Reviews

We all know many faith based films are well-intentioned but poorly executed. However, this movie avoids the usual pitfalls of the genre, and it also unexpectedly offers Kelsey Grammer's best performance of his long career. I was VERY skeptical when I first heard Grammer was going to play Chuck Smith, but I was stunned by how well he portrayed the famous pastor. Grammer really proved me wrong and I'm very glad to say so!

The movie took seven years to come to the screen but it came at a particularly opportune time, with the public interest in Asbury going viral. And it is the right film for this particular time, as it doesn't settle for mere nostalgia, but it fleshes out the full story of the movement through following one of the main players of the movement, Greg Laurie.

In short, this is the right movie at the right time.

Marvel was once an unstoppable juggernaut of quality, with entertaining stories and yes even some thought provoking asides. But after 2019 it's like a totally different team is running things.

Marvel is just milking money and throwing content onto the screen with barely any thought or coherent structure.

I hope the show improves because there's talent here (especially Tatiana Maslany) but this show is failing its star and more importantly failing its audience.

But on a larger scale Marvel needs to course correct... and quickly, before all the trust and goodwill they earned is squandered.

The beginning of the movie is a beautiful and cute description of life as a preteen. But just around the halfway mark the storytelling basically stops and there's nothing but hammer-blow-subtle messaging. If you agree with the message you may not dislike it as much but even you will have to concede the sloppy storytelling and dramatic shift in tone.

Dizzyingly confusing plotting and structure. I heard a rumor that they had to cut out a main plot about a worldwide virus after the fact, and that would make sense because this feels totally cobbled together. IF so, then the editors and ADR people worked a minor miracle, but why not just put it on the shelf and reshoot it right?

I didn't expect much walking into this movie, but I have to admit I was floored by the extremely nuanced and heartfelt themes of this movie. It's not the fluffy comedy that the posters and trailers might lead you to believe

This show started with a lot of potential but it has become an enervated and lazy retread of The Next Generation. I even had to look up to see if Isaac was being voiced by Brent Spiner, because the voice is so close and the robotic character is a rip-off of Data, just as Bortus is a rip off of Worf, and so on and so on.

Love him or hate him, MacFarlane isn't usually this lazy and derivative. I expected much more from him and this series.

This little film packs a surprisingly big emotional punch, but it really succeeds because of the quiet scenes which are exceptionally well-written. The characters talk like real people and the challenges never explode up into lazily written melodramatic struggles between good and evil. Instead the characters deal with the things we all deal with, and that's what lends the writing its power. New writer/director Jai Jamison shows immense natural talent as both a director and a writer and I certainly expect and hope to see more films from this young and promising artist. His work captures all the beauty of a good documentary and mixes it with all the power of fiction to create a movie that I'd never thought that I would have loved... but I did.

Annie Hall was amusing but bereft of any depth. It was like Seinfeld without Kramer sliding through the door. A great piece of banter and amusing but...

This is Allen's masterpiece. There is an element of the work that doesn't need to advertise itself - an aching desire. It's not on the screen. It's behind the screen. It's about loving movies. It's an autobiography.

This is an homage to many old comedies: Old jokes, Silent movie

plot lines. It's like a Laurel and Hardy film that was never made.

The movie is the joke. Much like Blazing Saddles or Young

Frankenstein. I don't know why more people don't get the joke and

rate this movie higher. As it is, it is definitely underrated.

An American not familiar with this show, as I was, will probably compare it to SNL (Saturday Night Live).

However, there are four big differences. One, it's not live. Two, no music. Three, no guest stars. Four, it's consistently funny.

Anyone who has watched SNL will know that for every absolutely-roll-in-the-isle-genius-sketch, there are about ten poor ones.

These sketches range from the monotonous to the downright painful. Then there are the painful one-joke movie franchises (Wayne's World excluded).

Then I saw the Fast Show, while living abroad a few years. Each sketch was hilarious or memorable, and each character was inspired and sometimes even vaguely rounded.

The editors are intelligent enough to cut off one joke characters before five minutes of an painful, drawn-out sketch. In the Fast Show it is: character's on, cut to a new character, cut back, cut to a new character, cut back etc. Humor is mostly timing, anyway.

Imagine SNL with much better editing and consistently funny and that's what you've got here. It is disappointing that the talent in the show has gone largely unrecognized to this point.

This is a strong, powerful story. Director Phillip Noyce made a wise decision to get out of its way and simply let this story do its own talking.

But the true master here is Chris Doyle - the film's Director of Photography. Doyle, who is best known for his innovative work with Wong Kar-Wai, weaves in many possible visual interpretations of the story.

Some of his static shots are organized to reflect the knotted, natural shape of aboriginal art. In another shot he divides the frame between silhouette and sky. The running girls are moving silhouettes just like everything else in the frame. There is only land and sky, and through the visual language the three girls literally become a part of the land. There were many other shots that were beautifully and subtly orchestrated, but I recommend you see this film and view them for yourself.

Much of the credit for the success of this film has to be given to Christopher Doyle. His photography captures the essence of the land and the characters without explicitly advertising it.

Moore presents complex questions in interesting ways. He uses

many provocative techniques to make his points. But when he

invites the audiences to laugh at simpletons, he continues on the

biased reporting he so skillfully skewers.

This is not coercion by fear. This is coercion by fear of looking bad

and altering images to suit his argument. Now any filmmaker

does this and it is not harmful in itself, but Moore should be

ashamed at some of the tricks he pulled and some of the facts he

ignored.

Scotland had a very shocking outbreak of massive lethal school

violence very near the same time as Columbine. It was not

reported in the US. I have been to Toronto, and their slums are not

bright and gleaming. And a serious question that Moore

completely avoids is inner city gangs (responsible for some violent

shootings). Moore does not explore or even mention, say the lyrics

of Snoop Doggy Dog that brag about having shot anyone who

disrespects him. Moore does not show up at Snoop Dogs mansion and publicly humiliate him, such as he did to Charlton

Heston. Heston may or may not be a bigoted wealthy white guy,

but he deserves the same respect (or convenient editing) that

Moore showed Matt Stone or Marilyn Manson, if he agrees to an

interview (besides he has Alzheimer's for god's sake - Moore

could have at least let him make his points before he disagreed

with them ).

Seperating out and targeting, so called, "white America" as

bigots is simply too easy. There are serious problems in other first

world nations. To interview a few looneys and then point the finger

at one specific thing... well, Moore has simply formed another

stereotype... he's found another easy answer.

Moore is unfairly finding an easy target for complex problems,

however I congratulate him for tackling the problem at all. This is a

serious issue, and Moore does make a provocative statement

about it. However such cheap shots as editing in a principal of a

school home to a tragic school shooting breaking down to cry and

Moore hugging her, are pure emotional manipulation worthy of an

abc program.

See this movie, and see it with your mind on. Take Moore's points

and weigh them. Do your own research. Don't call him a butter ball

as some on this site have done. Don't call him the second coming

of Christ as some on this site have done. Listen to Moore's points

and then intelligently agree or disagree. All in all, my opinion is

Moore has crafted a noble failure.

This film returns austin to his english roots. The humor is dry, the humor is raunchy, the humor is overstated, the humor is understated. Parts are subtle, parts are anything but... The humour is basically english though.

And the humor is physical. Old style physical comedy was becoming a dying art, with dozens of cheap rip offs of jim carrey routinely passing as a limp substitutes for it. This film is the first in a long time that reminds me of the keystone cops, laurel and hardy or charlie chaplin. The funny is funny and the film lacks pretension or an absorption with plot details that encumber humor. This film is the first to capitalize on all the humor the other two movies gave us glimpses of. Mike Myers is not but may yet become this generation's peter sellers, or charlie chaplin. I'm looking forward to whatever comes next.

I was disposed to dislike this film because of the horrible trailers. I was pleasantly surprised however during the advance screening. This is a meaty film with plenty to admire, provoke and digest. Sure there are about half a dozen lines that might make potential script writers squirm but Randall Wallace has succeeded brilliantly in the goal he set for himself (he spoke after the screening). And that was the goal of telling the soldiers stories... devoid of any extraneous political complications. These men fought for each other. Wallace also doesn't make the mistake of dehumanizing the enemy. The Vietnamese are given a great deal of sympathetic screen time. As Wallace said, the only enemy is war itself and he made a conscious effort to have no "evil" characters. This is a story about the men who have to fight the politicians' wars... and how they do it. The epic scope of Braveheart is here transposed to the modern day and for me... by the end of the movie it really worked.

This is the best movie about Vietnam, that is actually about Vietnam.

Other great films on the subject are about the filmmaker's psyche more than the war itself (Apocalypse Now, Deerhunter, even Platoon). This film while sometimes graphic and sometimes controversial (Wallace's inclusion of Hal Moore's catholicism may offend many) is an excellent work of filmmaking. Don't let the trailers deter you. This is a

I am an American exchange student who just happened to catch

this film while I am studying in Sydney. It was quite a rewarding

experience.

First off, Billy Connolly is the most underrated comic in films

today. He naturally has the ability to be funny without trying and he can act with emotion with out all the effort that other actors

like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey expend. In other words, he's a natural. He just needs a clever plot and a well crafted movie to

shine. This is that. The ending is too strongly made and the point

that has been subtly implied throughout the film is rammed home

with reckless abandon, but barring that it is an excellent film.

Well worth a watch.

I expect few insurance companies will agree with my assessment. They aren't portrayed as the heroes of the

piece. Oh well.

Millions of bucks thrown at this flick,

but to make us care was the trick.

Some producer somewhere failed alot,

and from Bond and Indiana he stole the plot.

But he forget to add characters inside

the overblown CG effects overapplied.

Walking from the cinema quite unserene,

I could remember only Jolie's shower scene.

Now it could be that I am young and horny,

or maybe I have already seen all this baloney.

The only reason my money was not lost

was seeing Chris Barrie was worth the cost.

Nuff said.

First off, the title does not refer to the infamous hairstyle but instead a fish which is plentiful in the local waters. This fish is edible but not tasty. The lead characters nickname is therefore Mullet because he fishes for them and because the town sees him as a nuisance after his unexpected arrival back after leaving without a word three years earlier.

The film deals with all the crisises that arise when his unexpected return occurs. These crisises make a passable story but the film is strongest when it focuses on its characters and the actions that they take rather than its obligatory plot. The relationship of hate/love/hate between "Mullet's" parents is particularly interesting even though very little time is spent on it. On the whole a film worth watching if you want to avoid the mainstream.

I love the books of Douglas Adams increasingly inaccurately named hitchhiker trilogy. So naturally I decided to rent the BBC mini-series of the same name. I implore you people... do not do this thing that I have done to myself. If it were not for the hilarious script I think my own intestine would have choked my brain. The rest of the production struck me as a bad episode of Mystery Science Theater. Whoever cast this travesty should be tried as an enemy of humanity. In short it was as tortuous as a piece of Vogon poetry.

This is a great movie, because it succeeded in what set out to do.

It sets out to create a fairy tale and place it in a modern setting. The

characters know that this film isn't realistic, the audience knows it

and the movie makers knew it. Anyone who critiques this film for

not being realistic enough is missing the film's point. It is a myth

as old as human psychology and I see no harm in updating it for a

modern audience. The true test of the film is the chemistry of the lead actors and

the effectiveness of touching the core of the human longing for

something better. I found Gere, who is often painful to watch, to be

quite well matched with Roberts and I felt the story, although

sometimes trite, to be very effective in communicating the undying

Cinderella fantasy. If one more user comments on this site to

remind us that dreams like these never materialize, I believe I will

scream. Film and stories sometimes to show us what we are, but

sometimes they are meant to show us what we would like to be.

This film does that quite well.

I am impressed how this movie doesn't simply present a puzzle it becomes

the puzzle. The plot twists and flits until it finally converges into a

conclusion that explodes outward leaving all of the conclusions that you

made in the movie open to reevaluation. An innovative, must-see film

One thing I enjoyed about this film is that it takes the mystery and intensity of its plot and allows it to build slowly and purposely leaves holes for the audience's mind to play in. The black and white photography clearly delineates the black and white world of numbers and mathematics that both enslaves and fascinates the lead character, Max Cohen. But the film has the true mark of an artistic endeavor in that it does not attempt to be easily understood or understood at first viewing but allows several possible definitions.

Aronofsky cleverly mimics his own storyline in his storyline, in other words the mystery of mathematical patterns within every aspect of life is mimicked in the patterned editing and layout of the film. It would be interesting to know if there was an intentional meaning to the editing patterns and repetitions in the film. I suspect that there is.

However the best aspect of the film is the freedom it allows the audience to mull and think on the aspects that the film introduces. Does chaos exist or is it simply a maddeningly complex system of patterns? IS mathematic the only language? What the hell are numbers anyway, symbols for what? All in all an excellent film.

This comedy has more heart than you would expect in Farrelly's

brothers movie. But make no mistake it is still a gross-out

comedy. The plot may be a cliched coming of age story but there

is enough truth and pathos to forgive that fault.



Alec Baldwin's performance is a standout. His superb comedic

skills have never been showcased well. His gruff, curt father

character is played almost to a caricature but cut short before

the line of no return. Not a standout film but a descent one and

worth