Change Your Image
jowidag
Reviews
The Life of David Gale (2003)
very good, but ending discredits the entire movie
let me start off by saying this movie is a great thriller with good acting and direction, complete with many twists.
SPOILERS, ONLY READ IF YOU'VE SEEN IT
however, it seems they took it one twist too far.
the last five minutes of the ending seem to make the entire movie pointless. if david gale was in on the entire plot, and dusty was actually a good guy, that raises a lot of questions about what this movie stands for.
first of all, if dusty was intending to release the video containing what "actually" happened, does bitsy even matter? her last interview, and all her efforts to save david, or at least find a way to prove his innocence, are all meaningless, if in the end, he would be vindicated anyway. what is she doing in the movie then? she doesn't matter.
but the main thing i have a problem with is how this suprise ending takes away from the political stance this movie appears to be making. i thought this movie about an innocent man being killed unjustly by the dealth penalty. i thought this movie was serving as proof that an innocent man could be convicted and executed, and therefore, the policy shouldn't exist.
but, it turns out that david gale is not completely innocent. sure, there was no actual murder. but the whole thing was a just a set up, that he apparantly masterminded. so what is this movie trying to tell us? i know it's supposed to be happy that david chose this fate for himself. so we don't have to feel so bad about it. but it annoys me that the point of the movie is: david wanted to be the martyr, and became one.
i thought this movie was supposed to be about seeking the truth. but in the end, the truth is withheld from the public--that david and constance really killed themselves for a cause, as a means to take political action.
i want to sympathize with david, believe me i do. i want to sympathize with his cause--i'm very against the death penalty. but the execution of a man who willingly, even forcefully, took measures to bring it upon himself--that makes it seem like a waste of a movie.
if a man doesn't want to be saved, and isn't, am i supposed to feel bad about that? is that supposed to change peoples minds about the death penalty?
Better Off Dead... (1985)
THE ABSOLUTE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE HONESTLY
Most bad movies make you laugh, not because they're funny, but because how bad they are.
This one is so bad, you can't even laugh. I actually felt like i was going to vomit after watching this movie. I suppose this movie is used in film analysis courses to show how NOT to make a movie.
Especially watch for the actors who portray Lanes parents and Charles. They are trying soo hard to be funny I kind of feel bad for them.
The writing/directing by "Savage" Steve is absolutely horrible. I wonder how anyone involved in the making of this movie ever went on to make any other ones. The script is horrific. The only "Savage" thing about Steve is they way in which he makes movies, with no regard to the physical health of the viewers after watching them. Extremely savage indeed.
I wonder how John Cusack ever became famous after being in this movie. I wonder how anyone could ever think it was funny. I wanted to kill myself more than Lane did by the end of it.
For anyone who is looking to throw up, just watch the "Everybody Wants Some" scene. Be careful though, it could honestly kill you.
National Lampoon's Van Wilder (2002)
really funny
i want to punch who ever said that van wilder is a "ferris wannabe." any given minute of this movie is funnier than the whole ferris bueller's day off." and ryan reynolds is a better actor (and funnier)than matthew broderick has ever been. reynolds is a natural actor and a very likeable character. i have never understood why anybody thinks matthew broderick is a good actor. i have never seen him on the stage, but in all of his movies, he is completely unbelievable, delivering his lines very choppy with little or no emotion, almost as if he hates acting, bored by the movie he is starring in, and wants to deliberately sabotage it by sucking.
so what if this movie has gross humor. it's accompanied by an amazing main character and a hilarious script. the dialogue is absolutely hilarious. see this movie if you like teen comedies. it's better than movies like the amarican pie's and road trip.
see this movie if you want to laugh, because i guarantee you will.
Like Mike (2002)
about exactly what i suspected
this movie has been done before many times, so parents, you know if it's something your kids would like. if they like comedies and are into sports, but not enough to know that much of what happens in the movie isn't legal in basketball. i saw it with my younger cousin, who's 7, and he loved it, but i'm guessing no one older than 10 or 11 would really like it that much. sure there is something there for slightly older kids, a few jokes that are pretty funny, but not enough to keep them really interested in the movie. it's pretty much just slap stick and catch phrases and "heart warming fun". lil, or i guess he's just bow wow now, did a really good job though.
the one thing that suprised me besides bow wow's acting was that they never did the whole "it's not really the shoes" preaching thing. sure, the shoes broke in the end, with 10 seconds to go, but no one ever said "it wasn't the shoes! you had it in you all along, you just never knew it! all you had to do is believe in yourself and you could make your dreams come true! now go out there and try your best!" ...which is a good thing, i guess, because that gets kind of annoying
Mr. Deeds (2002)
Somewhat different Adam Sandler Movie
i liked it. it wasn't as funny as some other adam sandler movies...which is kind of what i want to talk about. many people said this was a typical adam sandler movie, and i have to disagree. first of all, it wasn't filled with a million one-liner catch phrases like happy gilmore. and second, i kept waiting for him to do those annoying voices he usually does, like that "abby dooby" thing or the yelling thing. but he did niether. while he did start punching a few people, he didn't raise his voice and shout out obsenities. for example, take when he found out his friend had faked sick and that was why he had to work that day. if this had been any other adam ssandler movie, he would have started whailing on him and calling him names. but instead he laughed and shrugged it off. he even complimented him for how realistic his "sick voice" had been.
and sandler had barely had any comedic lines at all. while there was still some slapstick comedy on his part, for the majority of the movie, he played the straight man to the servant and the black guy. and while all this seperates this movie from his others, that may be why sandler fans didn't like it. sure, the movie itself was made in the style of any other adam sandler movie, but his character wasn't that of any other adam sandler movie. he played someone who already had everything he wanted in life. he played a character who saw the big picture, not some sleezeball who was just trying to get rich or get famous or get laid. he played the nice guy who everyone loved. which is hard to say about any of his other characters.
Minority Report (2002)
explanation of "plot holes" for those who SAW the movie
first of all, I loved this movie, but that's not what I'm here to do. I'm here to clear up 2 frequent misconceptions people had about this movie which for many people were disguised as a plot holes. warning: this one IS A SPOILER!
Many people said, "without the precogs telling john anderton that he would kill this man, he would never have been in that room and would never have met him. So if the precogs hadn't determined his fate, it would never really have been his fate."
That is true. If he hadn't been on the run because the pre-cogs determined he would kill the guy, he would never have gone to the inventor of pre-crime's house and found out about the minority report, would never have found out who really killed that women (i forget her name, would never have been set up, would never have kidnapped agatha, would never have gone to that hotel, and he never would never have seen that man.
But that was his fate. He was meant to see the pre-cogs prediction just as he was meant to do all of those other things. Though the pre-cog's prediction itself changed the future, the altered future is what was meant to happen. You can't say "what if he didn't see the visions? would he still have committed the murder?" because he was meant to see the visions. It's like if today, i was to find a magic crystal ball that told be that tomorrow I would find treasure. And the ball then went on to tell me exactly where the treasure was. Say it was in hawaii. So the next day I fly to hawaii and get the treasure. It's true that without even finding the crystal ball, i never would have flown to Hawaii and found the treasure. But my fate was to find the crystal ball, so that was already accounted for in my future.
Another thing people don't get that ties into the previous one is how could the pre-cogs see the future murders if the future murders weren't going to happen. And how could the future be changed at the last second but not before that point. How could Mr. Marks be destined to kill his wife but that destiny could only be changed at the last second. How could John Anderton be taken to the point at which he was meant to kill the guy but not go through with it. When John was with Agatha and he said "how can I kill a man i don't even know? and i've never even been in that room" She replies "a sequence of events in your life will lead you to that room and to the man. but once there, you will still have a choice. You can still walk away." So he was going to be in that room, no matter how hard he tried to stop it and he was going to meet the man and be presented with a choice. But once presented with that choice, only then could he change his future. And that's what he did. And that was the whole point of the movie. It's important to understand these "plot holes" were introduced intentionally as thought provokers and as representations for reality. I won't get into that too much, because I don't know enough about it, but the film and the answers to these questions can be answered on two levels. The logical, and the metaphorical, wherein the movie tries to depict current controversal beliefs and such in a futuristic background. And that's why this is such a great movie.
Arlington Road (1999)
perfect movie
some spoilers ahead
A brilliantly acted, well written, fast paced movie about a paranoid college teacher who's subject is terrorism.
Many people hated the movie because of the ending. But in truth, it was the only way to end this movie truthfullly, according to the events leading up to the climax. We already learned about the previous bombing arranged by the terrorists--the fbi blamed it on one man--the wrong man. It was all part of a pattern, but a pattern realized by the main character minutes too late. And so, if you rewatch the movie again, you'll notice the hints toward the ending.
Besides the ending, it's truly a great film, with action and psycology that gives you that wonderful feeling that "there's no way out of this", much like other horror and suspence classics. and in truth there wasn't, but we didn't want to believe it.
the movie subtly hints subplots without boringly explaining them. We only see a brief flashback of Bridges' wife, but that combined with his speech to his class and other dialogue throughout the movie, we feel we know everything about their relationship. we also feel the stuggle in Bridges' new relationship with Brooke. the growing love of grant towards his neighbors and his lack of communication with his father is also added into the mix, as well as the strange behavior of Tim and Joan's children.
from the beginning to the end, this movie is filled with twists that we truly don't see coming at all.
Hard Ball (2001)
Possibly Summer's Best
After being repetedly disappointed at at the 2001 summer movies, (JP3, Legally Blonde, ect.) it's nice to know all hope is not lost.
Let me start off by saying that I hate Keanu Reeves. I think he is one of the most overrated nontalented actors there is....BUT: he was outstanding in this movie. His preformance was one of the best I've seen in a while.
Second of all, FINALLY has a director chosen to do something DIFFERENT with a sports movie. This had virtually none of the usual cliches the average sports movie had. It was actually unpredictable, something you don't find a lot in sports movies.
Third, it had everything: action, quality comedy, romance, drama, and especially a heart. It delivered everything I look for in a movie, and I give it a 10/10.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
I wouldn't call this a movie
After seeing the first two Jurassic Park movies and deeply enjoying them, I was suprised to find that I hated this one. It's hard to describe how much it was lacking. But I'll do my best.
I wouldn' classify this as a movie, so much as a theme park ride. You're riding along and then BANG!!! There's a dinosaur. You are just barely able to narrowly escape but then OH NO!!! WHAT'S THIS??? MORE DINOSAURS!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Whatever shall we do??? I KNOW! Let's try to escape again! Phew, it worked. Good plan guys. BUT WAIT! I hear something! Could it be? YES! It's more dinosaurs! AHHHHHHHH...
Does that sound like a movie or a rollercoaster? Some may call it "non-stop thrills". But I don't go to a movie looking for "non-stop thrills". I go to the theatre to see something that intrigues me. That stands out in its own unique way. To see something that delivers a message. That get's into philosophy and study of man on some level even if it's just a comedy or an action flick. I want something with an actual plot. And not a predictable one--not one where you know exactly when the dinosaurs are gonna strike and exactly how the humans will escape. I want something that keeps me on my toes but also touches my heart. That teaches you a lesson that you never knew before or never thought about it in that way before. And a movie with depth. That gets into depth about each individual character. And you see the person that the actor is portraying and relate with him or disagree with him.
This is what was so great about the first movie. All of these things. The comedy...and the drama. The questions and the morals about life itself that it left the viewers to think about even after the movie was over. The conflicts between the different characters, the perspectives of each person compared and contrasted. The first movie took science fiction and took it to levels no other movie had before. And it was truly a classic.
Jurassic Park 3, however, was extremely shallow with no subplots, no character development. Nothing but people running away from dinosaurs.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
I wouldn't call this a movie
After seeing the first two Jurassic Park movies and deeply enjoying them, I was suprised to find that I hated this one. It's hard to describe how much it was lacking. But I'll do my best.
I wouldn' classify this as a movie, so much as a theme park ride. You're riding along and then BANG!!! There's a dinosaur. You are just barely able to narrowly escape but then OH NO!!! WHAT'S THIS??? MORE DINOSAURS!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Whatever shall we do??? I KNOW! Let's try to escape again! Phew, it worked. Good plan guys. BUT WAIT! I hear something! Could it be? YES! It's more dinosaurs! AHHHHHHHH...
Does that sound like a movie or a rollercoaster? Some may call it "non-stop thrills". But I don't go to a movie looking for "non-stop thrills". I go to the theatre to see something that intrigues me. That stands out in its own unique way. To see something that delivers a message. That get's into philosophy and study of man on some level even if it's just a comedy or an action flick. I want something with an actual plot. And not a predictable one--not one where you know exactly when the dinosaurs are gonna strike and exactly how the humans will escape. I want something that keeps me on my toes but also touches my heart. That teaches you a lesson that you never knew before or never thought about it in that way before. And a movie with depth. That gets into depth about each individual character. And you see the person that the actor is portraying and relate with him or disagree with him.
This is what was so great about the first movie. All of these things. The comedy...and the drama. The questions and the morals about life itself that it left the viewers to think about even after the movie was over. The conflicts between the different characters, the perspectives of each person compared and contrasted. The first movie took science fiction and took it to levels no other movie had before. And it was truly a classic.
Jurassic Park 3, however, was extremely shallow with no subplots, no character development. Nothing but people running away from dinosaurs.
The Truman Show (1998)
darn good movie
I must say right off the bat that I aboslutely loved this movie. Jim Carrey, while not at his funniest, was at his best as an actor. I was quite a stretch from his usuall character, the dumbo, the psycho, etc., but he certainly pulled it off. The directing, cameras, and music was wonderful and they brought me into the movie. I loved the acting by all preformers, especially Carrey and Harris. The plot and script were fantastic, showing depth in characters and their relationships with each other. This movie has it all: comedy, tragedy, drama, action, suspense. And there was no nudity, sexuality, drugs, and barely any swaring. This is a great movie for people of all ages, but little kids may not understand some of the "thematic elements".
Digging to China (1997)
wow
Awesome movie, people. Not the best, but awesome. I saw this movie a while ago so I'll have to rely on what I remember. This movie had a wonderful story. It was very moving, for me, in the way that it showed great character depth. In other words, it showed people as they are, and gave you another perspective on how people see the world and the people who live on it. It showed why people act they way they do, and what you can do to help people. I don't see how anyone, after watching a movie like this one, could not be moved, possibly enough to reach out to someone and help them.
Dante's Peak (1997)
so-so
I just saw this movie, and I must say the visual effects are stunning. While the plot lacked twists, and dialogue lacked thought, and the character's lacked depth, I'd still give this movie a 7 out of 10. Pierce Brosnan was playing his usuall character, but ya gotta admitt, he's pretty good at it. Linda Hamilton showed very good interpretation of the character and I thought she was a believable character. The kids acted well, which I think is always necessary (if you're gonna have kids or pets in a film, they gotta be good actors). The directing is amazing, though he had to deal with a somewhat lame storyline.
This movie had almost everything: comic moments; memorable quotes though some lines, while it is obvious they were intended to be memorable ("it's my recipe for disaster") came off sounding lame; a love story in the background; heroic sacrifices; and suspenseful music to go along with the many tense scenes, which one may say were predictable but I don't care.
I think this movie would have been nothing with out the effects, good acting, and good directing, but you can say that about any movie.
The War (1994)
wow
What a great movie. This has gotta be one of my all time favorite movies. I don't know why I had never heard of it before, it's better than any of those new movies out there. First of all, what a story. It captures your heart, breaking it and lightening it at the same time. The message, or messages are clear. I don't see how anybody, after seeing a movie like this, could not be moved, even enough to do something about this dumb world we live in, Second, great acting. Kevin Costner proves once again that he really can play any part. Elija Wood, however you spell it, shows his talent as one of the best child actors in the country (although I'm not even considering renting "The Faculty" and I hated "Flipper"). But this pair as well as the great performances by the other actors and actresses expresses the depth of each individual character and why people act the way they do. Great movie, people. RENT IT TODAY.
Caddyshack (1980)
The absolute worst movie I have ever seen.
I hated this movie. I sat down with my best friend and got ready to laugh my heart out, but by the end of the movie, I realized I hadn't laughed once. The jokes were lame, the plot was boring, the whole gopher thing was cheesy, and some of the scenes were downright disgusting. I usually think Bill Murray is funny, but there he was doing his usual dumb guy routine while Rodney Dangerfield was delivering those dumb jokes (which, by the way, I could actually feel the silence and humiliation you get after you say something stupid). I could not believe how pathetic it was. My friend kept trying to get me to laugh but I couldn't even force myself to.