Reviews

I saw this movie first on the very last new episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (sniff) and it was a pretty good movie. (I think the way Mike, Crow, and Servo made fun of it made it pretty enjoyable too) Even without MST3K I still think it would be pretty good. Lots of similarities with other movies, especially James Bond, except this guy was a bad guy kinda. This was one of those rare "cheer for the bad guy" movies, and I like those movies! As I watched it though, at the back of my mind I was hearing "I've seen this before somewhere. Somewhere recent." Then it hit me as Diabolik was climbing up the castle in his white suit-- this movie was spoofed in the Beastie Boys video for "Body Movin'!" It was cool to finally see the movie that inspired such a great video.

I saw this movie the first time with a few friends, and throughout I couldn't stop laughing, it was one of the funniest movies I'd ever seen.. until...

The movie came out on pay-per-view. I remembered how much I loved it so I decided to get it. During the movie this time (the second time I'd seen it) it didn't seem as funny. I even found myself squirming in my seat a little bit. I don't know what happened, but I guess the magic in the movie died for me, it just wasn't as good the second time around. It could have been because I wasn't with my friends this time, but I doubt it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it kind of ran out of steam for me. I love Adam Sandler movies, but this one just wasn't as funny as Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison. Watch it one time, you'll laugh pretty hard, but don't try to sit through the whole thing a second time, just the football parts. 6/10

Sure it takes some stuff from other movies and uses it, but there aren't really that many movies anymore that don't borrow from other movies at least a little bit, mostly because just about everything has been done! We've seen talking animals, tornadoes, dinosaurs, aliens, demons, sinking ships, explosions (although I gotta admit I can't get enough of those), mask wearing psychopaths, guns (those either), aliens, talking babies, car chases, aliens, more aliens, asteroids, etc. over and over again! Sometimes making a good movie is taking stuff from other movies and rework them a little bit to make them better, thus adding a little bit of originality to stuff that's been seen before. That's why many old TV shows are being remade. Sure, many of the remakes suck, but what about "The Fugitive," "The Brady Bunch," and a few others I can't think of right now? There are tons of movies about Titanic, yet nobody complained when the newest watered down, bad acted teeny-bopper version hit the theaters. They made that piece of doodie the number one grossing movie!

This movie is like "The Shining" in space, but it adds a few plot elements here and there. People complain about too much gore, and I think that those people are the moviegoers who call themselves horror movie fans but have only seen movies like "Scream 1 & 2" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and all the other new horror movies that don't live up to what horror used to be. I'm not saying "Scream" was bad, that was my first real horror movie too, but after that I went and checked out it's roots, "Halloween," the original "Nightmare on Elm Street," "The Shining", and many others. Had I seen these before I'd seen "Scream" I would have looked at it as a totally different movie. But I'm not talking about "Scream," I'm talking about "Event Horizon."

It is more like the older horror movies, it doesn't water down the plot with a bunch of unnecessary and out-of-place humor. It goes right where it should, the scary stuff. Sure there might be a few plot holes, but who cares?

I feel sorry for people who analyze things that are scientifically or historically wrong with a movie when they watch it, because they aren't watching the movie for the reasons they should. There were tons of historical mistakes in Titanic. Star Wars has a lot of scientific mistakes with it. Jurassic Park probably couldn't really happen. In almost all movies set in the future, people have the power to travel at the speed of light and create wormholes, but our weapons are never quite good enough to kill a few acid-bleeding aliens or giant tank bugs. My point is, suspend your disbelief when you are watching a movie to be entertained, you just might actually like what you're watching. After you've seen it a few times then look for what's wrong with it, but don't hate it for what is wrong about it, like it for what is right about it. If you must hate a movie, at least make sure that it's because of terrible acting or a bad script or something like that. Don't hate a movie because it's not scientific fact or because it's too gory for you. I gave this 7 out of 10, because I LIKED IT DAMMIT!

The turtles are back, and they have to face Shredder again, even though they thought he was dead. This time Shredder gets his hands on some of the "Ooze" (called Mutagen in the cartoon) that transformed the turtles into what they are. He uses it to create two of his own mutants. When I heard of this plot point when I first saw it I thought we'd finally get Bebop and Rocksteady from the cartoon, but instead we get Tokka and Rahzar, two creatures even stupider than Bebop and Rocksteady were.

This movie doesn't live up to the original movie, almost not even the cartoon. The cartoon's turtle origin plot is changed almost completely for this, and I didn't like them messing with their origins. Then they stuck Vanilla Ice in there! Bad, bad move. Then they pulled the biggest Ninja Turtle no-no out there, they KILLED Shredder! I don't know why they did that, and I don't want to explain how mad I was when they did. They can't kill the turtles' ultimate nemesis, but they did. Well, at least this wasn't as bad as the third...

I was the perfect age for this movie when it came out, I was about 11 I think, and I was an obsessed fan of the cartoon. I had the video games, and so many of the action figures, you know, the ones that never stood up on their own and the weapons never fit into the hands right? But I LOVED it. I saw the trailer for the movie and I absolutely had to see it, but I couldn't because nobody took me to see it. (Nearest theater is 30 miles away.) So it came out on tape, and I HAD to have it, so I begged my parents to get it for me. When I watched it I loved it, but it was different from the cartoon. For one thing, it was darker, that didn't bother me. The turtles didn't want to fight the bad guys really, that didn't bother me. One thing that did bother me was that Splinter was actually just a rat before he became Splinter, in the cartoon he was the guy that Shredder killed in the movie that owned Splinter. No big deal I guess. The things that I really missed were Krang, the little brain guy from the cartoon, and Bebop and Rocksteady, the warthog and rhino, also from the cartoon. I've read that this movie was more like the comics were, (I never got to read them) so I guess that's where the differences were spawned from, but I think they could have added Krang, Bebop and Rocksteady so that it would be a nice blend between cartoon and comics, for people that missed out on one of the two. As I watch the movie now though, I don't see it as that great of a movie, but it's still fun to watch.

This is what fans of the series were waiting for, a sequel that focused more on Chucky than it did on Andy, who became more and more of a wuss as he got older. Brad Dourif seems to have lots of fun voicing Chucky, and will always make his lines memorable. My favorite conversation in the movie is when Chucky first talks to Tiffany, and she asks how he's been and he replies "Peachy!" I don't know why, but it seemed so cool to hear Chucky say that. Now onto some of the series' famous plot holes. In this one, Tiffany had to chant Chucky's incantation to bring him back to life, but in the other two sequels he came to life once he was rebuilt. I have no theory for this one. The other was the previously unmentioned medallion. Chucky could have transferred his soul into Andy before without it, but now to transfer his soul he needs this medallion. (In the first movie, it was said that Chucky needed to transfer his soul into the first person who found out who he really was.) My theory for this is as follows: Chucky was still the same doll as he was at the end of part 3, so he'd have to find that little kid that he told his real name to in that, but it would be too much trouble to find him when he could just get his medallion and transfer his soul into whomever he wanted. Tiffany needed it because the first person who knew who she really was is Chucky, and neither of them would want that, so they need to find the medallion. Like the Evil Dead series, the first ones were both almost strictly horror, the middle ones added some dark comedy, and the last ones were both almost all comedy. Bride of Chucky is loads of fun to watch, it is more entertaining than all of the other three, but the first one is still the best. The girl who plays Jade is very pretty, but Jennifer Tilly is gorgeous as always. While the ends of the first three left you wondering whether or not there would be a sequel, this one leaves almost no doubt. If the next movie, which as of now is called Son of Chucky, is half as entertaining as this one, I'll be one of the first people in line to see it.

Child's Play 3 has one of the BIGGEST plot holes in the series. This one was released a year or two after part 2, but Andy has aged like 7 years. Still, I love seeing Chucky!! I can't get enough of him, but I think that if Brad Dourif ever stops voicing him that I won't like him as much anymore. This has more humor thrown in, which is good, because you can't expect many horror movies to take themselves too seriously after the second sequel. Another plot hole is that instead of transferring his soul into Andy, Chucky wants to transfer his soul into the other little kid. (In the first movie, it was said that Chucky had to transfer his soul into the first person he told who he really was) I have a theory on this however. Maybe since Chucky was completely melted down and turned into a whole new doll he got another chance to tell someone else his secret, so I guess that's ok. There is a similar plot hole in Bride of Chucky, and I have a theory on that one too, so read my review for that if you get a chance. This is my least favorite in the series, mostly because of the fact that Andy aged so much from the second one, but it's still fun to watch.

This movie is DEFINITELY not as good as the first, or even the fourth, but it is nice to see Chucky running around killing people again. However, this movie had a few plot inconsistencies with the first, as do the other two sequels, mostly the fact that Andy's mother was committed, even though there were two other people who saw that Chucky was alive at the end of the first one. A good way to fix that would have been to have Chucky somehow kill the two cops at the end of the first movie, but I guess it's too late for that. Alex Vincent, who played Andy in each of the first two movies, seems worse in this one than he did in the first, almost like he had some acting talent then lost it. He just seems so... sleepy or something. Sure he seems a little bit stronger now, but he should be a little smarter than he was in the first movie. Brad Dourif is great once again as Chucky. Brad gives Chucky his own personality, and I'm sure that if Chucky were voiced by someone else the movies wouldn't be half as good as they are. This one has a bit more humor than the first one did, but still not as much as Bride of Chucky.

The first Child's Play is my personal favorite in the series, followed by Bride of Chucky, then parts 2 and 3. I think that Chucky is one of the coolest movie villains ever, and he's got what some of the other villains don't---personality. He's got a sense of humor, which is good. I kinda hate seeing him get killed, but like he says at the end of Bride of Chucky "Go ahead and kill me!! I'll come back! I *always* come back!" then to himself--"but dying is such a b**ch!" The acting is pretty good, and I thought that the kid who plays Andy was a lot better in the first one, when he was like 6, than he was in the second one, where he was 10 or 11. He seems sleepy throughout the whole second movie, but in this one he seems like a regualar 6 year old kid--a regular 6 year old kid with a doll from HELL!!! A commenter before me said that one problem was that nobody believed Andy and his mother first, but c'mon, how many people do you actually think would believe someone who said that their doll was killing people? That was pretty much the point of the movie! All inall a great horror movie, with just a touch of comedy thrown in.

This is a great cult movie, I remember seeing it for the first time when I was very young. The copy was destroyed by a family friend unfortunately, and I all but forgot about this movie, until the magic of the internet was brought into my home. I purchased a copy on line, and fell in love all over again. You can ask a hundred people about this movie, and not many will have heard about it, but once they've seen it, they'll never forget it. The Hamlet plot similarities are great, and fun to point out to people. The weird thing is, Strange Brew was actually the subtitle of the movie, the title was "The Adventures of Bob & Doug MacKenzie: Strange Brew", so the title of the sequel should be "The Adventures of Bob & Doug MacKenzie 2: Home Brew", but who am I to nitpick one of the greatest movies of all time? I can't wait for the sequel! This movie is an excellent companion to the Bob and Doug Album, titled "The Great White North." Loads of beer fun!!

I usually don't like dramas on TV, they're usually boring and way too overrated. However, HBO opened my eyes with this amazing mafia drama. I think that dramas fail to capture my attention on the other networks is because of the censorship of what really happens in real life, like swearing, sex, murder, etc. On HBO just about anything goes, so the writers are free to put whatever they feel is necessary to convey what goes on in the show. The actors are all superb, and I have a crush on the girl who plays Meadow. She's incredibly beautiful.

Like "The Godfather," this series doesn't really focus on the crime involved in the mafia, and it never really glorifies it too much, but is more about the two families of the main character, his genetic family and his mob family. I haven't seen all of the 13 original episodes yet, but I look forward to seeing them, and to the new season which is supposed to start in January 2000.

This is what other dramas wish they could be. One that comes to mind that to me is way overrated is Dawson's Creek. I am a member of the target audience for that show, but it bores me to tears.

I am one of the members of the target audiences for this movie, a horny teenaged male, but I didn't think this movie was all that great. It is advertised as a comedy, which it is, there are some funny parts, but they threw in a lot of sentimental stuff and slow parts in here. Like Something About Mary, I thought this movie was way overrated. A few attempts at gross-out humor and some phallus jokes do not a good movie make. South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut, which was released just a week before this, was a lot funnier, raunchier, and more fun to watch. The funny parts do not make up for the slow boring parts. The movie tries to make you laugh one second and then feel for the characters the next, but for me it didn't work. Good scenes: The beginning scene, the pie scene, any scene with Jim and his father, the Jim and Michelle sex scene, the Fitch and the one guy's mother scene (MILF-Mother I'd Like to F**k), and the scene with Jim and Nadia. Bad scenes: just about everything else. The slow moving parts that try and give the characters feelings and stuff, which doesn't belong in a teen sex comedy. So if you have a choice between this and South Park, if I was you I'd go with South Park. Or, if you still want to see a good sex comedy, go out and rent Porky's Fast Times at Ridgemont High, or National Lampoon's Animal House.

I loved this movie. It is a great version of the show, only it's "Bigger, Longer and (somewhat) Uncut." It had a lot of humor that wouldn't be for everyone though. If you're easily offended, then don't go see this, because it picks on just about everybody. It was very artistic, the construction paper looks excellent on the big screen, and even though it's animated, it has some great special effects, especially Kenny's trip to Hell, and the Hell sequences in general. The fire mixed very well with the animation. The musical numbers were mostly great, but they could have done without the Saddam Hussein song or the Satan song. The rest were really funny. The Saddam/Satan thing got kind of old, but Kenny giving advice to Satan was good. There are a lot of hidden and "in" jokes for fans of the show. Lots and lots of profanity. And you finally get to see Kenny's face and hear his voice sans hood. I'm still trying to decide if that was a good move or not. A GREAT cameo by George Clooney. I recommend this movie for anyone with a strong stomach and a good sense of humor. 8/10 stars.

This is the kind of humor John Leguizamo is really good at. He is a very talented comedian, and if his life was actually like this growing up then I have a whole new respect for him, even after the Pest. If he could have had this kind of humor in the Pest it would have been a great movie.

This show just proves that reality is stranger than fiction, from guys who think that if the economy collapses from the Y2K thing that Pez Dispensers would be the new unit of currency to a woman who claims that the ghost of Jesus Christ came to her and asked her to paint a portrait of him to a guy who mummifies dead pets. No matter who hosts this show, as long as the writers keep on top of their material it will be great. I just want to know one thing though, where is Brian Unger? He was the best correspondant and would have made an EXCELLENT host had Jon Stewart not come along.

In the 50's there were a lot of horror films made by people who wanted them taken seriously. 40 years later they're looked at as some of the worst movies ever made, but they're still loved for their B-movie/camp factors. After a very few good horror movies, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, etc., and a slew of terrible ones, Halloween III, Nightmare on Elm Street 5, etc., the days of laughably bad horror movies had all but disappeared. The only way you could see one was if you watched Mystery Science Theater 3000, and then came Army of Darkness. It was a great balance between horror and comedy, and it never really took itself too seriously. Then there was some more time spent without a good laughable horror movie. Then came Jack Frost, it was the anti-horror movie. After the "revitalization" of the horror genre by Scream, a lot of terrible horror movies started coming out again, but no laughable ones. Jack Frost is a great cheese fest. Anyone who gives this movie a bad rating isn't looking at it for what it is, an homage to the B/campy horror movies of the 50's. It ranks right next to Army of Darkness as a mix between horror and comedy. I like AoD better, but this one is still a lot of fun to watch. AoD also had two preceding movies to build on which gave it a bit more "experience." This movie may have some doorway for a sequel. I would love to see a sequel to this movie, just to see how they could make me laugh some more. 7 out of 10

There are a lot of horror films out there today, some of them eventually rise to the status of classics (Nosferatu, Dracula, etc.), others are cult classics (Evil Dead, Evil Dead II, etc., and others are pieces of crap that should never have been made (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Any Nightmare on Elm Street not directed by Wes Craven, etc.). This is a classic, and a great one at that. It's not close to the book by Stephen King, but it is a great standalone horror movie. I admit it, I absolutely hated this movie the first time I saw it, but I watched it again. And again. And again. I grew to love it. It is an amazing piece of work, great cast of only about 6 real characters, and only three of them are main characters, the rest are supporting characters. Jack Nicholson is a template for what many movie psychos should (and try, but rarely succeed) to be. I read the book after I saw this movie, and I recommend seeing this first then reading the book. Then watch it again. Lots of differences, but when you get down to it, it's the same story told by two different storytellers in their own way, King and Kubrick, much as the story of Cinderella differs from nationality to nationality. You may think that your version is good, but at least take a glance at someone else's. 10 out of 10

This movie was excellent. I was blown away by the effects and the plot. The actors were top notch, even Keanu. I think this is one of the three roles I thought he was good in, the other two being his role in the Devil's Advocate and his role of a stoner in Love You to Death. Lawrence Fishburne finally gets a role he deserves, I think he's underappreciated in his roles. So he's kinda got bad teeth, so did Austin Powers. Trinity was YUMMY and the villains were evil. The fighting scenes were really cool.

Part western, part thriller, part social analysis, I purchased this movie on a whim, I had never seen it, never heard anything about it, the only way I knew it existed was that it was on The Movie Channel once. I just remembered the title and bought it. When I first watched it I was amazed. It was an excellent movie, and it had the stories of many people past and present that all get tied up in a nice little package at the end. It is similar to Tarantino's movies in that way, and the way Tarantino uses flashbacks to tell more of the story. It was very deep and entertaining, and it should have won some oscars. Simply put I loved this movie, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes to think while they watch movies.

I didn't really think this movie was bad. Sure, the detective kinda sucked at what he did, and he usually happened upon Capt. Howdy by accident, but he got the job done. Capt. Howdy himself was pretty scary. The make-up artist did a great job. I really liked seeing Dee dressed up all geeky. I laughed so hard when I saw that. I personally don't see how someone can sit through crap like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and call it a great movie, and then watch Strangeland, which is more disturbing because a lot of it could actually happen with the internet being so popular, and call it bad. I personally think that Texas Chainsaw Massacre was loads of crap. Probably one of the stupidest movies that I've ever seen. I enjoyed Strangeland. It was a very disturbing movie because almost all of it actually happens.

This movie wasn't meant for you to think while you watched it. It's about violence and sex and nudity, plain and simple. Don't try to analyze and deep psychological meaning to it, there isn't any. It is more of a popcorn action flick than anything, it's more funny than it truly intends to be. While the whole concept is interesting, it should and could have been done a little better. This movie is more along the lines of a Jean Claude van Damme flick than a Ken Shamrock thing. You could have replaced Shamrock with van Damme and hardly told a difference, except for the accent. This movie would be great fodder for a show like MST3K.

I had to read Hamlet in my world literature class. I thought I would be bored stiff, but when we were done I found out I loved this play. We watched the Mel Gibson version. I thought it was pretty good, until I saw this version on TV the next day. Don't get me wrong, I think Mel is a great actor, he makes great movies. He made a good Hamlet, but the abridged version of the play didn't do him justice. The four hour length is really nothing, the movie can keep your attention if you let it. My very favorite part is Hamlet's speech as he holds the skull of the jester, it made me actually feel what Hamlet was feeling as he said it. It is more modern than the play, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I liked the way the ghost scene went, with the earthquakes and fire, and the way the voice of the ghost echoed. Kenneth makes a great Hamlet, and Kate Winslet looks pretty damn good. Hamlet is the story that makes me want to read more Shakespeare. Romeo & Juliet (the play and the Leo movie) suck compared to this. I plan to buy a copy of this movie and the play.

I loved this movie from the first time I saw it when I was about 6 or 7, but 10 years later I'm fully able to appreciate the subtle adult humor. This is probably my favorite "scary" movie. The plot is great and the actors really bring the characters to life, (or afterlife in most cases.) The waiting room scenes are great, but my two most favorite sequences are the snake railing and the end where Beetlejuice lets loose. I hope for a sequel, and yet I hope they never make a sequel at the same time, because it just wouldn't do it justice. The cartoon didn't even do the movie justice, what happened to Adam and Barbara? And why did Lydia become such good friends with Beetlejuice? The special effects in this movie are excellent, especially for the time the movie was made. Too bad filmmakers today don't rely more on their own creations rather than computers.

I, like many other people who have actually seen this, watched it on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It was absolutely hilarious to hear the comments on it; ex. "All right skull, pop out of my head!", and "Why does everyone in this movie doubt everyone else's ability to MOVE!", and all of the nicknames for the hero. The "com-pyoo-tor" thing was funny, as was the way Crow (I believe it was Crow, anyway) said, "It's awfully nice of the captain to give that dead girl a second chance." Without MST3K, this movie would be unbearable, but with MST3K, it's a riot.

Movies with losing teams that suddenly start winning when one person (or in this case, an animal) joins are a dime a dozen. Mighty Ducks 1 2 and 3, Little Big League, Rookie of the Year, Little Giants, etc., etc...., so why are they still being made? The plots are always predictable and these films are always directed at kids. The Waterboy is similar, but they injected enough adult humor into it to make it work out greatly. Now this film had a sequel come out less than a year after the first hit theaters, and a third one to come out in 1999. Why? I, personally, have seen enough movies with this overdone plotline. Just once I'd like to see a movie where a winning team signs on someone they think is great, but they really stink, and they have to stay on the team and keep playing because of a contract, and eventually the team ends up in last place. Maybe this will be the basis of the third film, the dog gets worms or something. Then I'll see it.