This is a hectic, madcap movie that has very little to do with Christmas. It's consistently loud, to the point of being irritating. I think the basic premise could have been turned into a decent movie, but that never came close to happening here. The only good thing was seeing scenes of Sydney, Australia.
Reviews
23 Reviews
Mindless violence
20 May 2019
This is a movie that's in search of a plot. Apparently there's some sort of secret society that has a grudge against everybody who hurt its little feelings, but rather than developing that idea in any way, the filmmakers filled up a couple of hours with an interminable series of violent deaths and special effects, mostly taking place in dark or dimly-lit scenes. Unfortunately, I tried to actually watch the movie. Turns out that compiling a body count would have been more interesting. As for Keanu Reeves, his abilities are normally beyond question, but what he does here is NOT acting -- it's just choreography of one fight scene after another. It gets boring mighty fast. What a terrible movie.
47 Meters Down
(2017)
Completely predicable
27 June 2017
OK, use your imagination for a moment. You know that this movie is about people in a shark cage, and you know that the title is "47 Meters Down." So here's a quiz: What do you think is going to happen? Yup, that's it. You guessed it.
Even if I were to lay out the complete plot for you, it wouldn't be a spoiler. You already know almost everything that takes place in this story.
As for the acting, Mandy Moore doesn't have that much to do. Most of the time, she's making faces inside a scuba mask and sounding scared. The rest of the cast also operate within a limited range of emotions. There were one or two frightening moments, confirming that you really don't want to meet up with sharks, but that's about it.
Overall, disappointing.
Even if I were to lay out the complete plot for you, it wouldn't be a spoiler. You already know almost everything that takes place in this story.
As for the acting, Mandy Moore doesn't have that much to do. Most of the time, she's making faces inside a scuba mask and sounding scared. The rest of the cast also operate within a limited range of emotions. There were one or two frightening moments, confirming that you really don't want to meet up with sharks, but that's about it.
Overall, disappointing.
Kingsman: The Secret Service
(2014)
Needless killing
19 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with "Kingsman: The Secret Service" is that it can't decide whether it's a spy movie, or a movie about violent killers, or a comedy. It tries to do some of all three. It partially succeeds as a spy movie, owing a lot to old James Bond films. (And did anyone catch the reference to "Get Smart?") And granted, there are a few funny moments. But the violence overwhelms everything else. There's plenty of gratuitous killing, and it's not the least bit subtle. If that's your cup of tea, prepare to have a great time. For me, I think the story would be have been better if 90% of the fight scenes had been left on the cutting room floor.
Plot-wise, it's completely predictable. A few minutes into the movie, we can already guess which two characters would end up in a fight to the finish at the end.
Very mild spoiler alert: The movie ends with the audience essentially being mooned. Thanks a lot, guys. I'd gladly return the favor if I knew you were watching.
One last point: Some user reviews have complained that the F-word is used quite a bit. It is, but really, is that the most offensive thing here? The entire premise of the dastardly project, and the implication that almost every world leader mindlessly buys into it, is far worse. Not to mention the almost nonstop display of blood and guts. Some of the killings are presented in an almost comical way and needn't be taken seriously, but most of it is just grossly, and needlessly, excessive.
Plot-wise, it's completely predictable. A few minutes into the movie, we can already guess which two characters would end up in a fight to the finish at the end.
Very mild spoiler alert: The movie ends with the audience essentially being mooned. Thanks a lot, guys. I'd gladly return the favor if I knew you were watching.
One last point: Some user reviews have complained that the F-word is used quite a bit. It is, but really, is that the most offensive thing here? The entire premise of the dastardly project, and the implication that almost every world leader mindlessly buys into it, is far worse. Not to mention the almost nonstop display of blood and guts. Some of the killings are presented in an almost comical way and needn't be taken seriously, but most of it is just grossly, and needlessly, excessive.
Fire with Fire
(II) (2012)
More of the same.
3 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
(Minor spoilers follow.) To me, Vincent D'Onfrio's character symbolizes everything that is wrong with this movie. The character is pure evil, but is presented without any context. What filled him with so much hatred? How did he gain such a powerful position? There's no context to him at all. He's a strictly one-dimensional bad guy. (I should add that Mr. D'Onofrio's acting is fine, but the script gives him nothing to do except be despicable.) On the other side of the equation we have a heroic firefighter who witnesses a horrific, senseless crime, yet lives to tell about it. So of course, he becomes a target himself.
Do I really need to say any more? You've seen lots of movies like this already. You know how it's going to end. When the script calls for him to tell his U.S. marshal girlfriend one quick sentence about firefighting, you know perfectly well that he'll say that line again, during a fire, before the end of the movie. You even know which bad guy will die last when the hero faces the insurmountable odds of ... oh, why bother explaining? You've seen it all before. There's no reason to see it again.
Do I really need to say any more? You've seen lots of movies like this already. You know how it's going to end. When the script calls for him to tell his U.S. marshal girlfriend one quick sentence about firefighting, you know perfectly well that he'll say that line again, during a fire, before the end of the movie. You even know which bad guy will die last when the hero faces the insurmountable odds of ... oh, why bother explaining? You've seen it all before. There's no reason to see it again.
Carnage
(2011)
Not a pleasant experience
2 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
There is one good thing about this movie, and a whole bunch of bad things. I'll start with the bad ones.
First, even though this is loosely classified as a comedy, it isn't funny. It begins with an uncomfortable discussion between two sets of parents, which gradually declines into one very, very long argument between all four. I suppose some people might find humor in watching feelings being hurt, but I'm not one of them.
Second, wow, is this claustrophobic. Except for a few seconds at the beginning, the entire film takes place in one apartment, and even then, mostly in the living room. I could hardly wait for the scene to shift to another location, or at least for another character to come along. Neither ever happened. This could work well on a stage, but I kept feeling as if I was watching a play instead of a movie.
None of the characters were particularly likable. None were smart enough to know not to cross obvious lines of decent behavior. Neither couple knew the very simple technique of praising in public and criticizing in private. I mean, why tear down your own spouse in front of virtual strangers?
The one bright spot was the fact that the four actors exceptional. All showed a great range of emotion, and there is no doubt whatsoever that these are four extremely skilled actors. Their talent was the only thing that saved this from being totally unenjoyable.
First, even though this is loosely classified as a comedy, it isn't funny. It begins with an uncomfortable discussion between two sets of parents, which gradually declines into one very, very long argument between all four. I suppose some people might find humor in watching feelings being hurt, but I'm not one of them.
Second, wow, is this claustrophobic. Except for a few seconds at the beginning, the entire film takes place in one apartment, and even then, mostly in the living room. I could hardly wait for the scene to shift to another location, or at least for another character to come along. Neither ever happened. This could work well on a stage, but I kept feeling as if I was watching a play instead of a movie.
None of the characters were particularly likable. None were smart enough to know not to cross obvious lines of decent behavior. Neither couple knew the very simple technique of praising in public and criticizing in private. I mean, why tear down your own spouse in front of virtual strangers?
The one bright spot was the fact that the four actors exceptional. All showed a great range of emotion, and there is no doubt whatsoever that these are four extremely skilled actors. Their talent was the only thing that saved this from being totally unenjoyable.
Act of Valor
(2012)
An amazing group of men
6 March 2012
This movie is in a class by itself. Although it stars actual Navy SEALS, it is not a documentary. At the same time, it's not something that you'd view for purely entertainment value, either. It's somewhere in-between.
The film does not depict actual military operations. These exact events never happened. So on that level, we have to look at this as very well-done fiction. But on the other hand, the Navy SEALS are the real deal, and I don't doubt for a minute that similar operations did indeed take place in real life. So this is not a figment of a screenwriter's imagination.
The most impressive thing about the movie, by far, are the SEALS themselves. I think most Americans are aware of their existence, but most probably don't know many details. This film shows us just how intense their lives are. Their training, precision and professionalism, under incredible conditions, is amazing. If you can walk out of this without feeling impressed, you weren't paying attention.
This is a first for me, but I'm reviewing this movie without voting on the 1-to-10 scale. It would feel unpatriotic to give it anything less than a 10. On the other hand, what takes place here is, hopefully, nobody's idea of a good time. So I'm going to say it with words, instead of boiling it down to a number. By all means, see the movie. You'll come out with a great respect for brave men who totally deserve it. I can't speak for the SEALS, but I doubt if they were looking for Oscars. If they were looking to let America know who they are, what they do, and why they are worthy of our admiration, then mission accomplished.
Finally, a word about politics. A few reviews here have tried to make a political statement, saying that liberals would not like this movie, or some such nonsense. There is nothing political in the film. Any American who sees it will be very, very proud that the SEALS are part of our armed forces. That's irrespective of the viewer's political party or whatever their thoughts on individual issues might be. If you have a political chip on your shoulder, leave it at the door, and instead, take time to admire these amazing men who risk their lives to defend us all.
The film does not depict actual military operations. These exact events never happened. So on that level, we have to look at this as very well-done fiction. But on the other hand, the Navy SEALS are the real deal, and I don't doubt for a minute that similar operations did indeed take place in real life. So this is not a figment of a screenwriter's imagination.
The most impressive thing about the movie, by far, are the SEALS themselves. I think most Americans are aware of their existence, but most probably don't know many details. This film shows us just how intense their lives are. Their training, precision and professionalism, under incredible conditions, is amazing. If you can walk out of this without feeling impressed, you weren't paying attention.
This is a first for me, but I'm reviewing this movie without voting on the 1-to-10 scale. It would feel unpatriotic to give it anything less than a 10. On the other hand, what takes place here is, hopefully, nobody's idea of a good time. So I'm going to say it with words, instead of boiling it down to a number. By all means, see the movie. You'll come out with a great respect for brave men who totally deserve it. I can't speak for the SEALS, but I doubt if they were looking for Oscars. If they were looking to let America know who they are, what they do, and why they are worthy of our admiration, then mission accomplished.
Finally, a word about politics. A few reviews here have tried to make a political statement, saying that liberals would not like this movie, or some such nonsense. There is nothing political in the film. Any American who sees it will be very, very proud that the SEALS are part of our armed forces. That's irrespective of the viewer's political party or whatever their thoughts on individual issues might be. If you have a political chip on your shoulder, leave it at the door, and instead, take time to admire these amazing men who risk their lives to defend us all.
Call Me Claus
(2001 TV Movie)
Ho-ho-hum
27 December 2011
Like many made-for-TV Christmas movies, you'll be able to figure out the entire plot within the first five minutes, and you'll know exactly how it's going to end.
Whoopi Goldberg stars, but even though she seems to be just going through the motions, I imagine the movie would have been worse with a lesser actress in the lead role. Nigel Hawthorne, portraying Santa Claus, is by far the brightest spot in the movie.
If you've seen more than a handful of other Christmas movies, you've seen all of this before. Think "The Santa Clause" with Whoopi Goldberg instead of Tim Allen, and you're 90% of the way there.
But it's Christmas, after all. I imagine there are worse things you could do during the holidays.
Whoopi Goldberg stars, but even though she seems to be just going through the motions, I imagine the movie would have been worse with a lesser actress in the lead role. Nigel Hawthorne, portraying Santa Claus, is by far the brightest spot in the movie.
If you've seen more than a handful of other Christmas movies, you've seen all of this before. Think "The Santa Clause" with Whoopi Goldberg instead of Tim Allen, and you're 90% of the way there.
But it's Christmas, after all. I imagine there are worse things you could do during the holidays.
Not a masterpiece
3 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I know a lot of people liked this movie, and some liked it a lot. Unfortunately, I wasn't too impressed.
The good points were the acting by the four children, and the special effects.
Unfortunately, the story takes its fantasy world too far. I might have been able to accept the premise about the children going through the wardrobe into a secret world, but once there, why keep straining our disbelief with talking animals, magic, strange creatures and stuff that just doesn't exist? To put it another way: If sword-wielding centaurs trot around in your neighborhood, maybe this will make sense to you, but where I live, it seems more than a little weird.
I know that some people were moved by the religious theme. However, the concept of merging the story of Christ's betrayal, crucifixion and resurrection with a "through the looking glass" plot didn't do anything for me at all.
I'm curious about the audience this picture was made for. Parts of it seem too scary or too intense for young children. Older children and adults will easily predict the ending. Maybe the age 10-to-14 crowd will consider it a classic, but unfortunately, I left that age group quite some time ago.
Once again, I know many people completely loved this movie. My purpose in writing this is not to tell them that they're wrong. There certainly are way worse movies out there. But I do want to make clear that "Narnia" is pure, imaginative fantasy. If that isn't your cup of tea, this movie isn't for you.
The good points were the acting by the four children, and the special effects.
Unfortunately, the story takes its fantasy world too far. I might have been able to accept the premise about the children going through the wardrobe into a secret world, but once there, why keep straining our disbelief with talking animals, magic, strange creatures and stuff that just doesn't exist? To put it another way: If sword-wielding centaurs trot around in your neighborhood, maybe this will make sense to you, but where I live, it seems more than a little weird.
I know that some people were moved by the religious theme. However, the concept of merging the story of Christ's betrayal, crucifixion and resurrection with a "through the looking glass" plot didn't do anything for me at all.
I'm curious about the audience this picture was made for. Parts of it seem too scary or too intense for young children. Older children and adults will easily predict the ending. Maybe the age 10-to-14 crowd will consider it a classic, but unfortunately, I left that age group quite some time ago.
Once again, I know many people completely loved this movie. My purpose in writing this is not to tell them that they're wrong. There certainly are way worse movies out there. But I do want to make clear that "Narnia" is pure, imaginative fantasy. If that isn't your cup of tea, this movie isn't for you.
Monster-in-Law
(2005)
A very funny movie
2 June 2005
Don't believe everything you read. I heard a lot, and I do mean a LOT, of laughter in the theater.
Maybe it's just me, but I thought the amount of laughs registered is a pretty good judge of how successful a comedy is.
So yeah, this probably isn't the one to do your dissertation on if you're trying to impress your film professor. But if you're simply looking for a funny movie, I recommend it completely.
As others have already said, a lot of credit goes to Wanda Sykes for her delicious supporting role. Jane Fonda is not ordinarily my favorite actress, and Jennifer Lopez is not even on my radar, but I enjoyed both of their performances a lot as well. Recommended.
Maybe it's just me, but I thought the amount of laughs registered is a pretty good judge of how successful a comedy is.
So yeah, this probably isn't the one to do your dissertation on if you're trying to impress your film professor. But if you're simply looking for a funny movie, I recommend it completely.
As others have already said, a lot of credit goes to Wanda Sykes for her delicious supporting role. Jane Fonda is not ordinarily my favorite actress, and Jennifer Lopez is not even on my radar, but I enjoyed both of their performances a lot as well. Recommended.
Employee of the Month
(2004)
The dregs
24 January 2005
A huge snowstorm was predicted in my area, and the line at the video store was ridiculously long. While waiting to get to the checkout counter, I picked up this DVD and read the description. The woman in front of me said, "That's a very funny movie. I loved it." So, of course, I rented it.
What a disappointment. I didn't laugh once. There were plenty of scenes that were downright offensive -- such as the coroner stealing jewelry from accident victims -- while adding nothing to the plot. It seems like no one could decide if this was supposed to be a comedy, a crime caper or a drama. No matter which one you were expecting, it didn't deliver.
And yeah, you didn't see the ending coming, so what. This movie was so bad that the actors should consider themselves fortunate that I even stayed around to SEE the ending. More than once, I was tempted to turn it off.
I agree with the previous comment. Anyone who compared this movie to "Office Space" must never have seen "Office Space." They're different in hundreds of ways, but most importantly, "Office Space" was worth seeing.
Overall, it would have been more interesting to just watch the snowstorm out the window. It arrived just when the weatherman said it would, and it did not disappoint.
What a disappointment. I didn't laugh once. There were plenty of scenes that were downright offensive -- such as the coroner stealing jewelry from accident victims -- while adding nothing to the plot. It seems like no one could decide if this was supposed to be a comedy, a crime caper or a drama. No matter which one you were expecting, it didn't deliver.
And yeah, you didn't see the ending coming, so what. This movie was so bad that the actors should consider themselves fortunate that I even stayed around to SEE the ending. More than once, I was tempted to turn it off.
I agree with the previous comment. Anyone who compared this movie to "Office Space" must never have seen "Office Space." They're different in hundreds of ways, but most importantly, "Office Space" was worth seeing.
Overall, it would have been more interesting to just watch the snowstorm out the window. It arrived just when the weatherman said it would, and it did not disappoint.
Glengarry Glen Ross
(1992)
Tons of talent, but ...
17 August 2004
Let's not forget that movies are supposed to entertain us.
This film features an absolutely first-rate cast, with terrific acting by all involved. Jack Lemmon, especially, stands out. In addition, it creates a real atmosphere with the office and the constantly pouring rain.
However, this is a film that has virtually no plot, a minimal story, and not much to make us care about any of the characters. Alec Baldwin makes a drive-by appearance ... he's in and out in about three minutes.
Overall, there's a lot to admire in terms of technical merit, but this is not a very enjoyable movie.
This film features an absolutely first-rate cast, with terrific acting by all involved. Jack Lemmon, especially, stands out. In addition, it creates a real atmosphere with the office and the constantly pouring rain.
However, this is a film that has virtually no plot, a minimal story, and not much to make us care about any of the characters. Alec Baldwin makes a drive-by appearance ... he's in and out in about three minutes.
Overall, there's a lot to admire in terms of technical merit, but this is not a very enjoyable movie.
Abduction of Innocence
(1996 TV Movie)
Yet another dumb movie
13 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
My wife was watching this on "Lifetime Television for Women." Right there, that should have given me a clue. Anyway, it was very much like a dozen other movies I've seen: a "sort of mildly interesting" plot that fizzles into a predictable, entirely anticlimactic ending.
Spoilers follow (although it's hard to spoil something this bad):
They kidnap her, but never lay a hand on her? They must be the only two teenage hoods in the world with no hormones.
They make no effort to conceal their identities, then express great surprise when she names them?
The prosecuting attorney just rolls over and plays dead when the tape is played in court? Not even a question of, "where did this new evidence come from?" Never even asks, "how do we know this tape is authentic?" Not even a little whimper of, "objection, your honor?"
But of course, we're supposed to accept all that, so that we can see the touching scene where the girl and her father come to a greater understanding. Sheesh. No wonder our population is becoming mentally dead.
Spoilers follow (although it's hard to spoil something this bad):
They kidnap her, but never lay a hand on her? They must be the only two teenage hoods in the world with no hormones.
They make no effort to conceal their identities, then express great surprise when she names them?
The prosecuting attorney just rolls over and plays dead when the tape is played in court? Not even a question of, "where did this new evidence come from?" Never even asks, "how do we know this tape is authentic?" Not even a little whimper of, "objection, your honor?"
But of course, we're supposed to accept all that, so that we can see the touching scene where the girl and her father come to a greater understanding. Sheesh. No wonder our population is becoming mentally dead.
Fabulous
2 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
With more than 1,000 comments already listed here, I doubt if anyone will have read far enough to get to this one. However, in case you have, I'd like to point out two glaring errors that seem to be commonly repeated by those who wrote before me.
First is the odd notion that "The Return of the King" can be called better, or worse, than the other two films. It's important to realize that even though "The Lord of the Rings" was printed in three volumes, it was one continuous story. It wouldn't make any sense to read just one of the books, nor would it make any sense to write a literary review of just one. So it is with the movie. Comments like "this one was boring" or "this one was better" are meaningless. This should be considered one long movie, presented in three parts.
Second: This trilogy is a film adaptation of a book, and that book is considered an important literary work. So comments like "the ending went on too long" are ridiculous. The ending was faithful to the story that Tolkein told ... and in fact, there were things that the movie left out, so if anything, the ending could have been longer.
Possible spoiler follows, regarding the ending:
Some reviewers here suggest that the movie should have ended with the destruction of the ring, or with the crowning of the king. They overlook the fact that the story celebrates fellowship, and sacrifice. To deny us the chance to see the characters afterward, cherishing the type of closeness that such an ordeal fosters, would be inconceivable. And it is very, very important that we learn what finally happened to Bilbo and Frodo. That's the story that Tolkein told, and that's the story that the movie, faithfully, leaves to us.
Speaking of the trilogy as a whole, I thought it was brilliant, and highly fulfilling.
First is the odd notion that "The Return of the King" can be called better, or worse, than the other two films. It's important to realize that even though "The Lord of the Rings" was printed in three volumes, it was one continuous story. It wouldn't make any sense to read just one of the books, nor would it make any sense to write a literary review of just one. So it is with the movie. Comments like "this one was boring" or "this one was better" are meaningless. This should be considered one long movie, presented in three parts.
Second: This trilogy is a film adaptation of a book, and that book is considered an important literary work. So comments like "the ending went on too long" are ridiculous. The ending was faithful to the story that Tolkein told ... and in fact, there were things that the movie left out, so if anything, the ending could have been longer.
Possible spoiler follows, regarding the ending:
Some reviewers here suggest that the movie should have ended with the destruction of the ring, or with the crowning of the king. They overlook the fact that the story celebrates fellowship, and sacrifice. To deny us the chance to see the characters afterward, cherishing the type of closeness that such an ordeal fosters, would be inconceivable. And it is very, very important that we learn what finally happened to Bilbo and Frodo. That's the story that Tolkein told, and that's the story that the movie, faithfully, leaves to us.
Speaking of the trilogy as a whole, I thought it was brilliant, and highly fulfilling.
Anger Management
(2003)
Not nearly as bad as they say!
28 April 2003
After reading the reviews here, I almost didn't go to see this movie. If you're on the fence about it, don't be. It's funny. Period. No, it's not a movie that will be talked about for years to come, or analyzed in film classes. But it's funny. It's well-acted. I don't know what more you want in a comedy.
I can't speak for the experiences of other reviewers, but I laughed quite a few times during this, and I heard a lot of laughter from the other people in the theater too. And I didn't see anyone walk out.
I gave it a 7. It was a fun movie, nothing more, but nothing less. I'm glad I went.
I can't speak for the experiences of other reviewers, but I laughed quite a few times during this, and I heard a lot of laughter from the other people in the theater too. And I didn't see anyone walk out.
I gave it a 7. It was a fun movie, nothing more, but nothing less. I'm glad I went.
Memento
(2000)
What the ... ????
20 December 2002
From reading the pretentious reviews here, you'd think that this is going to be a great movie.
You'd be wrong.
The words "strange" and "weird" come to mind, but if you want me to say something really nice, all I can think of is that I borrowed the DVD from the library, so it was free.
Making this one of the top movies on IMDB is an insult to all the other truly good movies that are on the list. I gave it a 3.
You'd be wrong.
The words "strange" and "weird" come to mind, but if you want me to say something really nice, all I can think of is that I borrowed the DVD from the library, so it was free.
Making this one of the top movies on IMDB is an insult to all the other truly good movies that are on the list. I gave it a 3.
She's All That
(1999)
Completely predictable
8 July 2002
Loved Rachel Leigh Cook. Other than that, I have nothing good to say about the movie. You know where the story is going, and what is going to happen, right from the start.
Furthermore -- and I wish someone in Hollywood would listen to this -- high school is not anything like what's depicted in this movie.
I'm sure there are many great stories that could be told about adolescence, the search for popularity, the need for acceptance, the difficulties of teen relationships, etc. This movie is nowhere close to exploring any of those issues. It isn't funny, either.
I gave it a 4. Not a complete waste, but very far from a success.
Furthermore -- and I wish someone in Hollywood would listen to this -- high school is not anything like what's depicted in this movie.
I'm sure there are many great stories that could be told about adolescence, the search for popularity, the need for acceptance, the difficulties of teen relationships, etc. This movie is nowhere close to exploring any of those issues. It isn't funny, either.
I gave it a 4. Not a complete waste, but very far from a success.
The Langoliers
(1995)
So bad it's almost good
13 June 2002
I'm giving this movie a 3. It deserved worse, but some parts of it were so bad that they were funny.
As for the parts that were bad, they're almost too numerous to list. The special effects were amatuerish. The dialogue was horrible. And if any of the cast had acting talent, they must have left it back in the previous dimension.
Avoid this one.
As for the parts that were bad, they're almost too numerous to list. The special effects were amatuerish. The dialogue was horrible. And if any of the cast had acting talent, they must have left it back in the previous dimension.
Avoid this one.
Good Advice
(2001)
Funny movie
3 June 2002
This movie isn't going to make anybody's Top 100 list, but it's consistently entertaining. It has a comic plot, a good-looking cast, and they didn't forget to keep it humorous. If you're looking for examples of "Important Cinema" to impress the teacher in your film class, look elsewhere. But for some good laughs after a rough work week, this one is just fine.
Domestic Disturbance
(2001)
Just OK
28 May 2002
I could have forgiven the plot shortcomings if this film had a better climax. They could have taken an extra 10 minutes and made it scarier. There were opportunities to make it downright terrifying, but that never really happened here.
Instead, we're left with a relatively short movie that's not bad, but not especially good either. I rated it a 5.
Instead, we're left with a relatively short movie that's not bad, but not especially good either. I rated it a 5.
Joy Ride
(2001)
Too many plot gaps
25 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
First, we have to assume that there's a psycho trucker out there who would stop at nothing to avenge a cruel prank. OK, I guess I can buy that. But...
(Possible spoilers follow!!) ... how did he keep finding them, wherever they went? ... how did he learn their names? ... how did he find their CB radio, and hide it in their car without being detected? ... how did he know they were listening from the next room? ... oh boy, this is a big one -- how did he know about Venna's roommate, and how did he find her? ... how did he know which road they'd take when he left a spray-painted message on road signs, and when did he find the time to be leaving personalized graffiti along with all the other torment he was causing? ... and above all, if he was really intent on killing them, why didn't he do it when he easily had the chance (while their car was wedged between his truck and a tree)??
I know a lot of people liked this film, but to me, there were too many unbelievable or unexplainable moments to make it into the thriller it could have been.
Leelee Sobieski and Steve Zahn were very good. Even though I didn't like the movie, they deserve credit for doing a fine job.
(Possible spoilers follow!!) ... how did he keep finding them, wherever they went? ... how did he learn their names? ... how did he find their CB radio, and hide it in their car without being detected? ... how did he know they were listening from the next room? ... oh boy, this is a big one -- how did he know about Venna's roommate, and how did he find her? ... how did he know which road they'd take when he left a spray-painted message on road signs, and when did he find the time to be leaving personalized graffiti along with all the other torment he was causing? ... and above all, if he was really intent on killing them, why didn't he do it when he easily had the chance (while their car was wedged between his truck and a tree)??
I know a lot of people liked this film, but to me, there were too many unbelievable or unexplainable moments to make it into the thriller it could have been.
Leelee Sobieski and Steve Zahn were very good. Even though I didn't like the movie, they deserve credit for doing a fine job.
Tell Your Friends