Reviews

I'm a big fan of, a practitioner of, and now a researcher of journalism and its impact on the world -- but did not grow up knowing who Mike Wallace was, until I was a young adult. I've read his biography, seen clips, and have followed the history of 60 minutes as an important institution among American Journalism -- so, I had high hopes for the documentary "Mike Wallace is Here". However, what I walked away with was the feeling that Mr. Wallace's film library is a treasure to delve into, I did feel like this film doesn't really do justice to who Mike Wallace was, and the legacy he left behind. The technique of splicing a bunch of footage, while certainly compelling, both of interviews done by and of Mike Wallace just didn't really congeal very well into a coherent story, and I ultimately was disappointed at the end.

I think that the filmmaker not only wanted to show who Mike Wallace was, but also what impact his style of journalism left on the profession, with some nods to our current post-fact world. Any of these topics on their own would have worked well, but putting them all together, makes the film somewhat incoherent.

The concept of this movie is a good one, and the actors are great - but the script just isn't a good one, and as many others have said here, there are scenes in this piece that I guess are supposed to add to the story, but instead just weigh it down. It feels all around like the whole production must have been rushed, and there wasn't time to go over the details. It's a fun watch, but nowhere near what it could have been.

I'm a fan of diasaster flicks, no matter how filled with cliches and cheese - so that was the first draw of the film for me. However, the poor reviews kept me from seeing the film in theatres. When I finally picked up a blu-ray copy of it, I went in skeptical - and was actually surprised that I wasn't rolling my eyes all that much. The movie gets into the main conflict, the plane crash, really quickly (6-7 minutes in), and then sort of unravels what we need to know about the two main characters from there.

Admittedly, I think it would have played a little better if these two main characters hadn't fallen in love. That whole storyline seemed like a manifestation of the two of them possibly relying on each other to survive, rather than there being some real connection. If these were two real people, I probably would say that they may have decided to date after the ordeal they went through, but wouldn't make it to the altar.

I believe that many of the bad reviews for the movie come out of there being such high stakes for a movie like this one because of the weight of the two stars - and my own theory that filmmaking these days, especially dramas, are lauded because of how far they push the limits of our viewing. Because our world has become sour, we seek characters who are in extremely worse situations then we are to actually be affected by them. Personally, I find them hit-or-miss, and more times than not, exhausting to watch. That's not what I'm looking for when I sit down to enjoy a film.

That said, that's what made me like The Mountain Between Us. Even with the survival story line, the movie as a whole is pretty light. There aren't a lot of overly gory wounds to deal with, or people who are dramatically sick, or some sort of epic blow up between two characters.

It's an original adult film that is a rarity these days. Actually enjoyable to watch without needing to put viewers through the wringer in order to make its point.

I was excited to see this program being remade, since I was a fan of the old cartoon - watching it in reruns on Nickelodeon back in the early 90's, and still enjoyed it as an adult as I began to understand the other references made in the show. However, this program thrives on more "offbeat" humor than the witty banter that was a key characteristic of the old program. The tongue in cheek references to pop culture and politics are gone, as is the charm of the low-budget, hand drawn animation.

Granted, I may not be the intended audience for this program, but I wish it hadn't tried to adopt a beloved universe in order to make another dumb kids program.

After seeing the pretty interesting trailer and reading positive reviews for this movie, I felt almost compelled to go and see it. Boy, was I misled. This movie combined two genres of film that are really starting to annoy me, the hand-held "mockumentary" style, and "let's throw some stupid teenagers into a movie and have something happen" type.

The "mockumentary" style of shooting in this movie was interesting at first, but became annoying when you encountered parts where you could only wonder... THIS is what happens to this kid, and the first thing he wants to do is record it? And the plethora of teen movie cliché's (the jock with rich parents and everything he wants, the misunderstood nerdy guy who nobody likes, the obligatory party, the underage drinking, the sex, stupid boys playing stupid tricks on people...blah, blah, blah) made me want to leave the movie early.

Not to say that I totally hate the "mockumentary" genre, I genuinely enjoyed Cloverfield. But with this film, I felt very misled by the trailer and the reviews. This movie could have been so much more than it came out to be.

I just bought this movie from blockbuster in a big sale... and while never knowing anything about it beforehand, except for it's name... had been waiting to see it. The movie is at it's core a fun thriller, and it executes that core nicely. As a fellow reviewer has stated... "it dosen't take itself too seriously" and because of that, it does it's job well.

The one big gripe I have about the film is it's first 60 minutes are pretty boring, where I as a viewer really started to wonder where the movie was going, since there wasn't a big setup for what was about to happen... except you knowing that the guy is a little creepy, and it has something to do with the girl. But, once you get beyond that, the last 28 minutes of the film fly right along, being very succinct, fast paced, and deliciously heart racing.

Nice musical score too.

Go get it! it's well worth the $5 I spent to own it.

So, I heard about Match Point awhile ago from Golden Globes buzz, and decided to go out and rent it. I've never seen a Woody Allen film before in my life, so I wouldn't find myself being biased just because of the name behind the camera... and because of that, I can say that while the film was OK, it's nowhere near perfect.

The only thing I will really say about this film, without giving too much away is that what keeps this film from being truly great, is character and plot development. When I watched it, I felt that everything moved along a little bit too cleanly, and a little bit too much like a movie. Maybe that was the point... maybe it wasn't supposed to mimic life as much as I would have liked it to but, with the exception of the last 30 minutes of the film (which did keep me wondering what would happen... and held my attention), everything's cleanly cut, cleanly shot, and is the same married man has affair story... needs to/wants to end it....and not much more.

For a more interesting twist on this particular plot, and the consequences of it, see the masterful Diane Lane in "unfaithful"... it's more raw, and hits the viewer's core a bit stronger than this piece, which might have worked better if released about 15-20 years ago.

Alright, just like the first Saw, you have yet another movie in this franchise with an incredible premise that hooks you whether you're a film auteur, or just a a sole entertainment movie viewer. However, ... ONCE AGAIN, the film's execution is abysmal.

The biggest problem I have is with the ultimate scrapping of the characters. Every single one of them, INCLUDING the "star" Jigsaw, fall so flat, that we could care less about who lives and who dies...maybe that's the idea...but how about making the affecting the audience with that idea?? We always like to see the demise of the antagonist.. we like to see the protagonist win.. and even when the plot that these people are in twist and turn, and we're up in the air on who's which it can be effective... but, this movie scraps all those ideas and just takes the thought process of watching dots run around on a filthy screen, with some Karo syrup blood thrown in to say "This is a horror movie".

However, I'll applaud the producers..because they knew what they were doing. I watched Saw I & hated it but, still decided to see the sequel (although, it was from a $1 a night redbox DVD rental).

To sum it all up... You'll see blood, you'll cringe... and ultimately, you won't care.

I went into this movie ready to enjoy a really good movie going experience, as I know the director Tim Burton could put so much into this film and make more than just an "Entertaining" film. But, I walked out of the theater thinking that Burton's voice may have been stifled by the producers of the movie. There were parts of the movie where we started to get some character development but, I felt that all the characters, including Willy Wonka & Charlie Bucket, came out very flat. The story seemed very formulatic and a little TOO simplistic for my tastes, knowing that a big director like Tim Burton was involved. ANYONE could have done this movie the way that Burton did.

Yes, Yes, Yes... I know that at it's core, this film is supposed to be a children's movie but, it dangles somewhere in-between light & fun, & mysterious and dark... and finding it's tone was very difficult to do.

If anything, I at least enjoyed the title sequence along with Danny Elfman's inventive opening theme.... however, after that... I found that the songs win which the Oompa-Loompa's were showcased were inaudible, distasteful, & just embarrassing to watch.

To sum it all up... this was a prime example of today's Hollywood. Another movie which could have been so much more, and I think ultimately wanted to be so much more... but ultimately missed it's mark.

Some people have said that you shouldn't believe everything that the critics have said about this movie... but, unfortunately, I have to agree with them. I saw a review of this movie in Entertainment Weekly, and I believe that they gave it a D. Which may have been a little harsh, but the movie deserved no more than a C... MAYBE.

The movie has a lot of plot holes... and no real story to it. The film never connected with me. I never connected with the characters, and I was still waiting to be attached to the story. But, it never happened.

The movie was beautifully shot, and acted well... but, can someone please tell me what it was supposed to be about?

OK, I gave this movie a 3. So, you can probably guess what I'm gonna say about it. The movie wasn't even scary. When this movie came out, I came close to going to see it myself because I thought that the premise was amazing. Two guys in one room, with very, very, hard choices to make of how they were going to get out of the situation. Yeah, that's part of the story... but, the story, the performances, and even the images on screen leaves me to wonder.. how these guys actually got a studio to release this thing.

The movie has almost no point of making you watch it (not even a good amount of gross out images), all of the characters are totally 2 dimensional, the acting was HORRIBLE, and the sets looked like they cost $5 to build. I can appreciate the premise and how interesting it was... but, this movie could have been so much more than it was.

OK... first off, let me say that I am a devout disaster movie fan. I have a number of disaster DVD's in my collection which range from subtle messages (The China Syndrome) to the slam, whish BANG (Towering Inferno). So, usually going into a disaster movie, I know not to expect too much because the genre, at many times seems to kill itself by it's subject matter. Case in point, The Day After Tomorrow.

When I saw the previews, I knew I had to see it. So, I went out on it's first day of release and saw it and I have to say that I was totally dissapointed in this movie. I concluded that Mr. Emmerich has either watched too many or not enough disaster movies in his time. The movie was filled with evey cliche' (I need to find my son, whom I need to spend more time with, NOW that I'm faced with the fact that he may be dead), every stupid villian (the MEAN vice president), the token special effects that override every other thing in the movie (twisters in LA!), and most of all , the citizens of the United States, being cast as the dumbest, spoiled, inconsiderate people on the face of this earth. (Because obviously, the president knows everything.)

Anyway, let me sum it up, as someone else has commented, this film could have been so much more... I would have felt great about the movie if I could have walked out of it feeling scared as hell that this could actually happen. I would have felt good if the destruction of the world (because we all live in New York and LA) could have been spread out in more than the first 30 minutes of the movie, and I would have felt OK if everyone in this movie wasn't so gosh darn stupid (because obviously, if a twister touched down in our backyards, we would try and videotape it from 30 feet away while our house is being torn down.)

I'll probably buy the DVD when it comes out at christmas time and when I hear Dennis Quaid in the behind the scenes documentary on the disc (AND IT BETTER HAVE ONE) say "Roland really knew how to write a smart, thrilling disaster movie" or.. "this film really shows what could happen with the way that we are destroying our world" I will laugh out loud, while riding down the street in my H2 and in the same sentence complain about how much I'm paying to keep it filled up, because it's my duty as an American!....... Right?

I love the comments that I'm seeing on this board. I totally agree with most of the people here that 1st to Die was horrible. While it stayed pretty faithful to the book, it was still inexplicably horrible. I can't believe it was 3 hours long! I was so mad at the performances, I couldn't even watch half of it.

The book is spectacular like all of Patterson's novels but, like others have said... filmmakers have yet to make a decent adaptation of one of them... Mr Patterson, are you actually watching these movies? Aren't you mad at what hollywood is reducing them to? This movie was basically a sweeps ratings boost. You can't have it come out that fast and not think that. Sir, please ask these screenwriters... is it that hard to do this right???

I just got done watching the DVD... which I was intrigued to see after listening to the book on tape... which was HILARIOUS.. However, this movie was a big celluloid stink. The movie has no character development at all with the exception of a less than stellar narration for the characters, and even though I know that not all of the book would fit into the movie... this still STUNK... I'm a fan of Dave Barry's now, and would love to see or direct a live action version of "Tricky Buisness", but Sonnenfeld and whomever the screenwriter was need not to be so excited to be working for a Pulitzer Prize winner and do a better job. The actors didn't even have me convinced!

If You want real laughs, listen to the audiobook of Big Trouble voiced by Dick Hill... HILARIOUS!

I went to see John Q not too long ago with some friends and let me say that after seeing this and really not thrououghly enjoying this film, I know that I have a real sense for the moving picture now... so, I say to all of you that like to analyze the art of moving pictures... don't go into the movie expecting too much.. except for the performances.

I'll keep my comments ASAP (as short as possible)

I really didn't enjoy the movie for the fact that I saw the trailer and thought that this movie would be the BOMB late-winter flick, and DENZEL... well, 'nuff said. But, I came out feeling very, very unsatisfied, feeling like the movie played me for a fool.

Why? you may ask? Well, This flick seems a good movie for "entertainment value" but, it's a sappy and shallow as a old chicken grease filled coffee can. Now, you see... a movie can be sappy and work well... (with a good script) even a shallow movie can work (if you got some stuff blowing up in it) but, this movie has neither... and ultimatley, my feeling is that it's too shallow and makes fun of itself too much to much to be serious and it's too serious to be a complete satire of as you may have been hearing about the American HMO system.

So, to sum it all up... the movie is good because of the performances of the entire Archibald family (Denzel, Ms. Elise, and the adorable son) (also, The song (by stevie wonder???) proceeding the son's fall along with the images definatley pulls at your heart strings.)

BUT...

The movie fails in it's scripting departments

Well, 1st off I haven't seen "Silence of the Lambs" yet.... but, I think that I would have become sick if I would have seen it before this piece. Not from the gruesome violence but, from the lack of everything else. Anthony Hopkins was very good as Hannibal and I really believed that he was as psychotic as he played himself off to be but, from the reaction of the audience around me, the film was filled with cliches from "Silence" which left me lost at points where others were laughing at what was on the screen.

Now, I heard that the movie would be very gruesome and if the director wanted to gross folks out... he did it... but, only in 2 sequences? I mean, if you want it to be gruesome and I mean, so gruesome that you're going to play the film off of that... you need more than 2 sequences.. I always see it as a film has to either become that cinematic jewel which will ultimatley take you to another place and time or either go over the top (which most of the time is done in bad taste). But, this film left me sitting in my chair and falling asleep at times.

Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore are the stars of the movie, right? Well, with the exception of Hopkins, I didn't feel that way.. Who cared about the stupid Italian police officer? I definatley didn't. So, really the film is left with a big hole talking about a guy who dies anyway. I mean, come on.. who cares?

In a nutshell, the movie is good if you want to see Lector and Starling once again but, if you're going for a really good thriller... you'll jump once and be grossed out maybe twice. Depends on your level.

Thinking about how much money this movie will bring in... there will probably be another "Hannibal" made and this movie probably won't be on video until the fall. If you must see it.. wait and save the $3.50 - $4.00 and get it on video. Don't spend the big bucks on this film.

I won't start out by critisizing the movie as it may look like I am but, there were more weak points than good ones. The special effects first off are some of the most spectacular that I've ever seen... the premise is highly interesting but, the story and actors are totally boring. Kevin Bacon is pretty good as the protagonist of the film but, once his DNA structure leaves the film, so do the other characters and most of the acting. I really think that if the director was going to make a film with a premise of this calibur and a script of this mess, he could have at least filled it with more SFX... and that could have kept my attention from after the first 15-minutes to the last 30. along with the other people who saw the film. In a nutshell, the special effects are great but, don't go if you're looking for good character development and acting because it ain't there.

I went to see this movie and even though I did'nt care too much for the first one, (Mainly because I saw it like 5,999,999,999 times) I really liked this movie. There were some real funny scenes especially with Mike Epps. I did'nt care much for the Joker brothers but, I liked Ms. Ho-Wang. I wish she would have been in it some more. I think the story could have been better developed and you could have had a slightly better climax but, this movie is straight laughs!! I would recommend it over "Any Given Sunday"!!

This film is a beautiful work of art. In the writing and visual aspects. It is also a very good movie to see with the one you love. Females will like it because of the "NOT Till Death Do Us Part" aspect and the Guys I think, will enjoy the multitude of special effects. Yes, the film is crammed with them but, they aren't so many that they completely leave the story in the dark. I will say that I thought that the end could have been a little more explained instead of "We all live happily ever after" (Before the 2nd chance) And what I think were flashbacks kind of confused me but, in all, Great Movie!

If you're looking for a consideration for a good weekend flick, pick this one. It's probably just as good as that new release that you know won't be back on the shelf until the middle of next month and won't cost as much. The movie has great casting (especially with Pam Grier as Jackie Brown and Samuel L. Jackson as Robbie), great acting, a smooth old school soundtrack, and a pretty complex but, flowing story. It's hard to find that in a movie these days. It's either that the story is too complex to follow from the first 30 minutes of the film, or too flowing to keep the watcher's attention. Great Film. Check it out. (No, I don't work for Miramax.)