The Patriot, 2000

The Patriot, 2000
Director: Roland Emmerich
Cast: Heath Ledger, Mel Gibson, Joely Richardson



Stage: Home theatre, Friday night


The Patriot in short: It is 1776 in colonial South Carolina. Benjamin Martin, a French-Indian war hero who is haunted by his past, now wants nothing more then to live peacefully on his small plantation, and wants no part of a war with the most powerful nation in the world, Great Britain. Meanwhile, his two eldest sons, Gabriel and Thomas, can't wait to enlist in the newly formed "Continental Army." When South Carolina decides to join the rebellion against England, Gabriel immediately signs up to fight...without his father's permission. But when Colonel William Tavington, British dragoon, infamous for his brutal tactics, comes and burns the Martin Plantation to the ground, tragedy strikes. Benjamin quickly finds himself torn between protecting his family, and seeking revenge along with being a part of the birth of new, young, and ambitious nation.


Preps: Haven't seen it before, unfortunately. Mel on a Friday night sounds great. Let's check it out.



Reality: Well, no real expectations. I need to state I am not really a fan of war movies, especially if they are happening on US soil. Because I mostly find them boring and not really attractive to the eyes. And I burst into tears when they tread on animals. I am making an intro because it also reflects in my reviews. Not many movies in this genre have surpassed my limit and have been thrown away. Some of them might be considered very high on my scale, though. For instance Braveheart is one of them, where you can just die of all the feelings that go through your body.

Now as I have mentioned Braveheart, it has the same main actor. Mel Gibson was in some sense (as Bruce Willis for action movies), born for this genre, as the roles in this sense suit him like a glove. Patriotism, fighting for the country, family, love of his children.. it just brings the best out of Mel Gibson and makes him epic, not only heroic.
The scenes are carefully chosen and up to a great extent, lead the observer through the historical facts and figures. The approach at fighting is amazing. I still cannot believe they used such weapons and that virtually a queue of men was just standing there while the opponent would shoot at them. And as they fell down, another (prior second row) stepped in front. In any case, you don't see many so well depicted battles as this one. The energy that Gibson shows is amazing. Especially when interacting with a stiff opponent or when having conversations with his loved ones. Heath Ledger is a good brother in arms, a true statue of youth and rebellion in comparison with Gibson. Whereas Gibson is old school, fighting for survival and until the last man falls.

The music is remarkable, it emphasizes each scene as it should, it is also the answer to my soul's spirit as it shows me without a shadow of a doubt, whether the scene is going to be morbid, killer-spirited, romantic, and it pours in my veins as deep as possible.
As always, I wonder, what is the purpose of the wars and where do they lead in their vanity. What is the role of a war, does it work like a disease - to give an answer to overpopulation? Whose idea is it and why does it get this far. Bunch of men, standing and "fighting for the cause".. when everything could be settled prior to the actual fight. Most of politicians would disagree as a lot of people perceive war to be the only solution or answer to many things. In this case, when you watch Patriot and see why they are fighting, the feeling of sadness even increases. It's never the great generals or politicians that get stuck on field with rifles. They are observers. And real population their puppets (or say chess figures). Truly sad. But real.




My personal rating: 8,5 (one of the finest war-historical heroic movies of all times. It will hurt your soul and make you wonder how lucky we are not being in that space and time. On the other hand, you will want to taste and smell it in reality. Gibson's great role, Heath Ledger also exceeds my expectations)

Keeping the Faith, 2000

Keeping the faith, 2000
Director: Edward Norton
Cast: Edward Norton, Jenna Elfman, Ben Stiller


Stage: Home TV selection, nice Wednesday evening after an exhausting day


Keeping The Faith in short: Best friends, a priest and a rabbi, fall in love with the same girl. However, neither of the men can pursue the relationship due to their religious beliefs: the priest cannot break his vow of celibacy and the rabbi cannot marry her since she is not Jewish.



Preps: Well, I have seen this piece in the local theatre. And I think I have seen it afterwards. I am in the mood for this also this evening. It has been hell of the day and I need something relaxing and funny.



Reality: As said, I know the point of this piece and the storyline. It is memorable and nice, so you don't need some kind of special state of mind to watch what you know already. I know it won't burn my braincells anyway, but I will have fun. Know this for sure.
So we have a threesome, the funny point deriving from the "old friends come together again, two guys fall for the same woman", kind of plot. The situations that come from two friends fighting for the same woman, can come up either a disaster, funny you could die from, or the average fun stuff. This piece definitely has some highlights and is above average. Most of the situations are closely connected with the fact that one of the guys is a rabi, the other is a priest, the girl is a serious business woman. They know each other from the time they were kids and from a fling two of them turn out to have a more serious affair. When she wants to continue experimenting, he backs off. The point is about getting over burdons (or pre-requisites) you are wearing with you at the time of getting involved with someone. How long lasts a fling, how far can you go before you claim this is a relationship?
I don't usually believe you can do a good cast and be a good director at the same time. In my opinion in this piece Norton did quite a good job. OK, I like Norton by default, however in this piece I cannot complain that some cast was hurt or affected by his directing the piece. While I am watching, I cannot decide, whether she is attractive as hell, or does she have in teeth what Julia Roberts posesses in hers as well, magnitude. The teeth of Anna are enormous. When she laughs or smiles, the smile is through the whole screen. Not that this is something bad. However, it's as unique as it can be and definitely drags attention.
The movie is filled with good script and phrases you need to remember when trying to communicate with your next/existing/previous partner. Plus scenes you need to laugh to. Nice music that keeps you relaxed. Makes you think the movie is supposed to make you enjoy it. The boy practicing and singing at his guy bat mitzvah, for instance (the announcement he's becoming a man, not a boy anymore). Or priest making a scene at that same bat mitzvah. Going to the movies with Anna and half the church members, waiting to catch you doing the wrong thing. The movie is filled with this stuff and I love it.
Up to some extent the story relaxes, on the other hand reveals things are never simple, even if you want to put them or claim them simple. Which job is more important, to the god or to your soul? who do you betray, if you don't follow, him or yourself? And what do you do if you are unlucky and need to leave your faith to be with the one you love? Complicated things, if you want to think about them. However, the movie doesn't reach the depth of this and certainly can leave you just laughing, not thinking deeply about all emotions that are handled in this one.



My personal rating: 6,5 (nice, relaxing, funny. Also deep, if I choose to take it this way. I love the music and I love the energy between main cast).

Keeping the faith on IMDB

Miss Congeniality 1 & 2, 2000, 2004

Miss Congeniality 1 & 2, 2000, 2004
Director: Donald Petrie; John Pasquin
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Michael Caine (1); Regina King (2), Benjamin Brett (1)



Stage: home theatre, two Thursdays in a row. TV selection

The first part in short: Undercover FBI agent Gracie Hart shows no signs of having any femininity in her demeanor or appearance. Generally a bright and capable agent, she is in trouble at work when she makes an error in judgment in a case which results in a near disaster. As such, one of her by-the-books colleagues, Eric Matthews, who has never shown any inclination of thinking outside the box, is assigned to lead the high profile case of a terrorist coined The Citizen instead of her, while she is facing possible disciplinary action. Gracie pieces together the evidence to determine that The Citizen's next target will be the Miss United States beauty pageant. The pageant represents everything that Gracie abhors. Despite Gracie's mannish demeanor, Eric, with no other undercover female agent remotely fitting the demographic, assigns her to go undercover as a pageant contestant to see if she can flush out The Citizen...

The second part in short: After Cheryl Frasier and Stan Fields are kidnapped, Gracie goes undercover in Las Vegas to find them. (really in short :)


Preps: I cannot help it, Sandra Bullock is one of the cutest actresses in the whole world. As much as I can say that the movies she works in, are more or less stupid comedies, I cannot resist watching her. In my honest opinion, she could do more work like the Blind Side (oscar!), however, these two pieces are a typical selection, where she would normally cast and where she is notorious (famous).




Reality: Well, the first part takes you to the "miss USA" pageant and all the miracles that go with it. The behaviour, the make up, the fallen legend and the next hot thing in the oven. Meaning, I truly need to clean my obstacles before stopping laughing like I have never before. Now, to be really honest, the director took a deep dive into the world of laughter (from being a smartass at the police force, a tough woman without a single female cell in the body, to graceful Gracie Hart. My ironic veins were pouring when I was looking at that piece. Obviously I think Sandra is great. But only with the tone of the voice and the poses she makes, the funny laughter and the scenes themselves. Apart from that I don't think she is giving a good cast here, neither she's very into this role. But in general it suits her normal roles in more stupid romantic comedies, obviously she will also have a romantic fling,.. anyhow. The movie that cannot dissappoint you, if you are looking for a family Sunday evening fun. It will make you laugh, even more, it will make you admire the miss pageant (imagine that :) and it will make you think world piece. All in all, it does what romantic comedies are supposed to do. Love the characters and spread the love afterwards. However, this is a tough genre, lots of movies screaming for attention. This isn't one of the best, least said. i would place it on the other side of the curve. Nevertheless, I admit my affection towards Sandra and I will always watch it when on TV. Maybe one of the more stupid reasons I can name, but this is deriving from the heart, not really the mind. If you need to listen to my mind, don't waste your time on this piece (saying this for both of them), because it's really a waste of time.

Now, if I am more than swallowing the first part, the second part is merely a shadow of a first one. No imagination, scenes that cannot be real. Obviously a happy ending, obviously they need to attach it to the first part. Have you ever noticed how rare a movie lives up to the expectations if it's a sequel? In theory, a director should at least watch the first part before making the second one. The second part is simply stupid and underestimates the intelligence of the audience (ok, and so does 95 % of all romantic comedies, however in this one this is REALLY obvious). What was the director or script writer thinking, I don't know. They might have been high when agreeing on this. It's really a pain to the eyes to watch and I strongly speak against. Despite the fact I have my lovely Sandra. Even she cannot save the party for me.


My personal rating: 1. part - 6,0 (watchable); 2.part - 2,0 (blaaaaah. don't. seriously. Don't :)


Miss on IMDB 1 and on IMDB 2

Vertical Limit, 2000

Vertical Limit, 2000
Director: Martin Campbell
Cast: Scott Glenn, Chris O'Donnell, Bill Paxton


Stage: Home TV selection, somewhere in between the week.



Vertical in short: A high-adrenaline tale of young climber Peter Garrett, who must launch a treacherous and extraordinary rescue effort up K2, the world's second highest peak. Confronting both his own limitations and the awesome power of nature's uncontrollable elements, Peter risks his life to save his sister, Annie, and her summit team in a race against time. The team is trapped in an icy grave at 26,000 feet - a death zone above the vertical limit of endurance where the human body cannot survive for long. Every second counts as Peter enlists the help of a crew of fellow climbers, including eccentric, reclusive mountain man Montgomery Wick, to ascend the chilling might of the world's most feared peak to save her.



Preps: Hm. Third time, I guess. NOthing spectacular I need to see. But something to relax my mind after a long day.


Reality: Somehow it's similar to Apollo 13. Someone that goes on climbing Himalaya, should know his/her strengths, weaknesses. And how far can he/she go in these thin lines between life and death.
Somehow I seem to be repeating myself. How much is one life worth or how much are three lives worth? In currency of lives and maybe in currency of media spectacles. How would it make a change if it was a relative or someone you love up in the mountain? How much money would you claim if you were the brave hero trying to rescue a mission?

One of the good missions that started with a prediction of fail, ends up in the vertical (of death), waiting for the rescue or its death. Being economic along the way (which makes it interesting, I might add). But nothing more than a good mission to make us think about our climbing, if we ever want to go. To think about the stakes and if we are willing to let them be, for the sake of dying possibly on the mountain, or being handicapped for the rest of our lives.

Not to underestimate the mountains is the main message. Taken in many copies around the movie world. This one is pretty average and makes you think about all the others. I still feel the piece with the most breathtaking message, how not to underestimate the mountains, is Alive. Also upon a true story. Maybe that's why it takes my breath away every time. Naah, that's not it. It's the good delivery.


My personal rate: 4,0 (ah.. if you don't have anything more important to do. It's a low brainer).


Vertical on IMDB

The perfect Storm, 2000

The perfect storm, 2011
Director:Wolfgang Petersen
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, George Clooney, Diane Lane



Stage: home theatre, late afternoon Saturday movie


The perfect storm in short: In October 1991, a confluence of weather conditions combined to form a killer storm in the North Atlantic. Caught in the storm was the sword-fishing boat Andrea Gail. Magnificent foreshadowing and anticipation fill this true-life drama while minute details of the fishing boats, their gear and the weather are juxtaposed with the sea adventure.


Preps: A must see if it's on TV, I have seen in in the movies and loved it. It's just worth seeing what are the values and needs you are willing to try competing with death, for.


Reality: One of my favourite's Clooney parts. I just love him here, because I imagine that in real life he must be as stubborn and rough as his character is in the piece. The real life for fishing village, fishing for life and hardly make a living (or not at all) if you aren't lucky in the season... it will make your heart cry.
The real fight begins if the weather isn't nice and this is the unpredictable part in this story which makes a difference between life and death. If we are truly prudent and posh towards nature, this piece will make you respect it again. It clearly shows the line where you need to surrender and where you need to bow in front of the nature, as we are towards the big organism like ants and it will tread all over us if we disrespect it.

The hunt we are seeing here as the main story (fishing) happens up to this level only because it's a difference whether some families will make it or not. Live or not. They need money to do it so they risk the lives of fishermen. In this case it doesn't happen. In some cases it does. A strange lottery to be playing. And definitely makes me not want to be in similar situation ever.

You will respect the scenes that were pulled obviously off in the studio, because they are naturally embedded and you think it's the real nature. And you will cry for the sake of lost love.





My personal rate: 6,0 (the best perception of the storms, combined with a breathtaking race for life)

The perfoect storm on IMDB

Pay it forward, 2000

Pay it forward, 2000
Director: Mimi Leder
Cast: Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt, Haley Joel Osment



Stage: home TV selection on a fine Tuesday evening



Pay it forward in short: Young Trevor McKinney, troubled by his mother's alcoholism and fears of his abusive but absent father, is caught up by an intriguing assignment from his new social studies teacher, Mr. Simonet. The assignment: think of something to change the world and put it into action. Trevor conjures the notion of paying a favor not back, but forward--repaying good deeds not with payback, but with new good deeds done to three new people. Trevor's efforts to make good on his idea bring a revolution not only in the lives of himself, his mother and his physically and emotionally scarred teacher, but in those of an ever-widening circle of people completely unknown to him.


Preps: This is a must see. I have seen it several times and this time I am going to submerge the piece to my critical eye.



Reality: As said, this is one of Hollywood's classics. Most of my friends must have seen this already. It has the most exquisite genuine idea I have experienced again and again as I was watching this for several times. To give good and receive good should be one of the practical views in every person's soul. However, the idea starts with a teacher, brilliantly played by Spacey, where he wants to implement the seed into his young students. What can anyone do to change the world? And not meaning with this to flush the toilet once per day to skip water usage during the day. Or collect garbage. Per se, I do have an example which resembles Pay it forward approach. A slovenian youngster wrote some time ago about the movement, where you collect trash. A piece of trash per day. And more people joined in an instant, than he ever imagined. So we have collected trash every day and crowds are joining the movement. Ergo, we have a cleaner place to live in.
The analogy with pay it forward approach is inevitable. However, this piece describes doing a favor to someone that cannot do this or cannot achieve this by him/herself. Which means the responsibility of the carrier to recognize the things that come in question. And for the receiver not to put it on a silver plate. Normally these things have something in common with our fears, feelings, shameful stuff we don't want to disclose, etc. In some reality examples from this piece we face some prisoners being let go, some taxi drives being made for free, a homeless person getting a meal.. there is a lot of good that this movie spreads and you cannot help it, you need to let it also in your heart.
The side story (by this I mean love between the mother and teacher) becomes pretty irrelevant comparing it to the big deed this pay it forward approach can leave on the viewer. However, the story about a new potential relationship gets also profound, because we are dealing with very damaged individuals that are trying to put the puzzles of the life back together. Also a perspective you will think about when you see the piece.

Still, the main red thin line in the movie and also the thing to think about while and after watching is doing good to other people or live creatures. Finally, a pyramid that works for human wellbeing, as oppose to other commercial ones.






My personal rate: 8,0 (a classic must see. Will make you shiver within your soul at some scenes. And leave a warm feeling you need to do something as well).


Pay it forward on IMDB

28 Days, 2000

28 Days, 2000
Director: Betty Thomas
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Viggo Mortensen, Dominic West, Elisabeth Perkins


Stage: Home TV selection on a rainy Sunday evening

28 days in short: A big-city newspaper columnist is forced to enter a drug and alcohol rehab center after ruining her sister's wedding and crashing a stolen limousine


Preps: nothing in perticular. Remember seeing this ages ago. And I adore Sandra Bullock, nothing more I could want from a Sunday evening.


Reality: Now let me think. How hard is it to accept to be an alcoholic and how hard it is to decide to go back. To think about your life, your decisions and your way of living and making it right. Are you entitled to make it right? Who will believe you are for real? Who will make your path easier and who will support you when being down? The movie is supposed to be somehow a romantic comedy (the relationship between the "alcoholic" Sandra and her spouse. The problem is he doesn't see her as and alcoholic and furthermore, doesn't really support her. No problem here, but she really wants to get better after spending some time in an institution.

How about making friends in an institution? A hard way to follow. Hard talking, hard problems.. but.. they can get to the core of your soul and in the end make it allright. The problem is that most re-habs don't want to change and even the best institution won't make them feel better or change the way they live their lives. In a sense, makes them go back to drinking instantly when leaving the institution.

I believe there is a lesson to be learned here for anyone. We are all walking from time to time on the verge of insanity, that is connected with alcohol. And some of us go through this. The others are so brave that they ended up the better path and didn't need an institution to cure them. Nevertheless, a good piece to think about how you solve your problems in past and how do you do it now. Is it connected with alcohol? Is this a backyard, where you drown your problems, or just an escape for a few hours that you can control? The piece implies you better not turn into a pool where you sink your problems. Because it is a long and painful way to come back.


My personal rating: 6,0 (a decent fun for Sunday. Plus: will make you think about the drinking nights and the sense they make. Or not any sense they make. And the problem you have when starting to get cured)


28 days on IMDB

Big momma's house, 2000

Big momma's house, 2000
Director: Raja Gosnell
Cast: Martin Lawrence, Nia Long, Paul Giamatti



Momma's synopsis: An FBI agent Malcolm Turner is going deep undercover as he disguise himself as Sherry Pierce's long-lost grandmother named Hattie Mae Pierce, aka Big Momma. And his latest assignment sends him to small-town Cartersville Georgia, where he is assigned to trap a brutal bank robber who they suspect will be coming down to visit his ex-girlfriend and her son, Trent. Now, Malcolm must somehow find a way to nab his criminal and the lady.


Stage: home TV selection (a really lazy evening and I needed something that smells like a comedy)


Preps: Once I remember seeing this, and I wasn't that thrilled, however, I needed some funny stuff so I was ready to choak or settle on something not so thrilling just to get some other things out of my head.


Reality: Worse than I remember. I remember at the time when this piece was created, there was this fame around Eddie Murphy and his sit-com's, his movies when he dressed up and his cast was cast of 8 actors (the nutty professor for instance is an example, from 1996). Anyhow, I got the feeling every person that considered himself as one of black really funny actors and resembled Eddie Murphy, wanted to do a piece that played around this topic. And of course, make big money out of the old idea - just for the sake of the argument, that crowd needs and loves such humour. Big momma's house is something like that. It has an unbelievable story, however, the make up and the dressing, resembling of big mommy by Martin Lawrence, is cute and in some cases, hilarious, funny so you could tremble and fall down. However, this is just in some cases and in some minutes of this movie.

These directors (that make such movies) and actors that are presented in this way, need to know that an old idea doesn't make a movie. And of course, not every actor can be like Eddie. Martin Lawrence is also a great comedian - I have seen some of his better times, and I remember Momma's house to be a big hit in Slovenia at the screening time. But I don't think that it's the type that would suit me. I don't like comedies that underestimate the viewer and this one, unfortunately, does just that.



My personal rating: 3,5 (I have seen more of my flat or refrigerator than this piece when watching it. Plus, the TV version makes you use the breaks they need for their commercials. Seriously, you won't miss a lot if you don't see it. However, there areat least a few really funny situations and some of the sit-com is really enjoyable.

Momma on IMDB

The Gladiator, 2000

Gladiator, 2000
Director: Ridley Scott
Cast: Russel Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix



Scene: home theatre

Genre: hystorical drama/action/adventure

Short synopsis: When a Roman general is betrayed and his family murdered by a corrupt prince, he comes to Rome as a gladiator to seek revenge.


Preps: Finally I get to see it again, this time in home theatre in dolby, how cool is that. One of the greatest ones, in terms of movie technique, also a strong story that keeps your feet burning long after seeing this.


Reality: Scott makes a dramatic hystorical action movie, one of the greatest in the last 15 years that I've seen. As I see it for the fifth or sixth time, I still find a lot to look at, a lot that I haven't seen yet and again, the remarkable strong story inspires me. I love hystorical movies, and if they are packed in such a good photography/scenery/costumes, the better cannot get, I can assure you. The music is also brilliant, it brings out the best from the scenes. If I compare it to Troy, the "true" story about the long fight, in my opinion, this one will be closer to balkan people - from my side of the continent, as it is a struggle for life, justice, war and piece, love and conquer of the kingdom. The politics in its rotten roots. And the act of Phoenix (you have to hate him, but he acts brilliant) and Crowe is inspiring.


My personal favourite quote: What we do in life, echoes in eternity
I even have that on my google account ;)

My personal rating: 9,5 (one I have to see every now and then. Everyone wants to be him at least once in a while).



Gladiator on IMDB
Gladiator official site