Reviews

This is another woulda, shoulda, coulda film. Instead, it relies on exaggerated generalities for it's laughs...Why? Aren't we all a little tired of "punk" meaning dressing like Cyndi Lauper's cast-offs?

I appreciate the fact that the kids in the film actually play their instruments...that's a huge improvement over the typical Hollywood rock film, but do we really need another film where the music is incredibly vanilla, but is passed off as radical?

The film's plot is a bit of a mess with sub-plots that go nowhere and actors who are given one note and one note only to play (like the musical analogy there?) Joan Cusack spends the entire film reacting horrified or being uptight...Wow! Couldn't see THAT character a mile away, huh? Dewey's roommate is whipped and his girlfriend is bossy. In EVERY scene? Why are all of these people so 2 dimensional? Does Hollywood have so little trust in the viewer to present fully developed characters who have levels and contradictions?

SCHOOL OF ROCK is a disapointment...Mostly because it could have been really funny and it just laid there like my ex-wif....Well, you know what I mean.

What a godawful piece of tripe this is. It's the worst kind of derivative junk that tries to pass itself off as cinema. It take the narrative style from "Stand By Me" and inserts it into a lame Little Rascals-esque kiddie film. The acting is lousy with the depth of emotion ranging from kids screaming to, well, kids screaming. There's an awful lot of screaming in the film...I'm sure this was supposed to be funny, but it REALLY gets on the nerves after a while. And while I'm at it....What is blue blazes was an excellent actor like James Earl Jones doing in this movie? You're supposed to believe that this man was a baseball player who played with Babe Ruth. But of course, there's the problem of the fact that the league wasn't integrated at that point. Maybe they made Jones' character blind so he wouldn't have to look at nauseatingly trite dialogue...I know I was wishing for a fastball to come knock out my lights so I wouldn't have to sit through the rest of this. My 8 year old nephew was bored by this movie. "Stinks on ice" was his succinct review.

Tripe of this sort never ceases to amaze me. What's worse, though, is the presence of good actors such as Gabriel Byrne. I hope that everyone was paid well for this film because I don't think they were doing it for artistic acclaim!

Shelley Long has no business on the big screen...just as she had no business on television - and THAT'S saying something considering the sub-par acting that usually goes on in the world of TV actors.

I have no problem with silly movies and cute story lines. But when a film is so obviously leading in one way with characters drawn with the largest strokes...it becomes a cartoon...and not a very funny one at that.

Why do so many made for TV films stink on ice? Why do actors like Shannen Doherty and Kevin Dillon get cast as PARENTS? This film is a dramatization of a true story - so why cast two people who are not in the least parental or even very good actors for that matter?

Kevin Dillon spends the entire film with this look of terror and bewilderment on his face. Is he being dramatic and trying to behave the way he thinks a father who was accused of murdering his own child would behave, or is he frightened that the producers of the tripe will use his real name and thereby informing the world that his movie career is officially OVER. The more I think about it, Kevin looks like he's eaten some bad clams or drank spoiled milk...it's probably the horrific dialogue.

Shannen Doherty, while very attractive, is totally miscast as the mother of the dead girl. I'm trying to think who might be even more inappropriate as the mother, and besides fellow 90210 alum, Tori Spelling, I'm coming up blank.

Ed Asner and Dixie Carter are completely wasted in this slop...As a matter of fact, it looked like Dixie WAS either wasted or phoned it in during filming. Only Hollywood could take a true, VERY dramatic story and foul it up like this. I'm amazed that so many other user comments have been positive. It's an important story that deserves MUCH better treatment than it got.

I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.

All sorts of drama unfolds within this film. Diva-esque actresses, lying producers, inept writers....Basically, it's your average Broadway show. There are some amazingly revealing moments here. At one point, Thom Moore, the director of Moon Over Buffalo criticizes Carol Burnett...She nods and accepts the criticism, but you can see the hurt in her eyes. I think Burnett comes out as the heroine of this film. One night in Boston, the set breaks down and she goes out to entertain the audience by answering questions about her life and so forth. An excellent film that is really really hard to find!

A classic story. A beautiful actress. Professional crew. All these things should add up to an excellent film. Sadly, in the case, all this help couldn't save this film. The acting is wooden beyond belief. (Watch Warhol's Dracula for another good example of this) Kathleen Beller is wonderful to look at, but it seems like she's reading from cue cards the entire time. It's stagey, melodramatic and gives TV films a bad name. Too bad, really - it's intent was to be used for educational purposes!

Those people lucky enough to see this show in it's original Broadway run saw a brilliant cast performing a brilliant show with an equally brilliant director. The original cast, Ben Vereen, Irene Ryan (of Beverly Hillbillies fame) Leland Palmer, Jill Clayburgh, John Rubinstein, and others easily outshine William Katt (of Greatest American Hero fame) Martha Raye (of denture fame) and the rest. Still, it's a very good production, and nice to see that a Broadway show can, in fact, be filmed and appreciated without paying $100 to see it! The choreography is splendid. Katt's voice isn't horrible, in fact, he sings the difficult Stephen Schwartz music with apparent ease (not to same effect that John Rubinstein had, mind you) All in all, it's a good production, but more on par with what one would expect from a regional theater or really good community theater.

This is a wonderful film. Splendidly acted, and beautifully shot, "Shakespeare In Love" certainly utilizes poetic license to the hilt, but the truth about this era and this man will never be fully known anyway. The best thing about this film is the fact that it shows actors being treated as actors were through most of theatrical history - the way a dog treats a fire hydrant! Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow generate some serious heat onscreen. The support players in this broadly drawn comedy are all excellent. Fine attention to detail of the period leaves the audience to suspend their disbelief throughout. Highly Recommended!!!!

This over-hyped piece of silliness had me laughing, and also questioning why I allowed myself to be talked into seeing it. I went with someone much younger than myself to see it, and she loved it...I suppose appreciating the subtle is something that is gained with age. Fishburne was terrible in this film - I think he was trying to distance himself from Ike Turner and signed up for the buff leader of this bad-ship lollipop. Sam Neil is likewise wasted in this film...Or should I say that perhaps everyone involved with the film was WASTED when they work on it. Zero flow. Abysmal cinematography. Moronic plot. Could have been worse, I guess....It could have been Romy and Michele's High School Reunion!

There's a ton of things wrong with this film. The acting is wooden at best. The script has holes all through it. And worst of all, the film itself looks like it was developed at a Photomat! But there's something about this film that has heart. There's something about this film's performances that has heart. It's as if each actor involved really believed in the project and wasn't just "phoning it in". I don't think that Ed Burns will ever be able to recreate the magic of this film....But he's still one up on 99% of Hollywood. This is a great movie because it works without all the polish that we're all so used to in American cinema.