Reviews

I almost did not see "Peter Pan" in the theaters because of its previews. They left me with the impression that the film was dark and unpleasant, even creepy.

I am SO GLAD I chose to go anyway... What I discovered was a true delight -- a wonderfully told, beautifully photographed telling of the Peter Pan story that stays very true to the original James Barrie material. While certainly darker than the Disney animation, I found it well suited for my entire family. I don't take my boys to half the things Hollywood says are "appropriate" for them, but this Peter Pan held their attention through multiple viewings.

Agreed that Jeremy Sumpter is not as strong in the title role as others might have been, but he grew on me after a while. The other actors are amazing. Rachel Hurd-Wood is captivating, and Jason Isaacs (known more nowadays as Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter films) was absolutely incredible, bringing to the screen the stage tradition of having the same actor play both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook. I enjoyed both characters on my first viewing and was astonished when his dual roles were revealed in the closing credits.

Parts of this film are so beautiful -- both the aerial dance and the flying ship are just breathtaking -- and so perfectly scored that I found my eyes moist with tears of joy. Sit down with your family and enjoy this amazing film together. I give Peter Pan 9 out of 10 stars.

When The Omega Code, a similar Revelation-based Christian movie, was released in 1999, I couldn't stand it. In my review, though, I made reference to this then-in-production film as one I hoped would be a better movie on the same subject. I was wrong. This is awful.

The directing is muddled, the acting third-rate, and believable effects almost non-existent. It takes a special kind of talent to be able to create such a dud out of such a gripping, best-selling page-turner of a novel.

The Left Behind books are still amazing, as is The Book -- the source material in the Bible. Stick with them.

With "A Mighty Wind," Christopher Guest shows that he can consistently create what today is a rarity: a comedy that is actually funny. That he does so using the same troupe of actors in each film just adds to the wonder and enjoyment.

Audiences accustomed to humor involving oversexed teens and immoral acts with pies might have difficulty adjusting to the understated tone of humor in Guest's trio of mockumentaries. The laughs come not from outrageous situations, but from watching and listening to quirky, only slightly exaggerated characters interact in their own little specialized worlds: small-town theater, championship dog shows, and now folk music.

We can laugh at the characters in these films, but it's a laugh of familiarity. We know these people. We may even be these people. The laughter that comes brings just the barest hint of discomfort, for we know we all might appear just as ridiculous if Guest's cameras followed us around.

When I first visited Disneyland, I was disappointed, at least for the first hour or two. I was used to amusement parks with really wild rides that shook you around and scared you. Only when I realized that Disney was going for FUN instead of THRILLS did I relax and enjoy myself. My expectations of what an amusement park should be had been in the way.

Likewise, your expectations of what a movie comedy should be can get in your way when viewing Waiting for Guffman. If you have been raised on Hollywood's standard punchline-a-minute or gross-out comedies and are expecting the same here, you will be disappointed. The humor is subtle and character-driven.

That having been said, Guffman is funnier than a dozen in-your-face movie comedies put together. Director Christopher Guest assembled a group of talented actors and assigned to each of them a small-town character. He then gave each character the opportunity to be an UN-talented actor in a community production. The majority of the dialog is unscripted, and the show the "actors" are called on to do is horrendously bad, but laughs flow from the sincerity of the characters and their (very unearned) high opinion of their talent and their show.

Full of gentle digs at small-town life and amateur theater, Waiting for Guffman is not your typical comedy, but it is very funny and well worth your time -- as long as you don't expect it to be something it's not.

Oh, and as noted elsewhere in these user comments, don't miss the closing credits. I'm still hoping to locate some "My Dinner With Andre" action figures and a "Remains of the Day" lunchbox.

This is a film that -- once you get past the totally unbelievable concept, that divorcing parents would each take a twin and raise them with no knowledge of or contact with the other -- is a great deal of fun. My wife & I loved it when we saw it on a date, and my kids (both under age 7) think it's hilarious.

Kudos to Lindsay Lohan and the special effects folks for making us forget that only one girl is playing both twin parts, a vast improvement over the original with Hayley Mills. Also to Lisa Ann Walter and Simon Kunz for scene-stealing performances as Chessy & Martin, the two girls' nanny & butler.

Keep your eyes & ears open for a few sly references to the original 1961 "Parent Trap."

Some films take paragraphs to analyze, at least for me (as you know if you've read any of my other lengthy reviews). This one is pretty simple:

Okay story. Okay dialogue. Stunning visuals.

A note on the speaking animals: In creating Dinosaur, Disney debated whether to have the dinosaurs speak or just to have them make, well, dinosaur noises, with or without a narration. Choosing to have them speak was a trade-off: characterization and story-telling doubtless became easier, but they lost a lot of the majesty and awe that the visuals inspire. It would be an interesting experiment to take the film and remove the speech, and see if the story would be understandable with only animal noises and the score.

Still, as it is, it is worth a look.

It took exactly ONE viewing of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" for me to become permanently and irrevocably hooked. This is not only the funniest show on television today, it is the funniest thing to happen to this country in a LONG time. A friend of mine has one standard for determining if a comedy "works," and that is if it makes him laugh out loud. "Whose Line?" will have you laughing out loud for thirty solid minutes.

I've recently had the pleasure of "discovering" (on Comedy Central) the British version of "Whose Line?" that has been going strong since 1988. It also is extremely funny, and no wonder -- it was created by the same people, stars many of the same people, and features many of the same scenarios. It also finally explains to me why the American "Whose Line" regulars have such incredible chemistry together -- they've been doing the show for over 10 years!

There are two primary differences between the two series. The obvious difference is the host, and the relative merits of each host have been discussed in other comments. I personally find Drew Carey funnier -- primarily because he has a Carson-like ability to get a bigger laugh when a scripted joke falls flat -- but both he and Clive are witty and capable. Which you will prefer is merely a matter of taste, and of little consequence, as both serve only to bridge the gap between the really funny bits.

The other difference is a slight variation in pace between the Brit and US versions, one that I have not seen discussed here. The pace of the British show tends to be faster: skits are halted earlier; actors are given opportunity for only one example for each "scene from a hat"; things like that. Now granted, I have to date only seen shows from the early years of British "Whose Line," and the pace may have slowed recently, but I like how the American version gives the actors added time to develop ideas.

Whatever your preference between the two versions, "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" is the best thing going on television today.

I love movies. LOVE them. I can't get enough of them. And since I have a young family and my job duties as an attorney DON'T include theater-going, I don't get to go nearly as often as I'd like. I cherish every opportunity I have to plant my shoes on the sticky floor, drink overpriced soda, and be swept up into a story on the big screen. That having been said, a movie has to be EXTREMELY bad for me to walk out before the last of the credits roll. I sat through all of The Omega Code, for crying out loud!

Three Kings sent me out the door. I saw most of it, mind you -- I made it through to the torture of the American soldier -- and could stomach no more. This film is the most awful, UN-patriotic piece of self-important claptrap to come out of Hollywood in who knows how long. I thought I was watching an Iraqi propaganda film straight from Saddam Hussein. You'll leave the theater feeling like you need to shower, or at least listen to Lee Greenwood sing "God Bless the U.S.A." over and over.

Left-leaning film industry elites will continue to fawn over this piece of dreck, so it will win some awards, but I urge you to stay far away from Three Kings. To borrow from Groucho Marx, "There's nothing like a good movie. And this is nothing like a good movie."

Others have described "The Omega Code's" shortcomings as a movie, and even though I am a Christian; even though I believe much of what is described in this movie will happen -- though not necessarily as "The Omega Code" portrays it -- I have to say I was disappointed in the movie as well. It could have been so much clearer, so much better, even on the producers' limited budget.

That having been said, let me suggest that those of you interested in this topic but disappointed in the movie fall back to the old cliche: forget the movie, read the Book!

In fact, besides the Bible, there is an exciting series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, beginning with "Left Behind," that dramatize the same end-time prophecies. And the "Left Behind" movie is also in pre-production at this time, with a release date sometime next year. Given the quality of the novels, it has a decent shot at being what "The Omega Code" was not -- a good movie.

Okay, I'm 35, and Roswell is fascinating. I can't say I'm >hooked -- yet -- but I'm definitely intrigued. Most impressive >so far is that the producers have taken a cool and promising >concept and added believable characters. It would have been all >too easy to, say, have the three aliens indistinguishable from >each other or, for that matter, from "normal" kids, and to have >cookie-cutter supporting roles, but after only the second >episode, most of the characters are showing depth and individuality. >Yes, I've had a lot of the same questions expressed by others >about the believability of the basic plot, but it's becoming >apparent that the show's creators are aware of these questions >as well, and intend to answer them as we discover more about the >"Czechoslovakians." That we have to wait to find out just adds >suspense. I do have to say, though, that it's a nice touch that >the ET kids are just as in the dark about their origins as we >are. >It's not a flawless show -- I'd prefer a little more excitement >and volume, and less unemotional mumbling to express tension, >plus a little more happening than "someone may be looking for us >so let's talk about maybe doing something about it" -- but I'm >willing to give Roswell time to pick up the pace. So far, when >each show ends I'm willing to tune in to the next episode, and >that's more than I can say about any other new show this season.

Okay, maybe it's worth ONE viewing, because there are some classic moments, but otherwise this film is just ludicrous, muddled, and not-at-all-good. (We can at least be grateful that Shatner didn't get to do the original story he'd planned, with the Enterprise crew really finding GOD -- then we'd have to add "blasphemous" to the list.)

Before he died, Gene Roddenberry disavowed that this movie was part of the Trek canon; one of its most basic premises was discounted in later ST:The Next Generation narration; and fans have generally (though admittedly not universally) just credited this as Bill Shatner's obligatory turn at the helm, swallowed hard, and then forgot about it in favor of the other, better Trek flicks.

The best comment on this film came from the "Star Trek" spoof in the first season of TV's "In Living Color" (with Jim Carrey as Kirk). Spock joins the rest of the crew in a mutiny against Captain Kirk. Why? Kirk asks. Spock's reply: "Because I'm smarter, stronger, and a better director!"

In 1983, the Korean-war comedy/drama series M*A*S*H, which many still consider to be one of the best television shows of all time, ended its phenomenal 11-year run. The following season, After M*A*S*H debuted. The series featured Colonel Potter, Klinger, and Father Mulcahy improbably reunited in a Midwest hospital. (Presumably the series' creators tried and failed to sign other M*A*S*H stars to the lineup.) After M*A*S*H played on the screen exactly as its title suggested -- as a desperate attempt to keep some of the former series' glory alive. Without M*A*S*H's writers, principal stars, dramatic setting -- or ratings -- it died a quick and merciful death