and Lacey Chabert as 2 of the children... Matt LeBlanc does his best Han Solo as Major West and perrenial bad guy Gary Oldman gives a surprisingly subdued performance as the 'could've-been-over-the-top' Dr. Smith. The money put into the films screenplay would have been better spent on deoderant. It stinks. And that isd enough to totally strip the film of any heart. It becomes a series of episodes strung together by circumstance and a too often used time travel scheme. In addition to the screenplay, there is an annoying pet discovered on a derelict ship. "Blarp" puts "Jar Jar Binks" to shame in the annoying comic releif department although he is a great special effect, especially for the time. the film is aimed at the younger crowd. Ironically, the filmmakers worked hard to get 4 of the original television cast to make cameo appearances and visual references to the series, these wasted on people who were born 20 years after the show went off the air. So the pacing, direction and screenplay were enough to crash the JUPITER 2 forever. But, is worth noting for its special effects and production alone.

Why does this movie get panned by 'critics' so much?
Why would anyone have wanted an effort which merely copied what went before? Folks should just relax! I too enjoyed the
original series while growing up, but I found this
updated take to be refreshing and what it was supposed
to be: Fun. The acting is good, the plot revolving
around the father and son relationship actually had a bit
of depth, and the romance factor was kept at a minimum, as it should be in sci-fi. I was also set to be critical if need be, but once over I thought it was a solid if not spectacular effort.

Ack, how did this steaming pile of cinema ever get made?
Matt Leblanc proved his acting talents peaked with "Friends", but then again with such a lousy script, I'm not even sure Harrison Ford could have attempted such lines and come out with his career unscathed.
William Hurt is miscast here. He just doesn't strike me as the idealistic scientist type with his low key mumbling. The space uniforms were very wierd....watching Lacey Chabert (presumably 14 years old at the time) wearing a skintight outfit ... makes ya feel wierd, though I didn't mind it much on the older chicks.
Gary Oldman plays his tired evil-guy sniveling role yet again, and while its nice to have cute kids and robots in movies, this is definitely not a kiddie film with all the violence and stuff blowing up.

It's clear where the budget went here: the effects are dazzling. The CGI universe never looked so good. And yet, what a piece of cinematic bile this turned out to be. Good actors are wasted here; William Hurt looks increasingly pained as the movie progesses, and Mimi Rogers is hopeless as Mother Robinson. Matt LeBlanc certainly looks good in his black uniform, but clearly does not belong on the big screen. I won't even discuss how annoying the children are, and the animated creature they 'adopt' makes one long for the witty repartee of Jar Jar Binks. Avoid at all costs.

Why does this movie get panned by 'critics' so much?
Why would anyone have wanted an effort which merely copied what went before? Folks should just relax! I too enjoyed the
original series while growing up, but I found this
updated take to be refreshing and what it was supposed
to be: Fun. The acting is good, the plot revolving
around the father and son relationship actually had a bit
of depth, and the romance factor was kept at a minimum, as it should be in sci-fi. I was also set to be critical if need be, but once over I thought it was a solid if not spectacular effort.

Ack, how did this steaming pile of cinema ever get made?
Matt Leblanc proved his acting talents peaked with "Friends", but then again with such a lousy script, I'm not even sure Harrison Ford could have attempted such lines and come out with his career unscathed.
William Hurt is miscast here. He just doesn't strike me as the idealistic scientist type with his low key mumbling. The space uniforms were very wierd....watching Lacey Chabert (presumably 14 years old at the time) wearing a skintight outfit ... makes ya feel wierd, though I didn't mind it much on the older chicks.
Gary Oldman plays his tired evil-guy sniveling role yet again, and while its nice to have cute kids and robots in movies, this is definitely not a kiddie film with all the violence and stuff blowing up.

LOST IN SPACE is one terrific looking film. Every penny spent on special effects pays off in spades. The production design is well represented on screen. The salaries must have been high... William Hurt and Mimi Rogers are the Robinson parents with Heather Graham and Lacey Chabert as 2 of the children... Matt LeBlanc does his best Han Solo as Major West and perrenial bad guy Gary Oldman gives a surprisingly subdued performance as the 'could've-been-over-the-top' Dr. Smith. The money put into the films screenplay would have been better spent on deoderant. It stinks. And that isd enough to totally strip the film of any heart. It becomes a series of episodes strung together by circumstance and a too often used time travel scheme. In addition to the screenplay, there is an annoying pet discovered on a derelict ship. "Blarp" puts "Jar Jar Binks" to shame in the annoying comic releif department although he is a great special effect, especially for the time. the film is aimed at the younger crowd. Ironically, the filmmakers worked hard to get 4 of the original television cast to make cameo appearances and visual references to the series, these wasted on people who were born 20 years after the show went off the air. So the pacing, direction and screenplay were enough to crash the JUPITER 2 forever. But, is worth noting for its special effects and production alone.

Why does this movie get panned by 'critics' so much?
Why would anyone have wanted an effort which merely copied what went before? Folks should just relax! I too enjoyed the
original series while growing up, but I found this
updated take to be refreshing and what it was supposed
to be: Fun. The acting is good, the plot revolving
around the father and son relationship actually had a bit
of depth, and the romance factor was kept at a minimum, as it should be in sci-fi. I was also set to be critical if need be, but once over I thought it was a solid if not spectacular effort.

Ack, how did this steaming pile of cinema ever get made?
Matt Leblanc proved his acting talents peaked with "Friends", but then again with such a lousy script, I'm not even sure Harrison Ford could have attempted such lines and come out with his career unscathed.
William Hurt is miscast here. He just doesn't strike me as the idealistic scientist type with his low key mumbling. The space uniforms were very wierd....watching Lacey Chabert (presumably 14 years old at the time) wearing a skintight outfit ... makes ya feel wierd, though I didn't mind it much on the older chicks.
Gary Oldman plays his tired evil-guy sniveling role yet again, and while its nice to have cute kids and robots in movies, this is definitely not a kiddie film with all the violence and stuff blowing up.

LOST IN SPACE is one terrific looking film. Every penny spent on special effects pays off in spades. The production design is well represented on screen. The salaries must have been high... William Hurt and Mimi Rogers are the Robinson parents with Heather Graham and Lacey Chabert as 2 of the children... Matt LeBlanc does his best Han Solo as Major West and perrenial bad guy Gary Oldman gives a surprisingly subdued performance as the 'could've-been-over-the-top' Dr. Smith. The money put into the films screenplay would have been better spent on deoderant. It stinks. And that isd enough to totally strip the film of any heart. It becomes a series of episodes strung together by circumstance and a too often used time travel scheme. In addition to the screenplay, there is an annoying pet discovered on a derelict ship. "Blarp" puts "Jar Jar Binks" to shame in the annoying comic releif department although he is a great special effect, especially for the time. the film is aimed at the younger crowd. Ironically, the filmmakers worked hard to get 4 of the original television cast to make cameo appearances and visual references to the series, these wasted on people who were born 20 years after the show went off the air. So the pacing, direction and screenplay were enough to crash the JUPITER 2 forever. But, is worth noting for its special effects and production alone.

Why does this movie get panned by 'critics' so much?
Why would anyone have wanted an effort which merely copied what went before? Folks should just relax! I too enjoyed the
original series while growing up, but I found this
updated take to be refreshing and what it was supposed
to be: Fun. The acting is good, the plot revolving
around the father and son relationship actually had a bit
of depth, and the romance factor was kept at a minimum, as it should be in sci-fi. I was also set to be critical if need be, but once over I thought it was a solid if not spectacular effort.

This is pretty decent for a independent film. Ok, so sme of the acting isn't the best and you get the feeling that they had a low budget and had to let a few mistakes go through the works, but the sory isn't that bad and the guy that plays the young teen in love with Jared is a pretty decent actor. Some of the love scenes are a bit racey (due to subject matter) but tasteful. Over all it's a good little story. I'd like to see more from this director and some of his cast. See what else they can do.

I can agree with some of what the previous reviewer stated because I had a difficult time getting into this story. It's a coming out story of a guy who comes to California from Georgia, and while at a youth hostel, he kisses a guy for the first time. He's a little freaked, but Jared does know it's what he wants, but it's not until he's working for a blind lady, and her son seduces him, that Jared discovers himself. Although this relationship dissolves into the fantasy it is, Jared does track down the guy from the youth hostel in hopes of finding happiness. It's a surprisingly intelligent story that gets better as it goes along. Certainly a welcome debut that tells a classic story in a rather fresh perspective, with some poignant moments.

I loved this movie. It was a simple love story that touched my heart. I think that evey gay man can relate to Jared! Highly recommended!

My advice, if you must watch it, rent it... don't buy it! You'll be wasting your cash!
I rented it, because I like Campbell Scott, but it wasn't a good one. (Sorry Campbell)
The best movie he was in... one of my favorite's... is "The Love Letter". Watch that one instead if you havn't seen it yet! (A love story, yes, but a hek of alot better than this one no matter what the subject matter.)

Everybody likes a good mystery and a good movie, and together the two make a potent combination; unfortunately, you get neither with "Lush," written and directed by Mark Gibson, a film that leads you down the path apparently for no other reason than to lead you down the path, and that's considering it from the most positive and objective point of view one could possibly muster. Rarely does a movie leave the viewer with such a pronounced sense of indifference as this one, or with the feeling that the entire experience was, at best, pointless.

When Lionel Exley (Campbell Scott), a promising professional golfer, chooses the comforts of the bottle over his career, he is ousted from the circuit. He goes back home to New Orleans to sort out his life, which he does by looking through the bottom of a whiskey glass. Then he meets Firmin Carter (Jared Harris), a hopeless alcoholic with one up on Lionel, however, inasmuch as he is wealthy, which means that when he hits the floor, at least it's the best that money can buy.

Lionel quickly becomes something of a confidant to Firmin, which leads to a proposal Firmin makes to his new found friend, which could be a lucrative proposition if they can pull it off. Lionel demurs, however, as in the sober light of day it all just seems too ludicrous. But after another night of drinking, it appears that Lionel just may have pulled it off after all. The problem is, he doesn't remember a thing-- and suddenly the police are in his $9.00-per-night flop house room asking questions...

A story told in cryptic terms can be a challenge to an audience, and unraveling a mystery can be an engrossing and ultimately satisfying experience. But only when there's something actually worth unraveling. In this case, it would be more accurate to say that it's the film itself that unravels, except that it is never together enough in the first place to do so. Gibson's presentation is seemingly so convoluted it's as if he did it intentionally, not to effect good drama or mystery, but in hopes of concealing the fact that the story-- such as it is-- is just so obtuse. And the real pity of it is, he wastes the talents of some actors who deserve better. Much better.

As far as performances go, Campbell Scott is solid as always, but his efforts here, while commendable, are ultimately an exercise in futility. Even an Oscar worthy performance couldn't salvage this one. And that is not to say that this is an award winning performance; it isn't-- but it is credible, and Scott does about as well as anyone could with the material he's given to work with. The good news is, there are greener pastures ahead for Scott (as well as all of his costars here), because after this, there is definitely no way to go but up.

Happily, Laura Linney-- proving the old adage that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger-- earned an Oscar nomination for her work in her next project, giving an extraordinary performance in an extraordinary film, "You Can Count On Me," which was also one of the best films of that year. In this one, Linney-- like Scott-- brings more to her role of Rachel Van Dyke, the affluent southern belle who becomes involved with Lionel, than anyone would have the right to expect, including her director. Considering how poorly written this screenplay is, she deserves a lot of credit for even being able to "find" her character, let alone make her convincing-- which she does. But again, the best performance in the world couldn't save this one.

Also turning in a decent-- albeit wasted-- performance, is Jared Harris as the self-destructive Firmin Carter, a character nearly as pitiful as the film itself. Taken out of context, in fact, Harris actually does some commendable work here. And again, it's a case of the actor doing everything humanly possible with what he was given, which certainly wasn't much.

The supporting cast includes Laurel Holloman (Ash), Nick Offerman (Gerry), James "Kimo" Wills (Pats), James R. Hall Jr. (Buddha), Don Hood (Har) and Sherry Francis (Mrs. Van Dyke). A lamentable attempt at filmmaking, the best thing that can be said about "Lush" is that it makes you appreciate a "good" movie. In defense of Gibson, it should be pointed out that this was his first attempt as a writer/director, which is no easy undertaking even for a seasoned professional. When you see a great-- or even a good movie-- it always looks like it was brought to the screen so effortlessly; and that's what makes a great filmmaker great-- that ability to make it all look so natural, and "easy" to do. It's like the old "I-could-have-written-that" out-of-hand dismissal of a best selling novel; it just looks so easy. Rest assured, it is not; and hopefully Gibson will learn from this experience, pick himself up and move on to bigger, better and more worthwhile projects in the future.

I really liked this movie. It's not exactly what I expected -- the video cover makes it seem like a thriller -- but it's different and funny in its own way. I thought the acting was good and the story fun. Days after I watched it I was still thinking about it and some of the images too. In the end it was sweet and romantic but real.

My advice, if you must watch it, rent it... don't buy it! You'll be wasting your cash!
I rented it, because I like Campbell Scott, but it wasn't a good one. (Sorry Campbell)
The best movie he was in... one of my favorite's... is "The Love Letter". Watch that one instead if you havn't seen it yet! (A love story, yes, but a hek of alot better than this one no matter what the subject matter.)

Everybody likes a good mystery and a good movie, and together the two make a potent combination; unfortunately, you get neither with "Lush," written and directed by Mark Gibson, a film that leads you down the path apparently for no other reason than to lead you down the path, and that's considering it from the most positive and objective point of view one could possibly muster. Rarely does a movie leave the viewer with such a pronounced sense of indifference as this one, or with the feeling that the entire experience was, at best, pointless.

When Lionel Exley (Campbell Scott), a promising professional golfer, chooses the comforts of the bottle over his career, he is ousted from the circuit. He goes back home to New Orleans to sort out his life, which he does by looking through the bottom of a whiskey glass. Then he meets Firmin Carter (Jared Harris), a hopeless alcoholic with one up on Lionel, however, inasmuch as he is wealthy, which means that when he hits the floor, at least it's the best that money can buy.

Lionel quickly becomes something of a confidant to Firmin, which leads to a proposal Firmin makes to his new found friend, which could be a lucrative proposition if they can pull it off. Lionel demurs, however, as in the sober light of day it all just seems too ludicrous. But after another night of drinking, it appears that Lionel just may have pulled it off after all. The problem is, he doesn't remember a thing-- and suddenly the police are in his $9.00-per-night flop house room asking questions...

A story told in cryptic terms can be a challenge to an audience, and unraveling a mystery can be an engrossing and ultimately satisfying experience. But only when there's something actually worth unraveling. In this case, it would be more accurate to say that it's the film itself that unravels, except that it is never together enough in the first place to do so. Gibson's presentation is seemingly so convoluted it's as if he did it intentionally, not to effect good drama or mystery, but in hopes of concealing the fact that the story-- such as it is-- is just so obtuse. And the real pity of it is, he wastes the talents of some actors who deserve better. Much better.

As far as performances go, Campbell Scott is solid as always, but his efforts here, while commendable, are ultimately an exercise in futility. Even an Oscar worthy performance couldn't salvage this one. And that is not to say that this is an award winning performance; it isn't-- but it is credible, and Scott does about as well as anyone could with the material he's given to work with. The good news is, there are greener pastures ahead for Scott (as well as all of his costars here), because after this, there is definitely no way to go but up.

Happily, Laura Linney-- proving the old adage that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger-- earned an Oscar nomination for her work in her next project, giving an extraordinary performance in an extraordinary film, "You Can Count On Me," which was also one of the best films of that year. In this one, Linney-- like Scott-- brings more to her role of Rachel Van Dyke, the affluent southern belle who becomes involved with Lionel, than anyone would have the right to expect, including her director. Considering how poorly written this screenplay is, she deserves a lot of credit for even being able to "find" her character, let alone make her convincing-- which she does. But again, the best performance in the world couldn't save this one.

Also turning in a decent-- albeit wasted-- performance, is Jared Harris as the self-destructive Firmin Carter, a character nearly as pitiful as the film itself. Taken out of context, in fact, Harris actually does some commendable work here. And again, it's a case of the actor doing everything humanly possible with what he was given, which certainly wasn't much.

The supporting cast includes Laurel Holloman (Ash), Nick Offerman (Gerry), James "Kimo" Wills (Pats), James R. Hall Jr. (Buddha), Don Hood (Har) and Sherry Francis (Mrs. Van Dyke). A lamentable attempt at filmmaking, the best thing that can be said about "Lush" is that it makes you appreciate a "good" movie. In defense of Gibson, it should be pointed out that this was his first attempt as a writer/director, which is no easy undertaking even for a seasoned professional. When you see a great-- or even a good movie-- it always looks like it was brought to the screen so effortlessly; and that's what makes a great filmmaker great-- that ability to make it all look so natural, and "easy" to do. It's like the old "I-could-have-written-that" out-of-hand dismissal of a best selling novel; it just looks so easy. Rest assured, it is not; and hopefully Gibson will learn from this experience, pick himself up and move on to bigger, better and more worthwhile projects in the future.

I really liked this movie. It's not exactly what I expected -- the video cover makes it seem like a thriller -- but it's different and funny in its own way. I thought the acting was good and the story fun. Days after I watched it I was still thinking about it and some of the images too. In the end it was sweet and romantic but real.