Reviews

Like the original Red Dawn from several decades ago, which was rather absurd albeit entertaining, this remake is just as absurd but equally entertaining. Leave believability at the door and just enjoy it for what it is; 90 minutes of mindless fun.

Loved the first hour or so while they explained all the inner workings of a Vegas casino. Then in comes Sharon Stone with her over acting in virtually every scene she's in. I suppose that's what the director wanted but it didn't do it for me. Beware of several extremely violent scenes.

The film deals with the pros and cons of the controversial practice of fracking. As stated by one of the actors natural gas is very reliable but the methods of getting it are not. Putting Hollywood aside one thing you can bet the farm on; when all is said and done, in the end this fracking nightmare will make Love Canal resemble nothing but a leaky water pistol.

Nice seeing several actors very early in their careers but for the most part this drivel sucks and the soundtrack is beyond horrible.

This film had a decent opening and a promise of being a decent all-around movie but quickly descended into a total waste of talent. Flash backs, forwards and sideways all over the place leaves the viewer wondering what the *bleep* is going on. I suppose all the rave reviews on here are from folks who also loved 2001 A Space Odyssey. They prefer claiming to know what it's all about rather than admit they haven't a freaking clue.

John Woo is well known for his action films. Some are good, some aren't. Face/Off could have been among his best and also among one of the best action films ever made. But Woo insisted on one major drawback throughout the entire film. His ridiculous and continuous use of slow motion during virtually every single action scene, and there are probably dozens. If Woo had a scene where a bicycle flew off a cliff he'd have it explode. There's no such scene in this movie thank goodness, but I wouldn't put it past him. Explosions can be highly entertaining but only if they fit the scene. Blowing up everything in sight just because you can is lazy. Apparently the majority of reviewers here fell for Woo's lame tricks where instead of him saying watch my movie he's screaming look at me. Oh well, what can you expect in a world filled with sheep?

I used to love this show due to its fresh approach to solving crime and the very likable host, Joe Kenda. But I'll never understand why networks feel the overwhelming necessity of lamely attempting to fix something that isn't broken. What they consider dramatic music is nothing but loud, overbearing noise that completely kills the effect they're trying to accomplish. Many similar opinions can be found on the Homicide Hunter Facebook page, but the producers apparently couldn't care less. What years ago I would've rated a 10 is now merely a 2 and that's only because the host is so likable.

Never heard of this film but it came around on Turner Classic Movies so I figured I'd give it a shot. It boggles the mind how so many reviewers on here say how much of a masterpiece something is whenever the late Ebert said something similar. Those same people most likely thought 2001 A Space Odyssey was a masterpiece too simply because they were afraid to admit they had no idea what the *bleep* it was about.

Stranger Than Paradise is a complete mess from beginning to end. Read the other *expert* reviews for the story line, what there is of a story line anyway. When the final credits rolled I just stared at the TV and mumbled, what was the point of that drivel?

It's hard to believe Steve McQueen turned down the roll of Sundance in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid simply because he would have been billed second behind Paul Newman. Oh the enormous egos of Hollywood. Instead, he accepted this film which is rather forgettable judging by the lack of reviews on IMDb.

He constantly fought with the director, walked off the set, and even demanded the director be fired from the project. The studio refused. Ego somewhat back in check Steve finished the film.

It's a simple coming of age story based on the Pulitzer prize winning novel by William Faulkner. Plenty of character actors do their best to carry the load but it's ruined by McQueen's constant overacting.

A couple of highlights were the early score by John Williams and the excellent photography, but neither were enough to give this anything better than a so-so rating. Best to read the book instead.

As with politics, vacation destinations, television shows and a multitude of other things that the majority usually go for, I don't generally agree with many movie reviews on IMDb. But for once I do. This movie doesn't even try to be good.

Right out of the gate they steal a 10-minute scene frame-for-frame from Striking Distance. I don't mean it's a similar car chase, it's the actual chase from the Bruce Willis movie shot in 1993. Ablaze is a blatant rip off of other films from start to finish.

Not worth investing a single minute with let alone the 90 minutes they steal from your life. But at least they're consistent; all they do is steal from something else to put this drivel together. Avoid this mess at all costs.

Many consider Raging Bull to be Martin Scorsese's masterpiece. Granted, he made some excellent films during his long career, boosted numerous actors to stardom, and made piles of money. But calling this mess a masterpiece is cheapening the word in every sense.

As with many Scorsese films the subject matter is extremely interesting, but in no time at all turns into a tiring bore. Good Lord, how many times must we be forced to watch a long drawn-out scene with De Niro's character screaming, yelling and slapping his wife around to realize he's not very trusting and has a shaky home life? Okay, we get it, enough already!

The main thing I want in any movie is to be entertained, but Raging Bull didn't even come close.

While I found the story fascinating, the writing, acting, score and settings nearly perfect, why oh why does Clint Eastwood feel at this stage of his long career he needs to resort to lame gimmicks? Case in point; virtually every scene is shot in shadows. Not just dark, but so dark you can't make out half the face. More movies are doing such nonsense lately for God knows why. Playing follow the leader in Hollywood makes little sense if the leader is screwed up.

Another example is all those flashbacks. Mr. Eastwood appeared to be attempting to give the audience whiplash. Of course biographies require going back in time, but multiple flashbacks followed by immediate flash forwards followed by what seemed to be several flash sideways all within a few minutes is extremely distracting to the viewer. And this goes on throughout the entire film.

This could very easily have been a masterpiece, but much as I admire his work, Director Eastwood spends far too much time here saying, "look at me," instead of saying watch my film.

Having watched this mess of a film some years back and seeing so many positive reviews on here I decided to watch again thinking maybe I missed something. Nope. Didn't miss a thing. Great actors and a great director don't necessarily make a great movie. This is a springboard for all of them to move on to better projects, nothing more.

Every film and/or book must have characters you care about. Well, at least one character. But I couldn't manage to give a hoot about a single character during the entire movie. Not one.

And what's with so much music? Scorsese didn't seem to know whether he wanted to make a movie with a story or merely throw a non-ending series of songs together. The final result was nothing but a jumbled mess.

At least all the actors and director went on to produce much better works.

This mess is drivel from start to finish. The movie makers couldn't seem to decide whether they wanted a drama, documentary, music video, comedy, travel adventure, nature hike or anything else. As a result they failed miserably on all counts.

The cast of young actors did the best they could with what they had to work with, but unfortunately they didn't have much at all. And what's with the idiotic narration from one of them when he's obviously a year or two older than when the rest of the film was shot? Was that another attempt at being artistic?

I'll agree the premise was decent; a nature buff takes a bunch of city kids on the vacation of a lifetime. But the result is nothing but a waste of time and nature. Thumbs way down.