ARMAGEDDON: Possibly the most amazing movie I saw all year. No kidding. The most amazing. Why? Because I've never seen a film that does EVERYTHING wrong before. There's not a moment - not a shot, a scene, a line, a FRAME - that isn't completely and totally miscalculated. Now, before I continue, I think it important to warn you that I'm gonna start ranting here. So if it stops making sense, well, just try and ride it out. Okay, first off - is there a line of dialog that wasn't lifted from other stupid action movies and inserted randomly into this script? The only cliche they didn't use was someone grumbling "I'm too old for this shit," but I have faith that Bruce Willis' character said it in some mercifully cut scene. And Steve Buscemi - don't you have enough money yet? Criminy, the guy's in just about every film made nowadays, and he gets worse in every one. I remember when he was a good actor, not just 'the goofy nutcase guy' in CON-AIR or THE WEDDING SINGER or DESPERADO or SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. What? Oh, he wasn't in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE? Well that's the only film he wasn't in all year! Steve, do yourself a favor: save your money so you don't have to answer Jerry Bruckheimer's calls anymore. And what's with two super secret space shuttles? Which just happen to be outfitted perfectly to correspond to this particular mission's objectives, which everyone admits we've been completely unprepared for. And if that doesn't strain credibility then what's with them launching side-by-side? Or flying in formation like the Blue Angels? And going to the Mir space station to refuel? Whaddafugisdat? Then they blow up the Mir so they can bring the Russian goofy nutcase guy aboard? Didn't they remember Steve Buscemi was in this movie? And they just happen to have an extra space suit for the Russian guy? Which just happens to fit him like a glove? AIEEEE! And those are just the nitpicky things! I haven't even mentioned the fact that Michael Bay has yet to make a film that even cuts together from shot to shot! Okay, I'm gonna stop now - I feel the blood vessels in my brain swelling, and I don't want to end up like the exploding head guy in SCANNERS. My last word on ARMAGEDDON? Worst film of the year. No, wait - in keeping with this whole year 2000 thing, worst film of the Millennium. Hands down. Of course, I haven't seen DEEP IMPACT yet...

PLEASANTVILLE: When it came out, PLEASANTVILLE was hailed as an intelligent metaphor for the value of individualism in society. Which it is. But I also took it as a metaphor for what's wrong with Hollywood. See, Hollywood is Pleasantville - everyone blithely running on autopilot, happy in their black and white world where change is viewed as the worst possible option. In other words, "Let's make a film out of GENTLE BEN - I guarantee we can get Clint Howard for a cameo!" What Hollywood needs is a big healthy shot of original thinking, of creativity, of allowing each film to stand on its own, to be unique. Time to stop making films based on other films that have been successful. Time to start making films that have a mind of their own, and aren't afraid of the consequences of being different. Time to... aw, who am I kidding? Go ahead, make GENTLE BEN. And if you need a rewrite, you know where to find me.

GODZILLA: I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for screwing this script up as badly as it was screwed up. There are more miscalculations in the GODZILLA screenplay than the White House defense strategy. I mean, it's not like they didn't have a blueprint already laid out for them. Unfortunately, they ignored what it was that made Godzilla so popular, and wrote the script based on what they thought audiences wanted from a Hollywood extravaganza. It's very simple - the character of Godzilla has remained popular over the years because:

A: Audiences like Godzilla

B: Audiences hate Godzilla

Hmmm. Very tough choice. Let me take a stab at this - Godzilla is popular because... people like him? Bzzzt! Correct answer! Of course they like him! (Him, her, it - whatever.) And it's this inherent feeling of goodwill that seems never to have occurred to the filmmakers. Here's what I mean - about halfway through the film Godzilla (who we learn is preggers) is killed by a submarine in the waters off New York. Like the water alone wouldn't be enough to kill him (her, it - whatever). Why do the filmmakers kill off Godzilla at this point? Because they've got a trick up their sleeve. They're gonna up the ante, see? If one big Godzilla was cool, think how cool hundreds of little Godzillas would be! Now, in a story meeting, this may seem like a good idea. I'm gonna tell you why it's not. Ready? It's not a good idea because they killed Godzilla right at the moment where the audience is beginning to feel sympathy for her (him, it - whatever). So not only are you now without your main antagonist, you're without an antagonist you've begun to feel for. But rather than address those feelings, the filmmakers decide to have our heroes battle a bunch of little Godzillas we don't give a hoot about. Suddenly it's gone from a film which could have gotten interesting to an inferior ALIENS rip-off. And oh yeah - Godzilla's not really dead. Oooh. Shocking. Only now when she (he, it - who cares already!!!) wants to kill our heroes it's because they slaughtered all the little Godzillas. But it's too late - we don't feel any sympathy for Godzilla's act of motherly retribution... we just want the stupid movie to be over with already. (Besides, if she was such a good mother, where was she when all her eggs were hatching? Huh? Answer me that!) GODZILLA is a case of the filmmakers trying to top what they've seen in other Hollywood product, and ignoring what was effective about their subject matter in the first place.

ENEMY OF THE STATE: What? What's that? I'm sorry, I can't hear you - I just saw ENEMY OF THE STATE and seem to have lost my hearing.

BOOGIE NIGHTS: Okay, it came out in 1997, but I saw it in 1998. It's my list, I can include it if I want. BOOGIE NIGHTS has many of the same qualities that I enjoyed so much in A BUG'S LIFE. Yup - steamy sex. (Just kidding. The sex in A BUG'S LIFE was more kinky than steamy.) What both films share is a contagious love of moviemaking. Paul Thomas Anderson directs BOOGIE NIGHTS with so much energy, and so much nerve, that I was blown away by the sheer love of the medium on display. He's unafraid to take chances, whether it be risky subject matter or using filmic techniques that have fallen out of favor. Every once in a while you'll hear some young filmmaker dubbed 'the new Scorsese' - well, whether he has that caliber of career ahead of him is unknowable, but Anderson reminds me of Scorsese in his willingness to play with the medium and take chances that most other filmmakers seem too scared or uninspired to attempt. BOOGIE NIGHTS would fit nicely on a double bill with GOODFELLAS, I think. And for me, that's saying something.

JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES: A guilty pleasure if there ever was. If you didn't like this movie, I won't argue with you. I'll nod my head understandingly and agree - it's very lacking in many ways. But there's one part of the film which isn't lacking, and that's James Woods. There's a scene in VAMPIRES which illustrates why I enjoy James Woods so much. He plays a vampire hunter hired by the Vatican. When most of his vampire hunting team is wiped out by a super powerful and gothically chic vampire, he goes to a representative of the church to find out who betrayed them. I think I'm getting this right. Well, close enough. Anyway, the church guy assigns a young, idealistic priest to travel with Woods, who is certain that the young priest knows more than he's letting on. Okay, now here's the scene: Woods takes the young priest into a bathroom, and tells him that if he doesn't give up the information Woods' character wants, he's going to have to start "cutting on him". The young priest once again denies knowledge. At this point Woods stuffs a dirty towel into the priest's mouth, pulls out a knife and raises it to slice open the priest's palm. Now, in most movies, the priest would then blurt out whatever information Woods' character desired, saving the lead actor from appearing unlikable by actually slicing him. So what does Woods do? He slices him! Which sums up why I love to watch James Woods - the guy is fearless. He doesn't give a damn whether or not you like him, if he thinks the character needs to slice up a priest then he'll be first in line, Ginsu knife in hand. We need more actors (and producers and directors and writers and executives) who aren't afraid to take a few risks. Everything doesn't have to be smarmy and likable. Everything doesn't have to be warm and fuzzy. Everything doesn't have to be PATCH ADAMS. (Unless they cast James Woods as Patch - he'd have those sick people up and out of bed, and you can bet the hospital administration wouldn't dare say boo to him, either. Now that's a feel-good movie that might actually make me feel good.)

PSYCHO: Don't get me started.

ONCE BITTEN: Why is this film on the list? Because this year it made a bigger impact on me than any film released. How come? Because the studio started sending me royalty checks again. Hoo-hah! That would make ONCE BITTEN my el numero uno favorite film of 1998, hands down, no contest, thank you Jesus!

Wave goodbye to Stanley to return to the Spew Archives!!