Reviews

It's too bad that IMDb doesn't provide a whole lot of information because this show is really interesting (at least, I think it is). Basically, it's about a family of bail-bondsmen (and women) led by gruff, blue-collar (and intimidating) patriarch "Dog" Chapman. This is a literal family, mind you, where his son, brother, nephew and wife work alongside him to maintain his business. This is a man who comes from a very rough background to become a figure of redemption and responsibility for the state of Hawaii. The most interesting aspect, I believe, is watching the character study of someone who is very street-smart, unlike someone such as myself who comes from a very safe, middle-class upbringing and college eduction.

This series is by far, in my opinion, the best of the bunch. Sure, the others all had their good offerings (even Voyager had its good moments) but this one was the most consistently the best. It began like all the other Trek shows where each new episode typically had little to do with the last until about the third season when it took off and incorporated story arcs until it's end after season 7. I can't speak for everyone, but I was glued to each new episode until the end simply because missing episode meant you might be missing greatness (and it would be hard to know what was going on).

Sure, this series was a bit dark, but that's the point... it painted a little less pretty picture of the future that Gene Roddenberry envisioned forty years ago. You have to understand that he created Star Trek in the spirit of the sixties, when euphoria was high. Nowadays we've moved on from the optimism of the "Age of Aquarius" and Star Trek: DS9 addressed exactly that. It is simply a more socio-politically relevant series than the others.

If you're a fan of Star Trek, then you absolutely have to watch this series in its entirety.

I know some people will find my one line summary blasphemous, but I just don't think Animal House is a sacred cow. I'll get back to that in a minute.

This is probably the first movie in a long while to make me laugh as much as it did. It's also the first in a long while that makes me want to buy it when it comes out on DVD. I'll spare you the redundant plot summary to say that Old School is not the thinking man's comedy - if you want that, go rent a Woody Allen movie. Will Farrell, while not the main character manages to deftly steal almost every scene he is in. Vince Vaughan gives a great performance as a very jaded, cynical person who's blind to his own hypocrisy. Finally, in the lead role, Luke Wilson cemented his growing reputation as a formidable comedic actor. He is one to be watched, as well as his brother Owen (i.e. "The Royal Tenenbaums"). But the great cast doesn't end there - look for great turns by Andy Dick, Craig Kilborn, and Elisha Cuthbert (rrrow!).

Getting back to the Animal House comparison (which is everywhere I look for reviews or any kind of movie information about Old School), I argue that this is the better movie. Perhaps it's just my own opinion, but I never found Animal House as funny as people claimed it to be. In addition, it's outdated (released in 1978, set in the year 1962), and Old School is a better reflection of today's college campuses and today's greek houses. In the end, maybe I prefer Snoop Dogg to Otis Day and the Knights, but I give this movie 4 stars out of 4 stars (obviously this is not the same scale that I'd put The Godfather on, but you get the idea).

Most veteran movie-goers should by now be very wary of films with a huge Oscar publicity machine, especially those brimming with "buzz" so long before the movie is anywhere near theatrical release. This is such a movie. I was wary, but I kept an open mind because it was a Scorcese film, and sometimes his directing ability has the uncanny power to avert cynicism from his film.

I call this film a mixed bag for the following reason: It has one really good performance (plus a few others that were okay), good directing, and okay cinematography but a very, very poor script - and that script hurts a lot of the film.

It should be obvious by now that Daniel Day Lewis's performance as William "Bill the Butcher" Cutting is the one I'm referring to - if anyone deserves an Oscar for their acting in this movie, it's him. Everyone else more or less does exactly what the script requires them to do. Liam Neeson did quite well for his brief role as "Priest" Vallon and Brendan Gleeson did a good job as McGuinn, a quiet subdued role for the only character to see through young Vallon's disguise.

The stinker in this movie is the script. First off, what is this movie? Is it a revenge drama? A romance story? A period political piece? It never decides - it cannot. Instead the script meanders through each of these possible threads and picks up and leaves off where it wishes. This lack of focus sometimes lets you stop caring about some of the characters (and I'm not really spoiling anything, but the ending practically forces you to). Also, the backstory of the beginning scene is never given, so I'm still confused as to why the movie ended up where it did. I chalk that up to a bad script that's in a hurry to tell the story.

Scorsese at least has done his job in directing in his usual, reliable way. I forgive him the two very obvious uses of artistic metaphor in visualization: the "blood on the blade" and the bible falling into the water. He deserves an Oscar at some point, but I'm afraid it shouldn't be for "Gangs of New York". He has done better, and will do better in the future.

The last thing I have to nit about is the cinematography. I think it was vastly overrated. Most of the scenery felt confined to one area, like all the action took place just in the actual spot of the five points. Manhattan seems like a much larger place than the one we saw in the movie.

On one level, this movie entertains, making you laugh with sharp and witty dialogue, irony and utter insanity of the plot. On another level, as a film - as art, it fails miserably.

This is the kind of movie you should watch with a relative detachment, because there's no reason to actually delve into the philosophy. The point of the movie (if there is one) is simply to entertain the audience. If the director/screenwriter/producer/cast meant it to be deeper, it got lost in the parody.

I will admit that I was very entertained by the performances of all the leads, and even Meat Loaf was fun to watch in his small role. However, this does not make up for the fact that Fight Club tries to play with your mind and give a new spin on random subjects like mass media, masculinity/violence, and society when in fact it spreads itself too thin and through the conclusion of the movie completely sullies whatever decent arguments it had.

Bottom line: Watch it for pure fun, no more. There is no hidden treasure here.

Turn the lights off, turn the speakers up, and sit back and prepare to be frightened. This is the first movie in long time that actually managed to freak me out (and others I know as well), so at least the horror genre isn't totally dead...

With that being said, I think one of the best parts of the movie is the original premise, where a secret faster-than-light ship that travels through black holes to reach vast distances in a short amount of time disappears on route to the nearest star... and comes back, albeit sans crew. This may appear to be a copy of old stories about ghost ships and the Flying Dutchman and such, but in terms of science fiction it breathes new life.

The thriller aspects do "borrow" from some established sci-fi/horror movies, but it works in this case, and director Anderson does a good job of keeping the suspense going.

All in all, I believe this film is rated worse than it deserves. A thumbs up in my book - rent it today!

This movie is a lot better than the 6.4 rating gives it credit for. I suppose there is nothing original in the football theme but its acting is better than most and it has the best portrayal of over-the-top dedication in sports that I've seen in a long time. Go out and rent it for a good time!

This MUST be added to your video library. Rarely do we see the other side in the conflict, as we are just willing to label all german soldiers during WWII as nazi pigs. This has the most real feel to it as a submarine epic of its period. A side bit of trivia - Did you know that Herbert Groenemeyer (Lt. Werner) was (or is... depending on your opinion) a popular singer in Germany?