Reviews

Unfortunately a good percentage of people are judging this film based on their view of writer/director Shyamalan, his previous films, and their expectations.

The problem with doing that is that it's nearly impossible for this film to please anyone with a strong preconception. If you're not a Shyamalan fan, you're going to be tired of twists. If you are a fan and expecting one, it's not going to have the same effect on you as The Sixth Sense. If you want a twist or DON'T want a twist, you're going to be hard to please.

So leave all that at the door and just enjoy the film, and base your impressions on how the film stands up on its own accord.

As in Signs and Unbreakable, Shyamalan leaves you guessing (you weren't really "guessing" in The Sixth Sense, unless you were forewarned the movie had an unexpecting twist). Those two previous films build up the suspense in a way such that you KNOW something dramatic has to come forward to explain things.

The "twist" here isn't really one thing but several, which I won't reveal. The cynicism you may view the village, its customs, its fears, and its elders is toyed with constantly.

In the end, this is another psychological thriller, but it operates on a different level than you may be expecting. That may disappoint or please you. If you stop setting expectations for this film, you'll probably see things as I have: this is a quality film that rewards your attention, fits together well, and makes you think.

I do feel the script may be a little light. It seems like the kind of story that could be told just fine in an X-Files, Twilight Zone, or Outer Limits episode in 23-42 minutes. The film is "stretched" to two hours. But it's understandably stretched. Beautiful scenery, music, performances by the cast, and tension...lots of tension, fill the space.

The cast is almost overstocked with award-winning actors and actresses. Out of this "all-star" line up, an unknown shines brightest. Bryce Howard really steals her scenes. One almost expects that Shyamalan fills time with half a paragraph in the script that basically says "Bryce: Wow us for a few minutes." William Hurt and Cherry Jones (you may remember her as the police officer in Signs) are also very effective. The rest of the cast is solid.

The music and visuals are great - a real pleasure to take in.

The unfortunate fact is people are rating this "pass or fail." The most popular rating for this film is a "10." The second-most popular is a "1." No one can justify either of these extreme scores. They either walked out pleased or disappointed, and let their emotion (and desire to influence the overall rating) take over.

Overall, I rate it an 8/10. It's a combination of a well-made film that entertains. It doesn't wow you like Spider-Man, nor is it the modern day equivalent of Citizen Kane. But it gets the job done, and does so on a level that far exceeds most garbage that Hollywood produces.

The Contender is a quality, watchable political drama. The main message: don't fight back as the political game is wrong. Perhaps if more of our own politicians would stick to their principles and not play political games, we would live in a better world.

Laine Hansen (Allen), a senator from Ohio, is selected to fill the vacancy of Vice President by a lame duck president (Bridges). Despite opposition across the aisle (and some quieter opposition from the President's own party), Hansen refuses to answer potentially embarrassing personal questions about her past. These issues are publicized and pushed into the focus by the House panel considering her confirmation, led by Congressman Runyon (Oldman). Despite things looking grim, the President continues his support for Hansen and her decision not to answer these questions.

The messages? Women should be treated the same as men (the fact that a man would not be similarly criticized for having several sexual partners is mentioned repeatedly). Personal issues should be off limits. The political game is manipulative. All of these messages have been voiced before, but perhaps not at the same time and certainly not in this manner. All in all, it makes for a good story. But some of the quieter (even one-liner) messages are quite tiring. Liberal Hollywood is at it again, inserting its agenda...

How so? Surprise surprise: we have a Democratic president and it's the Republicans (led by Oldman's character) who are the bad guys. Is it just me, or are 95% of the "good guys" in political movies Democrats (especially when ideology is an issue). Several controversial issues are framed in a way that makes Hansen's position look undeniably right. For instance: a woman has a right to choose, abortion is not a constitutional issue (and the Supreme Court has no right to examine it), a woman has a right and duty to take maternity leave (pretty noncontroversial, right?) AND it should be paid leave (huh!?) Many of her positions (advocating atheism, etc.) are very unpopular ones, and most of them are, at best controversial. Yet we are led to believe she is the hero and therefore (at least casually) told that her positions are the right and just ones. While this type of mild and subtle propoganda is unsettling, it's certainly not unique in entertainment. It's just getting old and annoying seeing nothing but liberal ideology touted by Hollywood.

The performances are quite good. Allen gives a quality, understated performance. Oldman is fantastic as usual (look at that make up job, I didn't even know it was him until I saw the end credits!). Jeff Bridges is OK as the President (I'm not a huge fan of his work, but he is dignified, at least), although his closing speech is hokey and awkward, and he certainly doesn't have "Presidential poise" in that sequence.

Overall, a good watchable movie. Not a classic by any stretch. B-.

It's a TV movie,you should expect that there aren't going to be mind-blowing special effects.

And, to be honest, this movie is a bit weird in that the cops are relentlessly hunting "good bad guys." The "terrorists" are a freedom front that wants to destroy the means of production of certain companies for political reasons, but they try to make sure no one gets hurt (which, of course, backfires). So it's hard to "root for" the cops because the movie makes you sympathize with the terrorists and their families: ordinary people in almost every sense.

Arkin and Turturo provide good performances...Stephen Root (also of Newsradio) is very good in a much different role than people are used to seeing him in. Miguel Ferrer is decent.

A lot of things can be said about this show. Some "conventional" critics blasted it early on because the production wasn't as great as some of the major networks' big-budget competitors, while others praised it for being incredibly well written, acted, and conceived.

Once the show caught on after a few years, it got a bigger budget and it shows in the end result. Now, critics blast it for being self-righteous (character voice-overs and deep philosophical content). Oh well, some critics are hypocrites. Just watch and enjoy. There are only about 5 or so episodes out of over 150 that don't leave you hanging and entertained. Watch for the AMAZING performances by William B. Davis (Cigarette-Smoking Man), who isn't in every episode.

The "Triangle" episode (#7.03), which was filmed in continuous takes and a writing masterpiece (an homage to Hitchcock's "Rope" and "The Wizard of Oz"), is the most entertaining 42 minutes of television OR film I've ever seen.

First off, I can never respect or pay any mind to this comment because the "critic" completely bashes Kelly McGillis...not so much that I am defending McGillis...but she ISN'T IN THE MOVIE.

Secondly, the movie wasn't that bad. It's obviously going to wind up on Cinemax at 3AM, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's not overly "raunchy" as the other comment claims.

The actors all did a good job...the only problem I had with it is that Kelly LEBROCK (not McGillis) has a British accent which she can't seem to kick...which is a continuity problem being that her "other sisters" all have western accents.

Well "westgate," I'm sorry to hear that you had your sense of humor surgically removed at birth.

Even my highly-religious, staunchly serious, 82-year old father found this movie funny...perhaps not as funny as did the kid "picking his nose" in front of you, but perhaps many people find humor other than the falsely-highbrow likes of "Frasier" entertaining.

At times, the "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" philosophy IS justified in movie criticism. If you find everyone around you laughing hysterically, and yet you don't find it funny, you are truly being immature if you take that as your cue to sabotage the movie's good name.

Overall, "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me" is a typical comedic sequel: more hilarious one-liners than the first, but not as good of a movie overall....see "The Naked Gun," "Major League," and "Ghostbusters" (and their sequels) to see more examples of this.

But, to be honest, I never laughed harder at a movie...not even "There's Something About Mary."

I started to watch this and was bored out of my mind...but then I realized the entire point of the film.

The film is an EXCELLENT commentary on how PC and obsessed with detail our society has become. The dialogue, which is VERY complicated, is not intended to be taken seriously by anyone.

There are essentially only two characters in the film, and their acting, under the circumstances of such deep intellectual subjects and roles (the obsessed, overzealous student and the stand-his-ground-while-trying-to-help professor) is very good. William H. Macy continues to impress me.

Definitely a great film for any class wanting to watch the subject of sexual harassment get poked fun at, an education class, or just someone who likes small plays on a rainy day.

I saw the movie at a special screening and it was ok...it definitely has its moments, even if it is immature slapstick-style humor.

Liz-51 didn't even see the movie, and obviously has a personal vendetta against SNL actors...what a pity...and what a low blow for a decent movie, to comment on it negatively without even seeing it, just to give it a bad name to IMDb visitors.

One of my favorite movies of the 80s was "The Untouchables," and when I saw that a show was coming out on the same subject, I thought it would be another crummy TV spinoff like "Uncle Buck."

But, despite the fact that the TV show didn't have the big names of the movie version, I found the show to be much more believable and suspenseful, without the glaring anachronisms that the movie had (e.g. Frank Nitti being killed at the Capone trial in the movie).

William Forsythe (Capone) does an INCREDIBLE job...he AT LEAST equals the great Robert DeNiro's performance of the same character. Also, John Rhys-Davies and Tom Amandes give great performances and the show's writing was excellent. It's a shame it had such a crummy time slot and was canned so soon.

Although I understand that the dialogue from this play does not necessarily translate over to the screen in a manner that would connect with the average Joe, insults directed to the cast are not warranted. Jim Clark's review, which alleges that William H. Macy and Debra Eisenstadt give "uninspired" performances is ridiculous.

Macy and Eisenstadt give sharp and flawless performances of tough dialogue. I don't feel this movie conveys the same impact as the play, but that is more the fault of the story.

In a world of "Monday Night Football" it's tough to throw a "Frasier" out there. This film, perhaps, gets far too intellectual for many, but is still the most enjoyable film I have ever seen that essentially only has two cast members.