Reviews

I wrote my summary line after reading reviews from people who hated this movie. I guess if you can only appreciate slam-bang zombie apocalypses then you might be bored by "The Limey," but most grownups will probably enjoy it. (Don't get me wrong, I like zombie apocalypses too, just not all the time.)

Others have already talked about the plot, which I found believable enough for a movie. The super-hot Terence Stamp plays Wilson perfectly, and I loved how the director used Stamp's performance in "Poor Cow" as a "frontstory" for his relationship with his daughter Jenny, played, only in photos, by Melissa George.

The rest of the cast is also pretty good, including Adhara, Terry Valentine's nymphet girlfriend, a young Denise Richards lookalike named Amelia Heinle who seems as if she might be able to act were she not always either in a pool or a bathtub. Peter Fonda was eerily creepy as an amoral record producer whose main attraction is his money. (In one of the movie's best lines, Adhara says to him: "You're not specific enough to be a person. You're more like--a vibe." So true.)

A special shout-out to Nicky Katt, who--no pun intended--killed it as a hapless hit-man. A small part, but one of the little joys of the movie.

Another joy: Terry Valentine's two gorgeous houses, one in LA with a pool cantilevered over an open canyon, and one at Big Sur.

if I'm reading the box office right, the budget for this movie was $9 million, but it only grossed about $4 million. Truly sad if so.

I'm surprised to see some of the reviews here saying this movie was "mean- spirited" (apparently it was making fun of Sally Kirkland, only none of us flyover people got the joke), or that it "missed the mark," and so on. IMHO, "For your Consideration" is one of Christopher Guest's funniest movies.

maybe you have to be Jewish to enjoy this film to its fullest. I am fortunate enough to have been raised in that religion, so I thought the whole "Home for Purim" thing was pretty hilarious. Guest isn't an MOT, but co-writer Eugene Levy is, and he's also one of the funniest people in the world. amazing to think that Levy has been a brilliant comic writer and performer for four decades, ever since his days on Canada's SCTV.

speaking of SCTV, Catherine O'Hara is also an alum of that show, and she is really outstanding in this. she's funny as always, but she manages to make us care about her character, even as we're cringeing at her facelift and new "hip" wardrobe.

the usual gang is back. in addition to the Canadians, there's Parker Posey and Ed Begley Jr. and Michael McKean and Fred Willard. Ricky Gervais and Harry Shearer are also two of the funniest people in the world, and they're in it too.

I put this right up at the top of Guest's movies, with "Best in Show." (I don't count "This is Spinal Tap," btw, because Guest didn't direct it, and was only one of four writers.)

when I did a search for "Week-end Marriage" on IMDb "Weekend at Bernie's" kept coming up instead (why, IMDb?). but I hated this movie so much I determined I would ADD IT MYSELF if need be, just so I could write this review.

I gave it 3 stars because heck, I did just watch the whole thing. and Loretta Young, as others have said, is truly gorgeous. it was also fun to see her be a "career gal" for the 30 seconds the film allows her to do so.

this is the kind of movie that makes women say "I'm not a feminist, but come ON!" a smart and successful Loretta Young is saddled with a no-good drunk for a husband, but when he's sick she comes running back--not only to nurse him back to health, but to tell him she got fired so he can feel better about himself. the tongue-lashing the doctor gives her about not having babies and taking care of her husband is incredibly offensive; even more so is the moment where Loretta is about to raise her voice in concern for her gravely ill husband, and the doctor puts his hand over her mouth!

I thought to myself: is this how black people feel when they watch 1930s movies that present them as shuckin' and jivin' menials? I feel their pain.

According to the IMDb page, this movie was released on October 6, 1995. coincidentally, today is also October 6 (2014) and I'm watching it on cable for probably the 12th time.

I have to say I'm surprised by the lackluster reviews here, because this is as close to perfect as a black comedy gets. the performances are amazing, from the stars to the cameos. Allison Folland in particular as Lydia is screamingly funny, and Casey Affleck was basically born to play that role. Wayne Knight is also hilarious as the station manager.

one of the reasons this is such a good movie is that Buck Henry wrote the screenplay (and also turns in a great cameo role as a teacher). Buck Henry is one of the funniest people who ever lived, but I bet most of your 20-somethings don't even know his name. sad.

I like movies that you have to watch at least twice to "get" everything, and this is definitely one of those.

if for some reason you have never seen this movie, and are looking for something entertaining that works well on the popcorn as well as pop-psychology level, stream this one.

Warning to you young people out there who say this movie is "boring": It is true that there's no blood. There's no on-screen killing, no teenage girls take their clothes off, and no chainsaws are involved.

What Cat People does have, though, is understated suspense, a great '40s vibe, and a subtext about sexual arousal that is apparently lost on the current generation. (And a super-cute Siamese kitten!)

Now, don't get me wrong: Cat People, for all its greatness, is still a B-movie, and the acting is wooden and the plot a bit suspect. Even in a courtroom, and even in the 1940s, "you may now kiss the bride" was part of the marriage ceremony. Did Oliver really NEVER try to kiss Irina before their wedding night? C'mon.

But those are minor concerns, and they only occur to you if you're a movie critic (as we all are, at least for a moment, here), or if you've seen the movie 10 or 20 times, as I have.

The swimming pool scene and the scene with the bus ("bus"becoming a cameraman's term for that kind of shot) are just classic. You don't want to miss them.

despite the fact that Comcast only gave it 1 star, I decided to watch this movie one recent rainy Saturday afternoon, and I was pleasantly surprised.

first, a disclaimer: even though I'm a 50-something female, I apparently have the movie tastes of a 12-year-old boy. I loved "Route 666" with Lou Diamond Phillips, and and I never miss "Wishmaster 2" when it's on cable.

but if you, like me, like guilty pleasures, you will like this movie. it's a buddy pic with a desert vibe and rather a lot of bloody vampiric action, so--something for everyone! the acting is--competent, let's say. Brendan Fehr, who plays Nick, is actually pretty good. (I see he also starred in another favorite guilty pleasure, Final Destination.) and the two main characters are pretty appealing: you like them and root for them.

when talking about a good-bad movie I always say "Well, it's not Citizen Kane or anything" but in fact this movie was far more entertaining than Citizen Kane. if you find yourself at loose ends on a rainy Saturday, check it out.

How bad is "Cassandra's Dream"? Well, the only reason I watched the whole thing was so I could write this review.

What was Woody Allen trying to make here? A rom-com murder-mystery buddy-picture caper flick? As a thriller, it doesn't thrill. As a morality play, it doesn't take a moral point of view. As a study of people and relationships, the relationships felt forced, and I didn't care much about the characters anyway. At one point, as Colin Farrell is emoting for all he's worth, I thought Aha: it's supposed to be a comedy! But it wasn't that funny. And as a travelogue--as others have noted--it didn't give the viewer any sense of London. Allen's main concession to "local colour" was to make sure his main characters had accents that were almost unintelligible to American audiences.

Why do brilliant comedians insist on becoming "auteurs" anyway? What's with the need to be "serious"? Good comedy is one of the reasons for living. We shouldn't look upon it as less important than drama.

Philip Glass' score was one of the only things I liked about "Cassandra's Dream," and I don't like Philip Glass.

Not recommended.

"Haunted" provides many of the same joys as reading a Miss Marple mystery--a Miss Marple mystery where most of the dramatis personae get naked, that is.

Mostly set in the 1920s, it features an outsized English manor house, a professor from "Camberley" College, dressing for dinner, tea at 5pm, a possible ghost, bumps in the night, and lots of family secrets--some of them a little too shocking for Agatha Christie.

The performances are top-notch. I've always loved Kate Beckinsale, and it's nice to think that people who only know her from those awful "Underworld" movies may see this and discover she's an actress. Aidan Quinn is also a favorite; even though he tends to be somewhat wooden, I forgive him because he's such an appealing presence. Anthony Andrews is amazing: one of those actors that inhabit a role, as they say. And can John Gielgud give a bad performance? I don't think so.

The story is great, if a little thin here and here. I won't spoil the plot twists, but at the end you're likely to be left with nagging questions about why certain characters did certain things in light of certain facts that are now known.

But don't let that stop you from watching it. In fact, it'll probably encourage you to watch it again. It does me: this is one of those movies I'll watch any time it's on cable.

btw, of all the movies people have compared this to, nobody's mentioned the similarities to "Angels and Insects." A&I is not a ghost story, but it shares with this movie the setting, the atmosphere, and some of the more interesting plot elements.

Here's a rule to live by: Bad Foley artist, bad film.

When you're watching the hunt for a psycho sex killer, you shouldn't be constantly distracted by the sound of footsteps. Obviously artificial footsteps. A lot of them: down marble courthouse hallways and up staircases. Or on a rainy sidewalk, where we hear the staccato tap of pumps with 3-inch heels, while the character was actually wearing Doc Martens.

We movie buffs know about the Foley artist, who adds the realistic snaps and pops and squeaks and thereby enhances the soundtrack of "real life," but we shouldn't have to think about him DURING the film. Unfortunately, "Criminal Law" breaks this essential rule. So I have no one to blame but myself for watching it from beginning to end. I wanted to like it...but I couldn't.

Gary Oldman plays a defense lawyer who helps a guilty man go free. When he discovers what he's done, Oldman spends the rest of the movie trying to get the killer. (The opening title is a quote about monster hunters becoming the monsters they hunt, an interesting idea that isn't really explored the way it could have been.)

The idea that a savvy former prosecutor—now defending the criminals he used to send to jail—is surprised to find that his client (Kevin Bacon) is guilty is just one of the silly conceits of this silly movie. Another is a lawyer who's willing to chuck his whole career to make sure justice is done, especially when it's not at all necessary. Can't the police catch this guy? He's not exactly keeping a low profile.

In the course of all this, we are treated to scenes of Gary Oldman in a wife-beater, whipping up a gourmet dinner for one in an immaculate architectural house; Gary Oldman in those painfully tiny '80s gym shorts, playing handball, or possibly squash; Gary Oldman naked, having truly embarrassing-to-watch sex with "Ellen" (a dreadful performance) interspersed with scenes of handball (or possibly squash); and generally a lot of Gary Oldman in a variety of GQ poses.

I'm not sure who to blame for the surfeit of uncomfortable and unconvincing raw emotion in this movie. Is it the writer's fault? The director's? Both Oldman and Bacon are usually wonderful actors. But I can't remember a movie with this much male-to-male crying.

"Criminal Law" takes itself far too seriously, and we can't take it seriously enough. I was sure Oldman and Bacon were co-producers; they weren't—but it was that kind of movie.

Wes Craven is one of my favorite directors. the plot of "Nightmare on Elm Street" was brilliant, and decades later, "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" was just as brilliant, IMHO. I even love "Cursed." So I really wanted to like "Shocker." but that's only possible if you ignore some truly major inanities.

For instance: from the beginning, it's obvious that Jonathan has information about the killer and can help find and capture him. But Jon's cop father refuses to believe him, and keeps telling him to "go home, this is MY job." Why? Or the scene where Jonathan dreams himself into the next murder, with one of his football buddies to wake him just in time (for-- what?). How does he know the murderer's going to strike right then?

In fact, Jonathan's psychic abilities overall are hit and miss: he dreams some of the murders, but he's happily playing football while his girlfriend is being slaughtered. Why didn't he feel that one coming? And when Jonathan searches for the necklace that somehow (it's never explained how) will keep him safe...I just had to laugh. Seriously? He's going to dive to the bottom of a lake, AT NIGHT, and find that tiny necklace? And speaking of that, why is he loving ghost-Alison half the time, but scared witless of her the other half?

It's not all silliness, though. There are some things to recommend this movie. It's definitely gory, for those of you who like that. There is some humor, and the Zelig-like trip through the TV programs was quite interesting. And there are some nice scenes of autumn in the suburbs: the leaves swirling in the wind, the witchy little kids running across the street (again, unexplained), the moon through the trees...

And anyway, a bad Wes Craven horror movie is still better than a good non-Wes Craven horror movie.

I had never heard of this movie before tonite, when I watched it on cable. from reading other reviews I understand that I didn't get to view some important but gruesome scenes. those scenes may have made the film even stronger, but believe me, "One Day in September" still packs a punch.

the documentary covers the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, with an emphasis on the blundering (West) Germans who made a mess of the situation. Michael Douglas narrates, beautifully. for me, the interviews with survivors and family members were less interesting than the live-action scenes of the terror attack as it happened. it was especially moving to see Jim McKay ("They're all gone") and a little astonishing to watch the newspeople giving a play by play about the rescue attempt, which the terrorists were watching on TV along with the rest of us!

I dimly remember the event, but I had either never known or had forgotten the details. for example, how truly craven the Olympic officials were--after Israel flew its dead back home, the games continued. (it's interesting watching it now, after the IOC's refusal to give a moment of silence at the 2012 London Olympics.)

this is a very important movie for people to see. among other things, it reminds us that haters can always find a pretext for killing the people they despise. that's something we should especially remember these days, when another film is setting the Muslim world on fire, literally. I will definitely watch it again--this time with no cuts!

I watched this on a Saturday afternoon while doing laundry, and that's about what it's good for. don't expect "Citizen Kane."

movies like this require some suspension of disbelief. plot holes you could drive the proverbial truck through, characters behaving in ways no real human being would ever behave...you have to be able to say "Oh well, at least I'll see some stuff get blown up." and you will, so it's all good.

most of the fight scenes seem to have been filmed in a forest fire, with shadows and smoke obscuring much of the action--or, more precisely, non-action, since as other reviewers have noted, Val Kilmer's character is able to beat bad guys to a pulp without ever striking a blow.

you will also have to ignore some knee-jerk lefty politics. yeah yeah, illegal immigrants good, Halliburton bad...we get it. but the plot is so tenuous it really doesn't matter.

in summary: if it's on free cable, watch it; you'll be moderately entertained for an hour or so.

after reading some of these awful reviews, I have to conclude that you need to be in your 50s to enjoy this movie. well, I am, and I did! a lot.

it was really beautifully shot, the story was interesting, and the acting was fine. Barbara Hershey has always been one of my favorite actresses, and I love the fact that her face is still HER face! the late '60s vibe was a little hit-or-miss (somebody above mentioned the plastic bong), but the music was perfect.

if you like creepy movies that also make you think, you'll like this, although you might find the resolution a bit unsatisfying. if you just want to see zombies eat humans, you might not.

I gave "Secretariat" 8 stars instead of the 7 it probably deserved because it's one of those movies I watch every time it's on cable. For whatever reason, it is ridiculously entertaining, as long as you don't mind a little cornpone "Disney-fication" here and there.

John Malkovich is wonderful as always, playing it very broadly, and sporting a dreadful "French-Canadian" accent, but it's a fun role and he has fun with it. And pretty soon they're going to be talking about "the ageless Diane Lane." She's approaching 60 and she looks just amazing. It must have been difficult for her to play someone who was not only a real person, but was also there on the set, watching her. No pressure there, eh?

This is definitely not a study of the "soft underbelly" of horse racing. In "Secretariat," the stables are always shown in sunset and soft focus, the grooms and the secretaries are always full of homespun wisdom, and everything turns out OK in the end. And the Tweedys are one of those picture-perfect families you can't help but envy. "How can I raise a couple million dollars to keep my racehorse?" is a problem I'd like to have.

But put all that stuff aside. You will love this movie for the racing scenes! The "horse cam" angle is really interesting, especially when you read about the process the filmmakers had to go through to get those shots. (There are other horsey little pleasures too, like the scene where the colt is born.) However, I echo some of the other reviewers in wishing that the filmmakers had used more of the real races. (They only showed the actual tape of one race; all the others were re-creations.) I get that they wanted to be poetic, but there was nothing more poetic than the real Secretariat.

I remember watching that Belmont race on TV with a group of friends. And that moment when Secretariat pulled away, you could almost see the horse thinking "OK, let's do it"--and he just took off. It was one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen. This movie does a nice job of letting us share that excitement again.

I have to admit that I couldn't finish watching this movie.

for the first half-hour or so, I was entranced. the story was fascinating: the kid from "Scream" playing a Jesus figure who can heal people! and Bridget Fonda, an actress I usually like.

unfortunately, as soon as the main characters got together, the movie went from interesting to rom-com silliness. the minute I saw them laying on the couch across from each other, tossing popcorn into each other's mouths, I knew I wasn't going to make it to the end.

now I don't know; maybe the movie has a kick-butt ending that makes it all worthwhile. but I wasn't going to waste any more of my life waiting to find out.

I was going to rate this movie a 6, but at the last minute gave it an 8 instead, because I saw it for the first time on cable a week ago, and I can't stop thinking about it.

there are definitely "plot holes you could drive a truck through," as they say. the biggest one is something other reviewers have noted. Debra Winger's character Katie/Cathy is forced to go back and continue her undercover work (pun intended) several times, even though there's PLENTY of information to convict all of these people on multiple charges many times over. I guess it's good to know the FBI is so scrupulous about the "righteousness of their busts" but seriously...!

other people have mentioned the "night hunt" scene. I watch a lot of movies, horror movies especially, but I have to say that this was one of the only times I've ever literally watched a scene with my jaw hanging open. I got the impression that the crimes were supposed to "ramp up" somehow throughout the movie and get more and more serious, but the hunt scene was far more awful than anything that came after.

the movie is beautifully filmed. one scene in particular caught my eye: it's early in the courtship of Gary and Katie, and they've just come back into his house through the front door, which is still open. they stand facing each other, the farmland beyond framed by the door, and the trees all blowing in the wind. I finally figured out that it reminded me of that great (and very windy) scene in "The Quiet Man" and borrowed by "ET" with John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. I do not know if that was deliberate on the part of the filmmaker, but it was really pretty either way.