Reviews

TFTD is a great show, but there are certainly a lot of duds. This episode, however, is hands down the best one from the first season. People have called it slow, which I find a little silly, considering the whole episode is barely 20 minutes long.

I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. The ending has a twist, and I found it strangely satisfying, even though it's not what you would call a happy ending. Danny Aiello is masterful in his performance, and I've caught myself thinking about the episode several weeks later.

I have a complaint about IMDb. Why do you they insist that all reviews be at least 10 lines long? I'm commenting on a 22-minute episode. I think I conveyed everything I wanted to convey in 9 lines. This 10-line minimum is ridiculous. So I guess I'll devote the extra text to degrading the stupidity of IMDb.

My religious road is very similar to Ms. Sweeney's (minus the trips to India and South America), and I was delighted to hear someone echo my very thoughts on the Bible and the life of Jesus.

Ms. Sweeney's testimonial is direct, honest, and moving. She comes across as educated on the topics she is discussing, yet she explains everything in a very clear way. At no point does she sound preachy or pushy. She simply provides her story.

My only criticism is that it's a bit too long. I felt like the monologue could have been more poignant had she broken it up with other types of segments (e.g. interviews with her family members, showing us her childhood church, etc.). The one-woman show is effective, but it felt long (at 2 hr. and 20 min. I believe).

Either way, it's a stirring performance, and I would encourage everyone to watch it.

There are about 45 positive reviews here for Brain Donors and about five negative ones. My advice is to completely ignore the negative reviews.

Here's what kills me. The few people who don't like this movie are never able to back up their negativity. They might say, "Oh, the movie was awful; it was so stupid; what's everyone talking about, this movie sucks," etc. etc. etc. But no one is able to back up anything they say. This is simply because there is nothing to criticize here. My only complaint about the movie is that it's too short. However, the number of jokes in Brain Donors surpasses the number of jokes in any other movie, regardless of length.

And for the record, it's silly to dislike this movie because it's not the Marx Brothers. The directors were paying homage to the Marx Brothers and created a movie in the tradition and style of a Marx-style film. But that doesn't mean that it's trying to BE a Marx brothers movie. If they were, don't you think they would have chosen three actors who somewhat resemble the Marx Brothers? Anybody who didn't like this movie needs to watch it again.

I watched this movie when I was in high school, and I watched it again at school today (ten years later). I'm working on my PhD in clinical psychology and the professor had some crazy notion that watching this stupid movie would be an insightful way to learn about kids. Wrong.

This movie's sole purpose is to freak out every parent in the country. Yes, these things happen, and yes, some kids are that messed up, but to parade every negative thing a kid could possibly do in a 24-hour period of time is just stupid and unrealistic. The director is probably sitting back and laughing that anyone took this movie seriously. ____ __________________ _________________________ __________________________ ___________

90% of the positive reviews written on this movie say the same three things: Citizen Kane is an amazing movie because (1) The cinematography was pure genius (2) It was way ahead of its time and (3) Orson Welles was only 25 when he created it.

I get tired of people saying that a certain movie was "ahead of its time." Usually that means the movie isn't as good anymore. Truly great movies don't lose their luster over time. I would argue that "It's a Wonderful Life" is every bit as good today as it was 60 years ago. Citizen Kane, on the other hand, has certainly lost something. Even people who love the movie usually concede that point.

Citizen Kane was certainly revolutionary and was an extremely important film in the sense that it inspired so many future directors and cinematographers. But when it comes right down to it, it's just not that interesting to watch. You shouldn't love a movie because of what it used to be. A truly great movie is timeless. And great cinematography does not make a great movie (see "The Thin Red Line", the 90s version).

When I first rented this movie, I had no idea it was a play. So when I began watching it and saw the simple stage setup, I was convinced I wouldn't last more than 15 minutes. Three hours later I found myself mesmerized by an amazing movie. After the first couple scenes, I completely forgot I was watching a play. This movie is so dark, and so disturbing, yet so strangely satisfying. A truly unique movie. I'm finished with my review, but IMDb demands that I fill this with 10 lines of text. I don't know why they insist on wasting my time and yours. What else can I say? Let's see. Dogville is cool. Yay for Dogville. There. 10 lines.

This movie annoys me.

The first half of the movie is Steve Martin rolling his eyes and complaining about the cost of the wedding...AND RIGHTLY SO! At $250 a head and 572 guests, the wedding ended up costing $143,000. This was 13 years ago! If Annie was an even half way decent daughter she would've said, "Gee that does sound kind of expensive. What can we do to get the cost under 100 grand?" But instead she pouts like a spoiled brat because her mean old dad is trying to ruin her life because he doesn't want to spend $143,000 on her precious wedding. And of course mom sees nothing wrong with spending the money. Absurd.

Parts of the movie are funny and charming, but the first half of this movie is too annoying.

5/10

This movie was given to me as a gift. So because I own it, I really wanted to like it. Sucks to be me.

The thought that kept bothering me throughout this terrible flick was, "Doesn't anyone have a cell phone?" It was made in 2000. Cell phones were rampant by then, especially in New York City.

The movie had great promise. Hart's Island is a real place, and surprisingly, I've never seen it in a movie before (with the exception of Michael Douglas' "Don't Say a Word" which happened to have one scene on the island. The movie wasn't about the island.) The history of the island is extremely interesting and quite scary. The movie failed to capitalize on any of the history and instead tried to scare us with....

HOUSEFLIES!!! I guess flies and maggots are cheaper and easier to get than zombies. Totally ridiculous.

Plus, the movie had the usual things you see in stupid, poorly written horror movies (i.e. cars that won't start, love interest between two unlikely heroes, etc.).

What a waste. Can I regift it?

I've read several complaints by people who didn't like this movie, and they all say the same thing (i.e. no one can be that smart, how did Will have time to read all those books?, even geniuses have to get some formal education, how was he an expert on everything?, etc. etc. etc.).

Newsflash folks: Will was a genius of unusual magnitude. Yes, it's extremely unlikely for someone to be that smart, but it's possible. So stop complaining about the basic premise of the movie and just accept it.

And what a dumb thing to complain about. That's like me saying that Ghostbusters is a dumb movie because ghosts don't really exist and you can't catch them with special guns. It's fiction folks. Just accept it and enjoy the movie.

How would you feel if you spent your entire life trying to convey a message to people and then a biographer comes along and writes only about your death? Anyone who hasn't read the New Testament will be confused by this movie. They will get the main gist of gore and torture, but they won't know who the characters are, they won't understand the dynamics taking place between the characters, and they won't understand the hatred the Jews had for Jesus. Making this kind of movie about Jesus would be like teaching a U.S history class and only talking about 9/11. Each event is important to the story, but it's only one part of the story. I hope everyone heads back to their Bibles for the complete story.

1) THE NOSE SCENE: The scene in the bar where Steve Martin tells 20 jokes about his nose is so awful. I watched this entire scene without so much as smirking. Just not funny. Many would point at this scene as the best in the movie. Pretty sad if this is the high point. A truly unfunny scene.

2) THE AGE GAP: When this movie was filmed Steve Martin was 42. Darryl Hannah was 26. Yes it was legal, but this is creepy. Talk about a couple with no on screen chemistry.

3) CHRIS: The young character named Chris is just too stupid. I understand that not all guys are suave, but this guy is the least suave guy to ever walk the Earth. It's torture just watching him. If it was funny, it might be excusable. But it's not. It's just painful.

4) DARRYL HANNAH: Her character is insulting to women. She swoons at every saccharine word that escapes CD's mouth. She decides to have sex with an almost complete stranger after hearing three minutes of romantic sludge. Tasteless.

5) NO HUMOR: This movie just isn't funny. I love Steve Martin, but this movie is him at his worst. 2 stars out of 10.

What I can say? I was bored the entire time. It was a horror comedy that was neither scary nor funny. The jokes all fall flat, and the overly dramatic scenes were too intense for a feel-good comedy. All the characters were unlikable, and by the end I was rooting for them all to die. One of the cool things about zombie movies is the gore. This movie had almost no gore. Instead of having guns or swords, they hurt the zombies by hitting them with blunt objects. This didn't kill them or destroy their brains. It just dazed them for awhile. Boooring. What a terrible movie. Easily the worst zombie movie ever made. And this is coming from a guy who's seen Day of the Dead and I, Zombie.

Has anyone besides myself noticed that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not listed among IMDB's top 250 movies? Fahrenheit has a rating of 7.8 and has more than 12,000 votes to its credit. Some of the movies on the top 250 list have rankings of 7.7 and as few as 3,000 votes. What gives? I hope this error is corrected soon......

I find myself surprisingly sad after the death of John Ritter. Celebrity deaths have almost no effect on me, but for some reason John's death did hit me a little hard. He's never been one of those actors that I would call my favorite, but every time I would see him on TV, I would stop and watch. He was a familiar and friendly face. And one that always made me laugh, particularly in Three's Company and this movie, Real Men. It's a bit too 80s at times, but it's a hilarious movie and John Ritter does a terrific job. I wish he did more film work. I already miss him.

The whole plot of The French Connection is: Police try to catch French drug dealers. That's it. No twists, no turns, no surprises, no anything. What a boring story. The director tries to substitute good story-telling with poorly coordinated fight scenes and some sub-par chases. The fights and the chases may have been top-notch 31 years ago, but when you watch this movie today, it shows you how far Hollywood has come.

In the first scene a guy gets shot in the face. There's no bullet wound, there's no torn flesh, there is just orange blood on his face. Ridiculous.

In the next scene you see the two cops beating up a black guy that they chased for a while. The punches and the kicks were so fake it looked like a fight sequence out of a Saturday Night Live skit.

And I wasn't impressed by the infamous car chasing the subway scene. Once again, maybe it was cool 30 years ago, but not anymore. For a movie with great car chases, check out Ronin.

Like most things that came out of the 1970s, The French Connection sucked.

Why does everyone hate Kevin Costner all of a sudden? After Waterworld came out, the American public seemed to loathe Kevin Costner. I don't get it. Let's not forget about Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, JFK, and other great films starring Costner.

After reading numerous comments on this movie, I've found that the biggest complaint is that people don't like Costner's New England accent. Are you seriously going to hate a movie because of an accent? By the way, many New Englanders do sound like that. Try spending time north of New York, and you'll hear it. The biggest reason it sounds weird in this movie is because we're not used to hearing Costner talk that way.

Thirteen Days is a great political thriller. Let's give Costner a break.

Let me start off by saying that Jerry Bruckheimer has never made a good movie. Everything he does drips with feel-good summer blockbuster emotions which lack any kind of depth or genuine emotion. Enter Black Hawk Down. When I went into the theater I didn't know that Bruckheimer was involved in the film. I knew Ridley Scott directed it, but I had no idea that Bruckheimer put his tainted hands on the script.

Black Hawk down is basically a remake of Armageddon, only set in Somalia. The movie is 2 1/2 hours long. With all that time, we still know nothing about the characters. I would have felt more emotion for the dying soldiers if I knew who they were. Every time some young American soldier was gunned down, I was too busy wondering who it was to watch the movie. Rather than take some time to establish the characters, we spend the entire movie watching battle after battle.

This movie is one long continuous boring stretched-out nauseating action scene. There are no dynamics. It's 150 minutes of gun fire. I love a good war movie. What I don't like is a gun fight which takes up an entire Friday night. Bruckheimer is to blame. Ridley Scott has done some great stuff. Bruckheimer has yet to prove himself. He can't work on film with less than a $100 million dollar budget. That should tell you something about his skill as a director/producer.

I don't like reviews that take the liberty of speaking for me. Most of the previous reviews say things like, 'if you're a Beatles fan, you'll love this movie'; or 'this movie is for every McCartney fan,' etc.

I may be the biggest Beatles fan in the state and probably the biggest Paul McCartney fan in the country, but the fact remains that this movie is terrible. It's just plain boring, no two ways about it.

Two of the three new songs, "No Values" and "Not Such a Bad Boy" are mediocre at best. The script drags, the acting is sub-par, and the plot is uninteresting.

The only part I liked was when Paul was buskin' it on the street with his guitar, a glimpse of how easy music comes to him. That's also my favorite version of "Yesterday." I wish I could get it on CD.

Paul is the best, but Give my Regards to Broadstreet is garbage. Not every Beatles fan will enjoy it. This one didn't.

I'm glad I'm not alone in my dislike for this awful movie. This movie being nominated for best picture is the exact reason why the Oscars are a joke. Every retold account of viewing this movie tells of people walking out half-way through the movie due to extreme boredom. I understand that not everyone is going to like every movie, not even great movies. But when a movie can only keep 2/3 of the audience from walking out, something is wrong.

Yeah the acting is pretty good, but it doesn't matter. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: GOOD ACTING DOES NOT MAKE A GOOD MOVIE! End of story.

For two solid hours we get the displeasure of witnessing two grieving parents. Scenes with no dialogue and no music make up most of the movie. We just sit and watch two people look unhappy. There's no art here. There is only boredem.

The end is not satisfying, nor is it realistic. This is an artsy fartsy piece of crap that tries to implement a hollywood ending. Bad combination. Worst movie of the year so far.

This wasn't a horrible movie, but it has some major problems that I can't look past. First of all, the good reviews written prior to Dec. 19 (the actual release date) were written by die-hard fans of the books who saw the movie before the release date and knew it would be perfect before stepping foot into the theater. Now that the movie has been released to the general public, a more accurate description will ensue. The movie is too long. Plain and simple. You would think that after three hours, the audience would be left with more information about the characters, the history, or even the plot. I walked out of the theater with more questions than answers. If every movie is going to be three hours long, we will have the displeasure of spending nine hours watching some guys walk up a mountain. No thanks. The movie started off with great potential. Unfortunately, the endless barrage of battle scenes grew stale after the first two hours. Yeah they were cool. But this movie has a bigger ego than Braveheart and Titanic combined. At least those movies provided some resolution, and in only one installment. I understand that the movie ends the same way as the book, but this guy Pete Jackson can't assume that all of us are going to race out to see part 2 just because the first one didn't tie up all the loose ends. It didn't peak my curiosity, it turned me off. I think all of us can admit that after 2.5 hours, we were ready for it to end. This movie is trying to appeal to the small percentage of people who have read the books. Only those people can patch together the big holes in the script. The rest of us are left wondering.