Reviews

Forget X-Men or Kate And Leopald, this is THE definitive Hugh Jackman film. Only the maker of The Mummy could bring us this thrilling, epic event. The screenplay is flawless, and is totally brought to life by stunning acting performances. The plot unfolds in a myriad of twists and turns, leaving everyone literally tied to the edge of their seats. The explosions are totally killer. I did not want this movie to end!

I absolutely can not wait for the sequel, it will totally rock. The end of this movie was so deep, it made me cry - when the monster looks back and keeps rowing it is very emotional. Spiritually, this movie moved me more than anything I've ever done or seen.

It starts off strange, then sucks, then gets good for a while, then alligator boy comes into the picture. I think Jake Glyllenhal is an awesome young talent, but he couldn't carry this. This movie was pretty well filmed and has some truly memorable scenes, but overall the dialogue was dumb and unbelievable. Also, the soundtrack should have consisted of songs from that time period instead of new punk stuff. Not horrible, but unfortunately pretty bad. 5.5/10

Let me start by saying, I did not pay to see this film. I was coerced. Needless to say, I expected nothing out of my moviegoing experience. I was still let down. I could attempt to summarize this film, but frankly it was so poorly put together that I can't remember anything but tentacles sprouting from an otherwise very attractive Laura Flynn Boyle. I didn't care much for the first installment of this corporate sellout franchise, but I never hold a grudge (I've sat through both Lethal Weapon 4 and Beverly Hills Cop 3 with an open mind).

The special effects, which were stupid and not believable in the first one, have gotten even worse. How is it possible to be thrown 100 feet in the air and land without any broken limbs, let alone without a scratch? I guess they're going for the 'ol make the dumb audience chuckle routine, but not many fish were biting in the theater I attended. Sure, the guy in front of me seemed to enjoy some of the dumb one-liners thrown out like peanuts - however I did not break a smile once. I was insulted at how dumb the studio writers must think we all are.

I felt angry, cheated, and generally miserable by the time the movie was half-way over. I thought the first MIB was bad, but not as catastrophic as Independence Day. This installment was made even worse due to its incessant product placement. I stopped counting at around a dozen blatant product ads. I usually can at least find solace in looking forward for a film to end, but with MIB II the anger wouldn't subside. I waited for something, anything, to peak my interest or draw me into the story but nada, zip. 0.5/10

Forget the fact this movie has a horrible script which barely even resembles the original Dumas version. You could also forget the fact this movie has no believablity, and worse, no sense of self awareness as to how bad it is. What makes it one of the worst films in this decade is the bad casting which many comments to date seem to praise. NONE of the musketeers, save maybe Kiefer Sutherland, put in anything more than hammy performances. Sheen, O'Donnell, and Curry are bad enough. To me, the worst performance of the decade belongs to Oliver Platt for this film. He's bad enough in most everything else to date, but this one puts him in the Stallone, Schwarzeneger, Costner league. He hasn't had enough work to really compare himself with the above three, but his work in Lake Placid and Executive Decision has rapidly increased his rise to less-than-mediocrity. Anyway, this Disney version was doomed to be awful before Platt signed on, and it's not fair to blame him for everything. Like I said, this is a terrible, terrible, extremely difficult to take in kind of film. If you can sit through it without switching channels or finding something better to do, you're in for a real bad treat. 0.5/10

Wow, what can I say about this one? My friend rented it the other night and I was skeptical to say the least. I mean, this is the same guy known for renting such gems as "Escape From LA" and "Daylight" on the same night. But Martin Lawrence's range with physical comedy, matched by Quarles' rousing and entertaining script made me into a believer real quick. All I can honestly say about this film is, when Martin Lawrence falls into the fake moat at Kingdom World (or whatever) and is transported into the medieval era - I sort of felt like I was being transported also. Magical filmaking that only the creator of "Empty Nest" could bring you. Did I mention that Martin Lawrence is very funny in this one? He carries the show with many cool one liners and hip, gangsta-like references. In fact, if I were walking down a dark alley one of the last people I'd want to meet would be Martin Lawrence. His is gangsta-supa-fly flava that oozes out onto the big screen. He is super cocky-cool. Jimbo, werd up, your rousing approval written on July 1st, 2002 is dead on. If I was expecting Citizen Kane, I should have rented it. For a slapstick/goofy/dumb/idiotic/spineless/horrendous/dumb/gangsta-flava comedy I give it an 11/10!

This is one of those films you can't say is outright bad, but still falls short on too many levels to be considered a good film either. There are many pleasant surprises in both the plot and acting, enough in fact to keep you paying attention throughout. Although I am not opposed to meshing new age with the old, I truly do not believe 70's rock has a place in old England. That was my biggest problem with A Knight's Tale, the soundtrack. Other than that it is a pretty good film, rather like watching Gladiator without the drama, intrigue, costumes, or set design. (6.5/10)

It has been quite a long time since I've headed into a movie theater with great expectations and been fully satisfied. I waited oh so long for the Phantom Menace to come out, only to get a harsh slap in the face. When I saw that LOTR had sold merchandising rights to Burger King it caught me off gaurd, would this film, like Phantom Menace, be a sell out job to make New Line a heap of cash? I worried, having read the trilogy, that a plethora of new plot twists and characters would surface to "Hollywoodize" this story. In not selling out or altering the story, Peter Jackson has become my new directing hero. Yes, the book is long-winded, and yes that translates to the film as well. People who wanted a nicely packaged fairy tale ending were all sorely dissapointed with this film. Half the audience in the showing I attended got up at the end and howled out such absurdities as "I can't believe they ended the movie like that." The fact that none of these idiots realized that this film was based on the epic Tolkien trilogy is beyond me. Also, the camera lenses and film used were perfect, instead of using the digital glossy crap that Bruckheimer and now Lucas use. Rarely will I give a film a rating of 9.5 or higher because in my mind everything has to be perfect (acting, set designs, wardrobes, dialogue, etc). This film has no flaws and thus I give it a rating of 10. I consider it one of the five best films ever made (right there with Lawrence of Arabia, Goodfellas, Amadeus, and Schindler's List).

This is the first movie in quite a long while in which I walked into the theater with high expectations and walked out completely satisfied. Denzel Washington is beyond a great actor. In my opinion, after watching this film, he is among the top two or three of his generation. If Glory introduced him to the masses, Training Day should cement his place in film history. Very few actors have the ability to be effective as both the hero and the villain. Kevin Spacey, Robert DeNiro, and Robert Duval come to mind also. Denzel was the perfect villian for this film. The atmosphere of this film is very gritty and realistic. Still, it does not move slowly, and every little vignette in the story seems pertinent at the end. The only flaw with this film might be that it was supposedly supposed to mirror the life of a rogue LAPD narcotics officer. Maybe it was a little too dramatic in the end, but again it was well worth my time and energy to see this film. 8.8/10

I am vaguely aware of the reasons that led me to see this film other than that I did not pay to see it. As the opening credits rolled I actually had a good feeling about what might happen, but what ensued I can barely describe. When the movie starts out with a young writer saying "All one needs is to love, and be loved in return," you know you're in trouble. The Parisian sets looked fake, nothing like what Gladiator achieved by bringing ancient Rome to life. In fact, this whole movie seemed fake, contrite, and just not very well thought out. I generally like Nichole Kidman and Ewan McGregor, but not when they sing 70's hit parade music to a dizzying and sloppy film

This is the first of three installments in filmaking greatness from the Coen brothers. Raising Arizona is an American comedy at its best, poking fun at the rednecks of Southwest US while being endearing to them at the same time. The cast of RA is simply perfect. I would have to say this is Nick Cage's best film, one of the best for Holly Hunter and John Goodman, across the board every actor gives a great performance. At first viewing, RA might come across as ridiculous tale of yokel rednecks in Arizona. But there is much more to this film than just comedy and, like in Fargo, there are many other themes more central to the main characters than the obvious plot-driven ones. Upon further viewing many treats come alive in the backround of shots. This is a rich film, and excells in every way. There are simply no other comedies like this one, comedic films that are also artisticly flawless are very hard to find. One of my 10 favorite films of all time, 9.7/10

...everything that American society has become from the advent of the Cold War to present day. His portrayal of the media is perfect, everyone from Micheal J. Fox to Sarah Jessica Parker give great performances as television personalities. Any scene involving the combination of Jack Nicholson, Martin Short, and Rod Steiger is nothing less than brilliant. I could go on and on about this cast but will just simply say it is one of the best overall performances from a cast I have ever witnessed. Short of Jim Brown, but heck, even he was just supposed to be a struggling, over-the-hill ex-athlete with anger issues so I guess he fit the bill perfectley also. The mass amount of people (judging by the rating of 6.1 presently) that despised this film greatly baffles me. Then again, maybe it doesn't, seeing as how dumbed down versions of 70's T.V. shows bring in 40 million dollars on opening weekend while masterful works such as Ed Wood fade away within weeks or months not exactly racking up the ticket sales. People want to be entertained, and really don't want to think much during a film, and these days the only thing that matters is having a spectacular trailer anyway. If you build a trailer, they will come... And this is why I am willing to say Tim Burton is one of the two to three greatest directors of our (my) generation. Look at his filmography, there is not ONE film that you can pick apart and say its bad. He does not "give away" his entire films before you see them. Most people respond with "Mars Attacks!" which is why I'm writing this. I believe this to be on Tim Burton's TOP three list, right there with Ed Wood and Beetleguese. He has never conformed to the usual studio standards for a director, and it would seem to me that he has had to do a lot of wrangling with studios in the past to get what he wants on the final product. He belittles the government, executive office, army command, general American populous, etc etc in "Mars Attacks!" and I guess that's why the status quo didn't go for it. If you haven't seen this film and you enjoy good, dark humor, I'd suggest you forget what your friends have told you and go ahead and rent it. This is not supposed to be like Independence Day or Men In Black, it is a spoof on those films and other martian films from the 50's era. It's amazing how many people did not get this fact, MARS ATTACKS! IS NOT A SERIOUS LOOK AT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MARTIANS ATTACKED EARTH!!!

That classic quote could only have been delivered by that master thespian named Keanu Reeves. Johnny Utah might very well have been the seminel role in Reeves' well established career. Like most other Reeves films, this one was a box office success. Unlike other Reeves vehicles, however, this one does have some good qualities. The flow of the film is good and especially so during the bank robbery scenes as well as the classic chase scene. With Keanu chasing after the Ronald Reagan mask-wearing Swayze the scene cleverly takes us through a stunning car chase followed by an on-foot chase through residential L.A. I was of course being sarcastic regarding the master thespian issue, but this film really does deliver far better than "Speed," "Johnny Mnuemonic," and other campy Keanu flicks. The film actually depicts the surfing community closer than any other mainstream movie, save maybe Fast Times At Ridgemont High. Lori Petty distracts from an otherwise well chosen cast, all in all I give this film a "7" despite the awfully delivered line that makes up the one line summary.

"Big Daddy" is a diluted, sappy, and truly dumb film. The only redeeming quality of this picture is, well, the little kids that played Julian were pretty good. Everything is sooooo sweet in this movie that if you don't cry your some kind of insensitive jerk. At least that's what the score makes you feel like. With more fluff than your dryer's lint screen and more intended tear jerking scenes than your average Lindsay Wagner TV movie special, this film dilutes Sandler's humor. Many people who have commented on "Big Daddy" to this point say that it is the best Sandler film while "Happy Gilmour" and "Billy Madison" were just plain stupid. Look, Gilmour and Madison weren't supposed to be nice comedies for nice people. I enjoyed those two films infinitely more than Big Daddy, so maybe I'm void of feeling or something. Moreover, if those aforementioned Sandler films are "dumb" this one is just plain offensive. The court room scene is THE dumbest, most unrealistic, downright awful court scene ever. If you've seen it you know what I mean. I was able to stomach the film until then, I remember saying to myself "maybe they're trying to make a commentary on the sad state of affairs for foster children," but nope - not even close. The only way to describe the courtroom proceedings is surreal. If Dali had been a filmmaker he couldn't have outdone the downright absurd quality of it. This movie sucked, and if you thought so too you must also be an insensitive jerk. The "touching" parts of the film were SAPPY and PHONY, Jon Stewart should be banned from acting in feature length motion pictures (as much as I like him on the small screen). He always picks dumb roles for himself - in his touching scene at the end of "Big Daddy" its painfully obvious just how bad he is conveying emotion. I guess I just can't say enough bad things about this movie, so I'll add that Joey Lauren Adams (who is sexy and intriguing in all other films I've seen her in) is dumpy and wasted on this Sandler vehicle. When she cries (endlessly) throughout it makes you wish she'd just go away and leave us (the audience) alone. All in all I hated this movie and would recommend it to all nincompoops who like to snivel and blow their nose during boring, boorish, idiotic, falsely emotional films...

Although there are some continuity conflicts and at times over the top acting (although maybe intentionally), this film is an extraordinary accomplishment given what the filmmakers had to work with. The end is also a bit dicey, but then again it leaves much open to discussion which in this case is a good thing. I have talked to a friend who is very involved with the math field, and he is the only person I know who straight up didn't like the film. The point being, if you are capable enough with math to understand geometry, basic algebra, etc., you will be fine - but if you are familiar with stuff like the chaos theory and abstract mathematics you'll be offended. If anyone else with extensive knowledge of mathematics has seen this film I'd be very interested on hearing feedback. All that aside, this film is truly captivating. I was introduced to it by spotting it in a friend of a friend's collection, asked him about it, and he replied "I can't explain it, I'll just show you the first scene." After watching the first scene of this film, YOU CANNOT STOP. There is no way. One of the most innovative, thought provoking films I've ever seen.

One previous viewer commented that this film is not as good as other Verhoeven "American classics" but worth checking out. Well, I'm not sure if "Starship Troopers" or "Basic Instinct" are considered classics by most, but I'm pretty sure that most don't consider "Total Recall" or "Showgirls" to be as such. This is a typical offering from a director who has shown himself to be more concerned with the attributes of his female actors than that of the dialogue or plot. There is a reason why most females have never appreciated his work and I believe a growing number of grown men are finding his work to be repetitive and boring. His "themes" are always sexuality and violence. Violence and sex do sell of course, but it would be nice to see Verhoeven try his hand at something with a little more depth involved. Elizabeth Shue gives her worst performance ever, "Sebastian, is that you?" This film is a must miss for anyone who thought "Starship Troopers" and "Showgirls" weren't American classics. Hopefully that's the majority of you.

edited 3/2008 - as of the time I wrote this I hadn't had the unfortunate experience of viewing "Molly." Sorry for the earlier error.

I've heard this film criticized for its plot, dialogue, and poor acting. None of these holds water for me, this film was one of the most suprisingly good films I've rented for quite some time. I highly recommend the DVD version, of course, as the action sequences lose quite a lot on the transfer to VHS tape. Danny Aiello to me has the performance of his career, hands down he steals the show and is VERY convincing in his role. Another gem is Charlize Theron in this her first major role, she melts the viewer's eyes with her piercing glare many a time. James Spader, like in Sex Lies & Videotape and Less Than Zero, is at his seediest best. Strong performances by Jeff Daniels, Eric Stoltz, and even Teri Hatcher also. This film is a must see for anyone living in Southern California or wanting to see a piece of L.A.

I'm sorry, but the person that commented this movie shows people responding to a crisis with dispatch and brio should get their head examined. This movie is what it is, high-tech fluff. When the stripper-chick (Viv Fox)is walking through LA all alone with her baby and dog, and every building in sight destroyed, who do you think comes and finds her? Yep, Will Smith takes some time out of his busy alien-fighting schedule and comes to find his woman (and kid). The fluff scenes between these two are sickening at best, offensive at worst. Remember, though, after this movie Vivica A. Fox was considered the "it" girl. So people must like their fluff in concentrated hard to swallow doses. Goldbloom is at his annoying worst, the most brutal form of torture is to make someone watch his IMac commercial over and over and over ala "Clockwork Orange." The gay innuendos are ridiculous, and often, Goldbloom finally found a role he excells at - "annoying gay guy with no self esteem is responsible for saving the world from aliens." Sounds like the scriptwriter was letting off a little steam...OK, so what do you do when aliens overwhelm every city on the world??? Hire Goldbloom to plug his IMac into the alien computer and give it a virus. C'mon people, thats an obvious one.

Like "A River Runs Through It" Redford returned to Montana to shoot a film in the state's natural splendor. Unlike the aforementioned film, however, the plot is dull and the characters dumb. Bob Richardson saves this film from itself. The director of photography, better known for his Oliver Stone films than any others, scores what may be his best yet as DP. The visuals are simply stunning and, for me, left me yearning for more nature shots and less horse listening and child whining. This may be the the most apathetic Redford character since "Three Days Of The Condor" and audience apathy certainly doesn't help out Redford in any role other than like the one he had in the thrilling "Condor." He needs to direct, i.e. "River" and "Ordinary People" or act. Not both at the same time. He has lost his appeal with women under the age of 50, and should not consider himself the playboy that he once was, i.e. no more roles like the one he had in "Indecent Proposal." I respect Redford and believe that he can be one of the more influential directors during the next 20 years, but I think he needs to envision himself behind the monitors instead of in front of the camera.

First of all, Will Smith should not be confused with a great actor. He is great at looking cocky, looking cool, and looking confused. Tommy Lee Jones, sadly, chose this role for obvious ($$$) reasons just as he did for that debacle otherwise remembered as "Batman Forever." This project was not greenlit with visions of academy awards (except maybe in special effects) nor would I hope this film ever, EVER makes it into the top 250. That would be a travesty to this site. The fact it is rated as high as it is frightens me greatly (6.9 on date of comment). This was a bad film, with a bad script, and some talented people occasionally doing capable jobs. Vincent D'Onofrio and Rip Torn being the main bright spots.

This film would have been ruined by a big studio production. there is no way to "hollywoodize" Josef Stalin. He was perhaps the worst and most brutal tyrant of the 20th century. Estimates range from 20-40 million deaths he was responsible for. He was in no way a nice man. in him there was not an ounce of decency, only a vast void of feeling that Robert Duvall conveyed very well. the film itself almost seemed hollow or lifeless at times, and generally moved slowly. Passer's meticulous method pays off, however, with powerful performances from Plowright, Schell, and Ormond complimenting Duvall's brilliance. After viewing this film it should be difficult not to place Duvall amongst the present day acting legends (DeNiro, Nicholson, Pacino, Hopkins, etc). Very few have played such a wide variety of roles as Duvall has. My whole point in this being, "Stalin" IS Duvall's picture. Duvall is Stalin. If you enjoy well made, historically accurate films and Robert Duvall both you're in for a treat. Otherwise this film will bore you.

There has never been made, nor ever will be, a film like O Lucky Man! I saw this as a young child and when I viewed it again some 15 years later it was like deja vu with each new scene. This is remarkable since the movie has no outright plot nor does seem to go any one direction. Just when we're movin right along with mick travis up the ol countryside Alan Price butts in and offers his rendition of the goings on. Alan Price... in his studio...recording "folksy-stuff"...as we watch in real time....I would imagine a few people in the editing room may have objected. That said, the Alan Price offerings eventually fit in as a myriad of twists and turns lead Mick to traveling with the very band that has been intermittently appearing on the screen. I won't attempt to pitch this story in 25 words or less, as with most McDowell pictures, but will say that it's truly one of the most inventive, original, and stimulating films I've seen. Helen Mirren's performance especially stands out as her one character reaches so many ups and downs alongside Mick. Mick Travis is the quintessential "hero" of a film and of course is a reflection of Malcom McDowell himself, having wrote the story and previous two in something that resembled a film trilogy. O Lucky Man gets better with each viewing, a great one to own. Michealangelo Antonioni's "Blowup" may be one of the few films that can rival O Lucky Man in both the weirdness and uniqueness departments.

There has been much panning of this film because it does not delve into Kaufman's inner workings. The people who were the harshest most probably had not viewed "I'm From Hollywood" or "A Comedy Salute To Andy Kaufman" before watching "Man On The Moon." Andy was best known as the adorable Latka on Taxi, but his other characters were focused on much more. This film made many people uncomfortable because you're not supposed to laugh at some obnoxious person named Tony Clifton degrading and spilling beer on his audience. As I laughed aloud, almost through the entire picture, it was almost more funny to see the audience reacting to the few people laughing than the film itself. Most people unfamiliar with Andy Kaufman's deeds during his career have misguidedly labelled "Man On The Moon" as shallow, and although almost all critics have recognized Jim Carrey's performance as truly impressive and unique he is likely to get snubbed again in the 2000 Academy Awards. The truth is, probably no one knew or knows what made Kaufman tick, but who cares. His legacy survives as a comic pioneer not because of who he was, but what he did. "Man On The Moon" fell out of the top ten at the box office in mere weeks because of what it is, an inside joke for all Kaufman fans.