Reviews

31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Congratulations Bull Durham! You're no longer the most overrated sports movie!
9 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Remember the Titans is one of the most contrived, audience insulting movies that has ever been made. Where to start with the things that suck about this movie.....

1.) Not all black people break into song every few minutes of their lives.

2.) Not all white people listen to country music.

3.) All state championships are not won on the final play.

4.) A team would not be running the ball with 20 seconds left in a game, risking a fumble. They would have just taken a knee and the game would be over.

5.) There were more than 8 songs released in the 1970's. Apparently, Hollywood never got that memo.

6.) The little girl. Enough said.

7.) The "transformation" of the Gerry character happened way too fast to make it realistic. Over the course of a 2 week football camp, he went from telling the coach he didn't need any of "them" on the defense, to being the main guy who brought the races together.

8.) Even without knowing the real story, you could see the car accident coming light years away.

9.) No football team would ever just throw guys into a game on defense in the 2nd half of the state championship game who had never played on defense previously.

10.) Awesome waste of Kate Bosworth. "Now that you've won some football games with both black and white players, I'm willing to shake your hand Julius." If only she had gone to the training camp. Then she'd understand it all so much better.

11.) Let's throw in a California hippie to show that white people can be discriminated against too. The audience will never see that coming.

12.) We're supposed to believe that the "Sunshine" character would actually doubt whether he should go into the game because he can't throw an option pitch??

13.) Way too many impassioned speeches about being "perfect" and this being "our time". I was afraid they might run out of music to score these scenes.

14.) Love the slow clap and standing ovation for Gerry's mother. Of course, the TV commentators would announce when she enters the stadium as well. By the way, did they really televise high school state championship games in 1971?

15.) Ryan Gosling's character giving up his spot to Petey because "Petey's just better coach".

16.) This whole racism thing is important and all, but I really wanted to make the Virginia high school sports hall of fame. Now that's some big time stuff right there.

17.) Let's use the white coach's trick play on the last play to show just how far these two men have come so they're winners in life as well as on the field.

18.) Apparently, every time a new player comes into a game, he makes a game changing great play within the first two plays that he's in there, propelling the team to an easy victory.

19.) Darn those crazy backup quarterbacks. They'll getcha every time. Can we see a movie where the starting QB gets hurt, and the season goes to hell because the backup QB sucks? There's your reality.

20.) And finally, what a great message the movie gives by showing how winning football games is the solution to all the world's problems. Want to end racism? Just win some football games.
16 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Very average movie
2 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Assassination of Richard Nixon is an overrated movie. Everybody desperately wants it to be more than that, since we are living in the us against them political era of the 21st century. The problem with that is that the film is based on actual events, and not much is done to dramatize those events. The climax is exactly as it happened, according to a little research I did after seeing the movie. Therefore, in spite of the desperate attempt to make this a Penn vs. Bush film, it really isn't. It's just a character study of one troubled man in 1974.

The performances in the film are just fine. They're kind of hard not to be as Penn, Cheadle, and Watts are some of today's best living actors. I liked Cheadle's character the best. He portrayed a man who is troubled by the world around him, yet he still works hard to make a good life for himself and his family. Penn's character, Sam Bicke, on the other hand, blames everybody but himself for all of his problems, and sets out to change the world, leaving his friends and family behind.

Watts is fine in her role, but she is wasted as she does not have much screen time in this 95 minute feature. When we meet her, she and Sam are already separated, and just a short while later, the ever present divorce papers appear. More dedication to this relationship would have enhanced this movie significantly.

I felt absolutely no sympathy for Sam Bicke. The movie suggests he was married to a beautiful, intelligent, hard working woman, and was in the process of raising a nice family with her. However, because he could not get over the fact that his job as a salesman sometimes led him to lie to a customer, he threw it all away, and eventually became a murderer, and got himself brutally killed in the process.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sin City (2005)
5/10
Visual style only carries this movie so far.
24 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Sin City is an interesting movie to watch because of it's visual style. It appears as if cinema has been brought to a comic book rather than the other way around. However, as with so many other recent movies, just because it's different and unlike anything that's been done before, that doesn't automatically mean it's a good movie!! The film revolves around 3 stories that have only a very loose connection to each other. About 90% of the characters in the film are confined to their story. Each story is mildly interesting and some entertaining stuff happens, but there isn't enough time or enough of a backstory to get involved in the characters lives and care about what's happening.

Some performances are good, some are not. The movie desperately wants to channel the same vibe as Kill Bill Volume 1, a film that celebrated spewing blood with such a brilliant comedic flare. Sin City wants to have that same energy and charisma, but fails. This film is violent and borderline hard to watch.

The movie is visually stunning to look at, and I imagine it looked fantastic on the big screen. However, as was the case with Pulp Fiction, Being John Malkovich, and Memento...different does not automatically mean good.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I still don't get it.
19 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't like the original Meet the Parents, and I don't like Meet the Fockers. $250 million later, maybe it's me.

I laughed out loud at this movie exactly 3 times, and they all occurred within the last 20 minutes of the movie. First, when Ben Stiller's character says "Yo soy tu papa" to his alleged son. Second, the illustration of the circle of trust which clearly indicates Greg is no longer part of said circle. Third, Owen Wilson singing in Hebrew. That's it.

Nothing that DeNiro, Hoffman, or Streisand did in this film made me laugh. They have reached such one dimensional cartoon levels (is that redundant?), that the joke, which wasn't real funny to begin with, gets old very fast.

We have 3 legendary actors, one of today's top comic performers, the underrated talents of Blythe Danner and Teri Polo, and the movie was terrible. Like I said, maybe it's me.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Island (2005)
5/10
Could have been a lot worse, but also could have been a lot better.
19 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Island is not a bad movie; it's just another in a long line of frustrating Hollywood thrillers that have a good movie living inside of them desperately trying to get out. There's so much that's good here, that the bad brings down the entire experience. The underlying problem with this movie is Michael Bay. He has missed the mark yet again. The Island starts out as an engaging, entertaining Sci-Fi film. Then, about halfway through, it gets Bayified. Guns, explosions, chases, and actors yelling "run" over and over again.

The movie starts out in a futuristic world where everybody dresses alike, lives in a contained environment, and believe that their only salvation is the prospect of getting to 'The Island', the only place in the world where life still flourishes. Well, as we all should know by now, "life finds a way". Lincoln, played by Ewan McGregor, starts to get curious about who he is and why he lives the way he does. Why can't he have bacon? Why is Tuesday always tofu night? Why does he always have to wear white, even after Labor Day (I wish that joke was actually in the movie). He has a "friendship" with Jordan, played by Scarlett Johannson.

This could have been a movie in itself as these characters begin to understand who they are, or what they are, and why they live the way they do. Instead, about 30 minutes into the film, Lincoln discovers the big secret, grabs Jordan, yells "run!!", and the Michael Bay film begins.

The big secret is that these people are clones. They have been created by a doctor, played by Sean Bean in an stunningly innovative casting choice, as a way to help their "sponsors" live longer. They are essentially used as replacement parts.

The next 90 minutes of the film include a freeway chase, a helicopter chase, a car chase, Lincoln yelling "run" at least 24 times, a car chase, a fall from a skyscraper, a car chase, numerous dead cops, and even a speeder bike chase. Eventually, the good guys win and the bad guys lose.

So, what's good in this movie? First, McGregor is good as both Tom Lincolns. You can tell them apart by the blond highlights in the clone's hair, by the way. I liked the fact that they realized that 2019 isn't that far away, so L.A. looks different, but not that different. There are familiar buildings, cars, brand names, etc. Steve Buscemi, Michael Clarke Duncan and Djimon Honsou are all solid, not surprisingly. The movie has some funny moments, such as Lincoln getting worried when he's told his friend is "in the can". I know film-making technology has really come along way, but the scenes involving both Lincoln characters are so well done that you forget there's only one actor on the screen.

What's bad? First and foremost, Scarlett Johannson is completely wasted in this movie. It is by no means her fault. There is no character for her to play. The movie literally could have existed without the character of Jordan. She's only there to look good. We never find out what happens to the real Sarah Jordan. We're told she's likely to die even with replacement parts, so even though the movie is all about saving lives, I guess it wasn't in the script to save her. I liked Honsou as the tough, no nonsense operative out to retrieve the missing clones, but of course there ends up being more to his character. Otherwise, Honsou never would have been in this movie. And of course, there's the Bay factor. There are only so many times that characters can survive car wrecks, and falls from great heights, and bullets just missing them. It just gets old, and the box office reflects that.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Clearing (2004)
3/10
Could have been a made for TV movie.
27 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
What a huge disappointment from Robert Redford. He is one of my all time favorite stars. In fact, he is the star of my two favorite films of all time. The Clearing is a terrible, silly movie.

Redford plays a big time businessman who is kidnapped by a former employee. The previews of the film would lead one to believe that Redford's character, Wayne Hayes, is a corrupt corporate bigshot who is getting what he deserves from one of the hundreds of people he has screwed over. That is not what happens at all.

We learn that Wayne is a decent man. He has worked hard to earn his wealth. He has a beautiful loving wife and two children who, even though they seem a little distant, they worry about how they'll get along without him.

The kidnapper, Arnold, played by Willem Dafoe, is an underdeveloped character whose motivation we never really get a good grasp of. We learn that he has a wife and kids, but he's not happy with his life. He used to work for Wayne's company, but we learn that Wayne left the company before Arnold did, so Wayne didn't fire him.

A good portion of the film focuses on Wayne's wife Eileen, played by Helen Mirren. Mirren is good, but there is just not enough depth explored here. We learn that they have been married for many years. Wayne once had an affair, but she thinks they have worked past that. That's about it.

The Clearing works in two different timelines, although it takes awhile to figure this out. At the Hayes' household, the family is joined by the FBI and the media, and they go through all the standard kidnapping/ransom stuff that was old in movies 20 years ago. Meanwhile, when we cut back to Arnold and Wayne in the woods, we eventually learn that it is still the day of the kidnapping.

The problems with this movie stem from the fact that everything happens too fast. The movie stars with the standard married couple waking up and going on about a normal day. Less than five minutes later, the FBI is there. Establishing that Wayne didn't come home, is missing, and has been kidnapped takes about two minutes of the movie. Eventually, Eileen goes on the obligatory ransom drop, complete with tossing cell phones and subway trips.

The film runs just 90 minutes, and the only thing we learn that's noteworthy is that Wayne was still seeing the woman he had the affair with. That's it. Otherwise, the movie is a series of meaningless conversations and pointless action sequences that should have been part of this week's episode of Without a Trace rather than a major motion picture with Redford, Dafoe, and Mirren.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"I've never seen a bond company stooge stick his neck out like that"
27 December 2004
The Life Aquatic is an excellent movie. I have come to learn that Wes Anderson is a very polarizing figure among movie fans. I don't really have an opinion about that one way or another. I thought Bottle Rocket was okay. I haven't seen Rushmore, and I didn't care for The Royal Tenenbaums. Unlike most people, I didn't let my opinions about Anderson determine whether or not I liked The Life Aquatic.

Bill Murray stars as Steve Zissou, a wannabe Cousteau who his past his prime as a documentarian. As the movie begins, Steve is screening his most recent effort, and it falls upon deaf ears, even though it includes the killing of his best friend, who is supposedly eaten by a Jaguar Shark. For their next film, Team Zissou plans to hunt down and kill the Jaguar Shark, and the plot is kicked into motion.

Team Zissou includes the standard Anderson circle of oddball characters. The two that stand out are Klaus, played wonderfully by Willem Dafoe, who is constantly looking for Steve's approval; and Pele, who spends his days singing David Bowie songs in Portugese. Early in the film, we meet Ned Plimpton, played by Owen Wilson. Ned is a pilot for Air Kentucky who thinks he may be Steve's long lost son, and Steve doesn't necessarily disagree. So, Ned joins Team Zissou. Joining them on this adventure is a reporter played by Cate Blanchett, who will be documenting Team Zissou's newest adventure for her magazine.

They board the good ship Belafonte and set off on their journey. The ship looks, like Steve, that it passed its prime years ago. They have managed to turn a beat up old ship into a technologically advanced film studio and research lab at sea, but none of the high tech equipment ever works. We learn that is mostly because nobody cares enough to fix anything when it breaks. Early in their adventure, Team Zissou encounters the sea lab of their nemesis, Alistair Hennesy, played by Jeff Goldblum. They find nobody is there, so they break in and steal some equipment, but the only thing they ever get any real use out of is the cappuccino maker.

A good portion of the film is a series of sight gags and inside jokes that have half the theater laughing and the other half wondering what everybody's laughing at. For example, Team Zissou's crew of interns do nothing but get coffee and carry equipment, while wearing shirts that simply say "intern". Also, all the interns must share one gun. If you've been an intern, these are some of the movies' best jokes. If you haven't, then you probably won't get the full effect. I find this to be interesting personally. However, if you're one who prefers gross out, fall out of your chair comedy, then this movie may not land with you.

Eventually, Team Zissou ventures into unchartered waters where their ship is hijacked, of course, by Filipino pirates. They are about to kidnap Ned and possibly kill some interns when Steve decides to take back his ship. He pulls out his gun, shoots several of the hijackers, and drives the rest of them from the ship. I know that doesn't sound like comedy, but this is Bill Murray's funniest sequence since Stripes. The sight of him storming the deck in a bathrobe and a speedo to get the hijackers off of his ship has to be seen to be believed.

The hijackers don't get Ned, but they do take Bill, the bond company stooge, as a hostage. So, Team Zissou's mission strays for awhile as they must rescue the stooge before continuing on their quest for the Jaguar Shark. The rescue attempt and recovery is the film's best scene. Team Zissou storms an island, complete with their 3 legged dog, and Steve once again takes down the hijackers, while rescuing both the bond company stooge and Hennessy, who the pirates also have hostage.

I haven't read this is any other reviews, but I found this film to be a giant inside joke about the movie industry. Steve carries a gun because that's what they do in the movies. He pulls out the gun and threatens the reporter because that's how a person gets what he wants in a movie. Steve takes down hijackers, because he's the star of the movie, and that's what the star of a movie does. At one point, he is opening up to Ned about his problems, and when listing what is wrong with his life, "my film has no distribution" comes before "my wife is leaving me." One is accepted into Team Zissou when Steve determines they can have a red hat and a speedo. They discuss the Team Zissou logo, and if it needs modernizing so they can market it better. Everything Ned wears early in the film, including his boxer shorts, proudly displays the Air Kentucky logo.

Steve Zissou is a great character. It's different kind of role than Lost in Translation, but Murray is just as good. Roger Ebert said it best in suggesting that Steve is a man who is "simultaneously depressed that life is passing him by, and that it is taking so long to do it." Team Zissou fulfills their mission of finding the Jaguar Shark, but the ending is bittersweet and poignant, not satirical and funny. Based on the rest of the movie, I would have preferred satirical and funny, but it didn't detract from the overall film for me. The Life Aquatic is Wes Anderson's best film, and one of the best of 2004.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Huge Disappointment
23 December 2004
Peter Weir is a fantastic director. Russell Crowe is a wonderful actor. Paul Bettany is on his way to being one. Master and Commander is a useless and pointless movie.

My thoughts about this film going into it were that I'd get to see two hours of action and adventure on the high seas. Well, unfortunately I was right. That's all this movie is. Nothing happens for two hours.

Yes, they fight some battles. Yes, some important characters have dramatic deaths. Yes, there are some quiet scenes between the Captain and his friend talking about what it all means. The problem is, I didn't care about any of these things. Even though the cinematography is wonderful, the movie does a terrible job of engaging the viewer as part of the story. We are watching dull Englishmen duke it out with unseen Frenchmen. I find it interesting that, in the current political climate, a movie that celebrates thousands of Frenchmen being murdered simply for being French was so well received.

Crowe's performance is not even in the same galaxy, or solar system, or whatever, as his performance in Gladiator. There's not much character to Captain Aubrey. His mean both fear and respect him...wow, that's interesting. He plays the violin...even better. His best friend is the ship's doctor, and they confide in each other....are you trembling with excitement yet? Me neither.

Paul Bettany's performance is good, I guess, but how interesting is a doctor who is more interested in bugs than he is in his patients? Seriously..his character spends the whole movie worrying about bugs. That is, when he's not getting accidentally shot, in what is the movies' strangest and silliest moment.

As I mentioned, the climax of the film involves a battle with a French ship. If you're waiting for the wily hard working Captain to come up with one last heart felt plan to save his ship and defeat his El Guapo, you're watching the wrong film. His idea is to not act like a British Naval Ship. He actually tells his men that. They don't put up their flag. That's Aubrey's big idea. Without a flag to distinguish themselves as British, the French ship is not prepared for an attack. Apparently, the French thought these guys were just coming to hang out for awhile. After all, they don't have a flag.

There are countless films that are entertaining enough to stand on their own in spite of any problems there may be with the plot. I never thought that a best picture nominee starring Russell Crowe and directed by Peter Weir would NOT be one of those films.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Collateral (2004)
9/10
Excellent for a Big Studio Film
23 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Most big budget "thrillers" with a big name director and big name stars are very average movies. The number of two and a half star movies I've seen in the last few years is remarkable. Collateral is much better than that, but it's still not without flaws.

The movie starts out with Jamie Foxx as Max. He appears to be a hard working, blue collar nice guy who takes his job as a cab driver seriously. We learn early on that he knows exactly how many minutes it will take to get from one location to the next. 7 minutes? he is asked...not 8, not 6? When he's right, Max says he just got lucky and made the lights.

His first passenger is Jada Pinkett Smith in her least annoying role to date. They hit it off, making a bet over the best way to get across town. Over the 17 minute drive, we learn that Max has a dream of owning a limo company for the stars, while Annie (Smith) is a high powered lawyer who admits that she still gets nervous before a big case. She gets out of the cab and provides her business card, not knowing that it will save her life.

Max picks up his next passenger, Vincent played by Tom Cruise. If you saw the trailer, or if you can see Cruise's hair, you know that he is the bad guy. He offers Max $600 to take him around to five different locations because he has work to do at all five. $600 seems like a small amount for a man of Vincent's stature, but I guess it's good enough for an L.A. cabbie.

It turns out that Vincent is a contracted killer whose job for the night is to kill five people. Who they are has little bearing on the movie. This would have been a great reveal had it not been spoiled by the trailers. Anyway, Cruise's first kill goes awry and Max is forced into being part of the action. Instead of just driving Vincent to each location without knowing his business, Max must find a way to keep himself, and others, alive.

Collateral garnered a lot of critical acclaim because it supposedly had meaningful dialogue to complement the action. For once, the critics were right. Vincent and Max converse over the meaning of life, the meaning of killing, and general rights and wrongs in society. We learn that Max has been driving the cab for 12 years, even though he tells everyone, including his mom, that the job is temporary. We learn that Vincent is not your typical killer who is just out to do the job. He's conflicted about his role in society, about what society is, and he wonders if anybody will miss him when he's gone.

The movie runs into problems when it realizes that this story has to lead somewhere. The first hour is brilliant as we meet the characters, learn who they are, and we get some great cinematography of L.A. However, once Max tries to get away and throws all of Vincent's material onto the freeway, the movie started to lose me. It seems that Vincent would have had a more negative reaction if Max wasn't the lead character in the movie. I also didn't like the fact that the "feds" get involved and we have the stereotypical clashes between local cops and feds.

Then of course, Vincent, the feds, and the LAPD all show up at the same location at the same time. Guns blaze, and about 20 people are murdered in a 2 minute span. I didn't think this scene in the club really fit with the rest of the film. It's like the filmmakers were told there wasn't enough gunplay, and they made this scene bigger and better to have more violence and bloodshed.

The climax of the movie occurs strangely, as the two leads walk away from a high speed car accident unharmed, but the film recovers for the final showdown. It turns out that Annie is the fifth victim, and the reasoning for this is not as far fetched as it may appear. So, it's up to Max to save the day. The ending is well played and tries to make a grand statement. I bought it, but I can see how people could have trouble with it.

Collateral is filled with plot holes and unanswered questions. However, the performances of Cruise, Foxx, and Smith are wonderful. Any movie that can remind me of both Grand Canyon, for its L.A. cinematography; and 3 Days of the Condor, for suggesting that a contracted killer might not be such a bad guy, is alright with me.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yet another 2.5 star thriller
5 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers included

National Treasure is no different than hundreds of movies that have come out of Hollywood in the last few years. Big star gets thrown into a situation and has to find a way out with the help of a goofy sidekick, an aging actor in a supporting role, and a hot girl who works in a job a girl who looks like that would never have. All the while avoiding the bad guy, played, as always, by Sean Bean. And, like so many of those movies, NT has it's entertaining moments, but it the end, it falls just short of being a good movie.

Nicolas Cage (Big Star) plays a man who has spent his life, or at least most of it, searching for a lost treasure. Where this treasure came from and why he is looking for it is so pointless and silly that it doesn't serve any purpose other than to kick the plot into motion. Early in the film, Cage is exploring the ruins of an ancient ship that has been frozen in the Arctic. His expedition includes Justin Bartha (Goofy Sidekick), who is best known as the retard in Gigli, Sean Bean (Sean Bean), and a couple of other guys who will only be killed later on, so we don't even need to know their names.

Once they find the clue they were looking for on the ship that will lead them to their next clue....dramatic music here....Sean Bean wants the treasure all to himself. So, he pulls a gun on Big Star and leaves him and Goofy Sidekick to die in the ship. I know you can't believe it either, but it turns out that Sean Bean is the bad guy. What a stunning and innovative casting choice.

Where the movie started to grab my attention is after this point. The next clue, they have discovered, is located on the back of the Declaration of Independence. Cage knows that Sean Bean is going to try and steal it, so he tries to stop that from happening. Wait a minute, I forgot to mention that Cage escapes the frozen ship and actually doesn't die 10 minutes into the movie.

Anway, Cage goes to the national archives and tries to explain to Diane Kruger (Hot Girl) that the Declartion of Independence may be in danger. When she won't listen, Cage decides he will have to steal it himself. What I liked about the film is that the action and all the clues take place in Washington D.C., in Philadelphia, and in New York City. I was expecting an Indiana Jones style film about digging through the ruins, but most of National Treasure takes place in broad daylight, in well populated areas.

The scene where Cage is trying to steal the Declaration is the movies' best.

It's a well crafted and well acted scene, only made better by the fact that Bean and his crew show up at the same time. Amazing that they both try to steal it during a party for hundreds of people, but it's an entertaining enough scene to overlook that. This scene kind of reminded me of Woody Allen's "Take the Money and Run" in which two different sets of people show up to rob a bank at the same time, and the people have to vote on who they'd rather be held up by.

I digress. Anyway, the heist doesn't go well, oddly enough, and Cage is forced to turn to his father, Jon Voight (Aging Actor) for help. He doesn't want to help since he is the family outcast, because "he has a job, a house, and health insurance." Again, a nice moment.

What follows up to and including the climax of the movie are a series of chases, dramatic music, and gun pointing. There are only so many times that Big Star and Hot Girl can be holding on by just one finger while the no name actors around them plummet to their deaths. There is just way too much of that in National Treasure. There's too much disbelief that we are asked to suspend for the sake of convenience.

Some may find this movie to be educational, with teaching about the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin, and the Liberty Bell. The problem is, pretty much every historical tidbit mentioned in this movie is stuff that anybody with half a brain learned in middle school. Anything we didn't already know, was made up for the movie.

If you're over the age of 3 months, you know how the movie ends, so I don't need to tell you. I also went through my whole review without mentioning Harvey Keitel, so that will tell you what little purpose his character serves in the film. So, the bottom line is, save your money, and just turn your TV on tonight, and you'll find exactly the same movie on 10 different channels.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Around the Horn (2002– )
Entertaining, but proof that sportswriters know very little about sports
3 September 2004
Around the Horn is an entertaining show for us sports buffs out there. It's interesting to hear the topics discussed and the opinions presented. If you can stand to sit through all the talk about the Lakers, the Yankees, and the Red Sox then they actually do talk about other teams around the country.

The problems that I have with this show are that nobody ever has to answer for their mistakes. They talk about 10-15 topics a day, and the panelists are usually incorrect about at least half of them, but they are never forced to respond to their mistakes. One of the panelists will get in somebody's face, tell them how dumb they are, and then once the game is actually played, that person is totally wrong. This is kind of a problem with ESPN as a whole. Hyping an event is more important than what actually happens. Anybody else ever noticed that ESPN's pre-game football show, NFL Countdown is 2 hours long, and the highlight show, NFL Primetime, is only an hour.

When ATH first started, they asked the panelists trivia questions from their area as part of the show. They didn't know the answer about 75% of the time, so they stopped doing it. These people come off as experts, but then we find out that they're simply journalism school graduates who got a job in the major market that paid them the highest salary. As examples, I cite the two most often seen panelists, Woody Paige and Jay Mariotti.

Woody Paige is just a flat out idiot. He has no business being on TV. I can only hope, and assume, that he is better writer because on TV he comes off a stupid, arrogant jerk and the shows are so much better without him. The point I'm trying to make is that he used to not know there was a world outside of Denver (he once suggested the Yankees should go after Jay Payton to play center field), but now he has moved to New York because its more prestigious and more lucrative.

Jay Mariotti is the resident Chicago panelist. I, being from Chicago, liked him initially because he seemed to be a very typical Chicago sports fan. I then find out he is from Pittsburgh, and just happens to live in Chicago because that's who pays him.

During the recent Olympics, Bill Plaschke was gone, and Mariotti and Paige were in Greece. The show was the best its ever been. JA Adande, Tim Cowlishaw, and Michael Smith are the three best and most knowledgeable panelists on the show, and they are rarely on because they don't make for particularly good TV by doing or saying something stupid.

If you're looking for entertainment, tune in when Mariotti and Paige are on.

If you're looking for insightful sports knowledge from smart people, steer clear of those two and wait for the three I mentioned earlier, along with Bob Ryan, and Jackie MacMullan.
9 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tigerland (2000)
Solid Military Drama
12 August 2004
Tigerland is a good movie. However, I think people are overrating it just because it is far superior to anything else Joel Schumacher has done. I liked the story and I enjoyed the characters, but haven't we seen all of this before. We have the drill sergeant(s) who use the f-word ad nauseum. We have the troublemaker trying to get out of the army. We have the small, weak soldier who shouldn't be there in the first place. And of course, we have the overzealous, on the edge soldier who just wants to kill Charlie.

Colin Farrell's performance is good as Bozz, but I can't help notice that his Irish accent steps in ocassionally in every movie I've seen him in. I thought the performances of Matthew Davis, and especially Cole Hauser were very strong.

I admire the fact that they tried to portray Bozz as a guy who is simply confused and doesn't want to be in the army. He's not a "bleeding heart", or a anti-war activist. He just doesn't want to go. This is the strongest aspect of the movie. The movie is not anti-war. In fact, it's not really about war at all. It's about this character, and the way he acts and reacts to and around others.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Recruit (2003)
Harmless Spy Thriller
11 August 2004
The Recruit is a movie that really had no effect on me in any way shape or form. It was just kind of pointless. Everything about this movie was average. The performances, the story, the plot, everything. We don't really even get into the plot until almost an hour into the movie. The entire first hour is just establishing the characters and the backstory.

Hollywood spy movies have become a game of which film can have the most plot twists. This movie may win the prize. In the end, we still don't even really know who was working with whom, and why, or how. If you're looking for a good spy thriller with intelligent characters, and reasonable plot scenarios, go rent Three Days of the Condor, or even Roger Donaldson's own No Way Out.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pulp Fiction (1994)
What am I missing?
11 August 2004
I saw Pulp Fiction for the first time in 2004. I hope that's the reason why I don't think this is the great modern classic that everybody else does. However, 1994 was not that long ago. Movies have not changed that much in the last 10 years.

All I heard about Pulp Fiction for years was how violent it was. I'm sorry, it really just wasn't. The supposedly brilliant and original characters in this movie don't really seem brilliant or original to me. There all just kind of losers. They're just losers in that glorified Tarantino way. I thought both Kill Bills were much better than this movie.

Finally, let me say that just because a movie jumps around between stories and characters does not automatically make it a good movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Rainmaker (1997)
One of the best of the late 90's
10 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Francis Ford Coppola's The Rainmaker is one of the best and most underrated movies of the 90's. Of course the movie does not have the same effect and emotion of The Godfather or Apocalypse Now, but I ask you, what does?

Spoilers Included

The movie stars a pre-Good Will Hunting Matt Damon as Rudy Baylor, an about to graduate law student who meets his future clients at a law workshop at Memphis State University. Coppola efficiently sets up the meeting of the three clients during a montage very early in the film, and the three stories intermingle for the next two hours. Meanwhile, Rudy has accepted a job with a shady, cufflinked lawyer who goes by the name "Bruiser."

Shortly after Rudy passes the bar exam, Bruiser's office is overrun by the feds for shady practices that are only explained by Bruiser's appearance and wardrobe. So, Rudy and Deck Shifflet, played wonderfully by Danny DeVito, start their own law firm with Rudy's three cases. The first case is a will for an old lady, named Ms. Birdie, and Rudy actually ends up renting a room in her home. The next, more important case is the divorce of Kelly and Cliff Riker. Cliff is a guy who uses his aluminum bat for more than just softball, and Rudy instantly feels a connection to Kelly, and wants to help her get rid of Cliff.

Finally, the story of the movie revolves around the case of Dot Black v. Great Benefit Insurance. Mrs. Black's son is dying of leukemia, and they are unable to afford a bone marrow transplant for him, because Great Benefit has denied their claim. Rudy has obtained this case only because the Black's can't afford a lawyer either, and went to a law workshop as I mentioned earlier.

The case sets up with the rookie lawyer going against the big bad insurance company and their million dollar lawyers, but the movie never really harps on that point. The story is really about Rudy. Throughout the film, he develops a relationship with Kelly, gets sworn in as a lawyer, tries his first case, watches Donny Ray Black wither away, and in the end, he prevails everywhere.

The reason this movie works starts with the screenplay. The people in this movie act and talk LIKE REAL PEOPLE. The performances are solid all the way around with actors such as Danny Glover, Mary Kay Place, Roy Scheider, and Mickey Rourke all playing smaller, supporting roles. In addition, Coppola made the excellent choice to let the story tell itself. I recently watched "Runaway Jury", another Grisham based movie, and that movie failed because it so desperately tried to make a political statement, that it just got silly. In "The Rainmaker" the big insurance company is just as evil as the gun company in Runaway Jury, but here it works becuase the facts that just play out, and we don't need the actors to tell us who the bad guys are.

Finally, the character of Rudy is a very interesting one because he is not the typical good guy lawyer trying to do the right thing. He gets involved with each of his clients in ways that a lawyer never should. He engages in jury tampering, phone bugging, and even gets involved in a murder.

Overall, this is the best of the Grisham-adapted movies, and one of the best films of the 1990's.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Close, but not quite there
8 August 2004
Like so many Hollywood thrillers of the last few years, The Butterfly Effect starts with a good plot and premise, but goes awry along the way and ends up being just another 2 1/2 star movie.

My review is based on the director's cut DVD, as I have not seen the theatrical release. The plot of the movie is quite interesting. Although it plays as a time travel sci-fi movie, the real point of the movie is about how the smallest of details can affect the lives of millions of people, hence the title. From this aspect, I found the movie to be very interesting. The time travel sequences are also interesting to see what is going to be different every time Evan returns to the present.

Where the movie goes wrong is in the characters and the execution of that plot. The movie is full of characters who act like characters from other movies, and not like real people. All frat boys are not rude, insensitive, cheating idiots. I'd be willing to bet that sorority houses are not full of girls walking around in their underwear or less. I doubt that a pedophile being called a "f%$@bag" by a child would really stop him. And finally, you do not get sent to a maximum security prison while awaiting trial, especially in an obvious self defense situation.

In listening to the DVD commentary, the cause of these problems is obvious. The two writer/directors are so in love with themselves and their apparent struggle to get this movie made, that they have no concept of what works and what doesn't. The make comparisons to Psycho, The Insider, Gladiator, and Saving Private Ryan while describing their glorified teen movie.

By the way, Ashton Kutcher's performance in this movie is just fine. If you can't see past the dumb characters he's played in the past, that's your fault, not his.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Silverado (1985)
Jake's in Town, Let's Start the Ball
5 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers Included

Silverado is one of the best movies ever made. There is nothing this movie doesn't have. Great drama, comedy, gunfights, a little romance, and four great performances from the lead actors.

This was Kevin Costner's breakout performance and deservedly so. I personally believe that he was never better, but I wouldn't argue against Dances with Wolves or JFK.

Scott Glenn made a nice career for himself in the 80's and 90's playing supporting roles to big stars. Here, he has a large role, and is very good as the classic cowboy.

Danny Glover is solid, as always, as the loner with pinpoint accuracy.

Finally, Kevin Kline is absolutely wonderful as Paden. The best way to analyze Kline's performance in this film is to compare it to his other movies. I don't believe another actor has ever played such a powerful dramatic role like Paden, and then go on to win an Oscar for one of the funniest performances ever on film (A Fish Called Wanda).

Silverado is one of those movies where the plot doesn't really matter. You're just so captivated by what is going on at any particular moment, that you don't really think how it relates to the rest of the movie.

Just for explanation, the four gunfighters get involved with the crooked sheriff of Silverado and try to settle an old school with the McKendrick family, who patriarch was supposedly killed by Emmett, Scott Glenn's character.

The reason this movie is so good is because what happens in the movie is just plain cool. Costner provides most of these moments in the film such as the moment he returns from "playing dead." Also, the best moment in the film happens when he cleverly kills two bad guys at once. The film ends with a dramatic one on one showdown that we already know the outcome of, but the suspense still carries us through.

I credit Lawrence Kasdan for this masterpiece. He wrote and directed the film thereby creating all of these characters, and all of the classic moments that occur throughout the film. In addition to the leads, Dennehy, Jeff Fahey, Lynne Whitfield, Linda Hunt, and John Cleese all provide excellent performances.

Kasdan has said that this movie was under marketed by the studio because the test screenings were so good. They felt the movie was going to carry itself, and backed off on the marketing campaign. That strategy didn't work, and this movie doesn't get the respect it deserves as the best western of the last 30 years.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boogie Nights (1997)
The Funky Bunch was More Interesting
31 July 2004
I'm sorry. I thought this movie was just boring. It uses every 70's cliche that has become so tired by this time. The supposedly great soundtrack actually includes Afternoon Delight, Spill the Wine, You Sexy Thing, and many other 70's pop hits that have been overused in Gap commercials for the last 20 years. The characters played by William H. Macy and Phillip Hoffman were just pointless and only served to waste screen time. Don Cheadle's character is obsessed with his look and dresses first like Sherrif Bart, and then like Rick James. This character was mildly interesting, but he didn't serve the story at all. Finally, even though it really should go without saying, Mark Wahlberg is not a good actor.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signs (2002)
Needs to be seen in the theater
29 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
There are movies that come along every once in awhile that are so powerful in the theater, but upon a second DVD viewing it doesn't work at well. Signs is the best example of this I have ever seen.

Spoilers Included

I saw this movie on its opening weekend in 2002. When the movie ended, I could not get out of my seat. I literally had to sit there for a minute and take in what I had just seen. No movie had ever done this for me before. Granted, I am generally a fan of older movies, so I never saw most of my favorites in the theater. However, seeing Signs in the theater is an experience I won't soon forget.

The movie starts out with Mel Gibson living with his brother and two kids on their Pennsylvania farm. We learn his wife has died. Has anyone else noticed Mel Gibson's wife has died in at least 8 of his movies? Early in the movie, crop circles appear in his corn fields. Make no mistake, though, this movie is not about crop circles as the previews lead us to believe. This movie is about an alien attack in the mold of Close Encounters. Where the movie's power comes through is in the reveal of the creatures. The first time the creature is seen, it is as a silhouette on top of the barn. Honestly, you can't even tell anything's really there until you pause your DVD. Shortly after, a leg is seen when Gibson's character shines a flashlight on one of the crop circles.

I am not a huge Shyamalan fan, but the moment in which the creature is finally seen is filmmaking genius. Because of what has happened earlier in the film, we are searching through the bushes trying to get a look at another leg, or an arm, then BOOM, the creature appears in full view across your screen. At this moment, the whole theater lurches backwards about 3 feet. At the end of the movie, there is another great reveal of the alien which I fortunately saw coming, but that just made it cool instead of scary.

The power of these moments is enough to make Signs one of the best movies of the past view years. The movie, however, is not without it flaws. I'm so tired of the child yelling "I hate you" to the parent for no obvious reason. Apparently, Hollywood screenwriters have different kids from the rest of us, because I have never heard a kid do this, but it happens in 90% of movies with children. The final showdown with the alien is a little silly, but overall this movie will leave you scared, scarred, and full of emotion.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Runaway Jury (2003)
So Close to Being a Good Movie
24 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Runaway Jury is a movie that is so heavy handed in its beliefs and motives that it doesn't realize that there was a great movie waiting to be made. The film stars modern legends Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman, along with John Cusack and Rachel Weisz. Hackman is a "jury consultant" who basically gets paid millions of dollars to come up with jurors who will vote for whichever side is doing the paying. The plot develops when one of the jurors (Cusack) has his own motives for being on the jury, and turns things around on Hackman.

Spoilers Included

Runaway Jury is the type of movie that really does manage to grab your attention and keep you interested for over two hours. You pay attention to the dialogue, to the characters, to newspaper clippings, and slowly you can start to figure out the plot on your own. For example, I noticed when Hackman's character stated he had previously worked in Cincinnati. Later, Cusack's character displays his George Foster model baseball bat. Foster was a former Cincinnati Red, and putting those facts together, the viewer can sort of play along, and piece things together on their own.

The case for which the "runaway jury" has been summoned involves a stockbroker who was shot in his office by a "failed daytrader." The widow has decided to sue the gun manufacturer and, unfortunately, the movie does take the turn you'd expect from a Hollywood studio movie. It turns out that Cusack's character was a victim of gun violence, and Hackman was on the winning side of the case that cost Cusack his whole hometown, apparently. Cusack has spent his last ten years trying to avenge his town and get even with Hackman, but more importantly....(dramatic music here) take down the entire gun industry.

With all the intracacies and nuances in the beginning of the movie, I had really hoped there would be more going on here, but there isn't. The filmmakers so desperately want to portray gun manufacturers as evil that their lawyers are basically lapdogs, the CEO of the company is shown outside his multi million dollar home taking target practice with his favorite rifle. I'm surprised they didn't show him sleeping with the thing. When the CEO takes the stand, his whole defense is the 2nd amendment, because gun control activists think that is the only argument the gun manufacturers are smart enough to come up with. Hackman's character voices out loud how he doesn't like Democrats, likes to win, and just "doesn't care." The movie even ends with a dramatic smile across the way between Cusack and Hoffman after they have defeated their El Guapo.

As I said, this is real close to being a good movie. Hackman is the sinister Grisham villian again, and is of course excellent. Cusack is, well, Cusack. He doesn't bring much to a movie, but does nothing to hurt it either. I was not familiar with Rachel Weisz's work, but she is good here too as Cusack's accomplice. Hoffman, on the other hand, is wasted as the good hearted lawyer who does the right thing and wins in the end. The climactic scene between he and Hackman should have brought the house down, but instead comes off as just plain silly and illustrates where this movie went wrong. Two legendary actors are together for the first time, but their characters have been made into such cartoon ideologues that it just falls completely flat.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Average Comedy
22 July 2004
Anchorman is a good concept that wears a little thin over 90 minutes. Spoliers included. The opening credits are among the movie's funniest moments when Ron Burgundy is "practicing" by saying certain phrases such as "The human torch was denied a bank loan." This was a very funny moment, but unfortunately, the plot got in the way of the comedy. This often happens with comedy. The first half hour or so of the movie is great, but then the plot starts to take over, and that plot is usually uninteresting. The comedy moments get further and further apart, and the movie starts to drag. Old School comes to mind as another example.

Will Ferrell gives an excellent performance as Ron Burgundy. Steve Carell continues to shine. Paul Rudd is surprising in this type of role. I think they tried to create a real character with Christina Applegate, and failed. She just wasn't very interesting. I give Ferrell and Adam McKay credit for trying to create plot and characters, but I think this movie would have been better if it was pure slapstick, with Applegate simply being the butt of all the jokes.

The now well known cameos provide few funny moments. Vince Vaughn is one of my favorites, but his improvization does not work here, and he has one funny line in the whole movie. Surprisingly, Luke Wilson provides the funniest cameo.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spin City (1996–2002)
Solid, under-appreciated show for the first 3 seasons
22 July 2004
Spin City was a great show for the first three years, okay for a year, and bad for the last two. From what I've read on IMDb, I'm the one who didn't like Michael J. Fox from Family Ties and Back to the Future. I also don't like some of the things I've heard him say in interviews, but that all goes away when he is playing Mike Flaherty. That, I believe, is a sign of a good actor.

This show is by Mike, for Mike, and about Mike, and for the first 3 years of the show, it worked, and worked well. Bringing in Heather Locklear served its intended purpose, which was to create competition for Mike, but it did not work. This show was at its best when Mike was in command of his team of dunces, including the mayor.

In the beginning, Carla Gugino played Mike's love interest, and that created some great moments just in the first 12 episodes. Mike is the Deputy mayor of New York City, and Gugino, as Ashley, was a City Hall reporter. Not a totally original concept, but it worked really well. After the original 12 episode run, they decided that they had enough show without the Ashley character. Apparently it came as a surprise to the producers of the show that New York City politics was enough to stand on its own. So much so that no character other than Mike was ever really explored on this show.

All the other characters are very simple, but very funny. Stuart is the sex obsessed wacko. Carter is the homosexual, token black wacko. Nikki is the unlucky in love, neurotic wacko. James is the naive wacko. Stacy is the foul-mouthed Brooklynite wacko. Paul is just plain wacko.

What made the first 3 seasons great were the story lines and the performances of Michael J. Fox and Barry Bostwick. The fact that they used politics without politicizing the show just makes it a stroke of genius. Think about this: the show is about politics, and it never once got preachy. In fact, I don't believe they ever come out and say what political party the staff is representing. Reading between the lines, you can figure out that they are Democrats, but that is not the point of the show in any way. Others may find this a detriment to the show, meaning it was not socially relevant. This is true, it was not. But it was funny. That was really the bottom line of this show. It was just funny. Nothing more, nothing less. The jokes made you laugh. Whether its a joke about the Pope, or the state of Wisconsin, or homosexuality, or an overflowing toilet (perhaps the single best moment ever on the show).

This show lost me in the fourth season when Heather Locklear came on board. Her character took charge of the office, and the energy that came with Mike in control was gone. In addition, with two well known stars on the show, the other characters were literally filtered out. I would have loved to see Caitlin take on Stacey, but Jennifer Esposito left as Heather Locklear came on. Of course, Mike and Caitlin eventually fell for each other, but it never really worked, and shortly thereafter, Mike was gone.

I personally consider the Charlie Sheen years to be a completely different show, not worthy of comment.
38 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
We get it....he's a flawed superhero.
21 July 2004
In my opinion Spiderman 2 is a very average movie. Parts of it I liked very much. Other aspects I couldn't stand. The main reason people seem to be praising this movie so much is that it focuses more on Peter Parker than Spiderman and creates a real human character going through the same day to day troubles we all have. I feel that the movie goes too far with this concept. By the time Peter is failing in school, unlucky in love, living in a bad apartment and unlucky with his laundry, I was just tired of it. We understand already!!!

The main plot point there is that Peter is unlucky in love. First of all, he has a model/actress madly in love with him. I would hate to have that problem. Second of all, the daughter of his landlord seemed very interested in Peter also. Show me a superhero who still can't get girls. Then I'll be interested.

Another problem I had with this movie is the supposedly superior CGI work. My only response to this is that there are shots in the movie that downright look like screenshots from a video game.

The third problem that I have is a combination of the dialogue and Kirsten Dunst's acting. I don't really know who to blame for this, so I'll combine the two. People joke about Christopher Reeve's ability to make you believe his "truth, justice, and American way" comment from the original Superman. All I can say is that I didn't get that same feeling from "go get 'em, Tiger."

Where this movie succeeds is with Spiderman himself. Spiderman swinging through the streets of Manhattan is one of my favorite things to ever appear on a movie screen. It's exhilirating to watch. I also enjoyed the lighter moments such as the elevator scene, and I liked the fact that other people saw Peter with the suit on, but no mask.

The fights with Doc Ock are satisfactory, but I would expect more if this is "the best superhero movie of all time."

Overall, this an average superhero movie. Not as good as the first Spiderman, not as good as the first two Supermans, but better than any Batman.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jersey Girl (2004)
Review the movie for what it is, not for what Smith and Affleck have done previously.
30 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Jersey Girl is an average, mildy entertaining romantic comedy. Ben Affleck's performance is just fine as both a slick record executive, and a sentimental single father. Jennifer Lopez is good as Affleck's wife. Her death is still emotional even though we all knew it was coming. Raquel Castro is remarkably unannoying as the daughter. Like many, I tend to find supposedly cute kids more annoying than cute. Raquel Castro manages to give a real performance even though some of her reactions are clearly forced.

Even though I found the acting okay overall, there was one scene I just could not stand. Does there have to be scene in every movie with kids where they tell a parent "I hate you?" As Roger Ebert pointed out, Jersey Girl includes a parent rushing to a school play, and a slow clap, but neither are as bad a movie cliche as a kid screaming "I hate you" while a bad 80's ballad begins to play.

That brings me to my next point about Jersey Girl. The songs just overtake the entire story. There's actually one point in the movie where a song is playing...the song stops...Affleck has an emotional moment with the kid...the same song starts over again. The dialogue gets in the way of the song. If Kevin Smith is such a great writer, then he needs to let his words explain the movie, not a group of bad songs.

That being said, I did enjoy this movie overall. Affleck and George Carlin have some funny moments with and without the daughter. The two guys who are not Gertie's uncles are funny. I particularly enjoyed the "cameo" from Will Smith. I hesitate to call it a cameo even though he is only in one scene. In this one scene, The Fresh Prince sets Affleck straight and basically sets up the resolution of the movie.

After seeing Jersey Girl, I tried to think of what this movie would have been without all the Bennifer hype. I think they would have marketed the movie completely differently, and it would have been downright shocking when J-Lo died and didn't appear again in the movie. Imagine the heads turning in the theater as people think "what, she's dead?" I'm sure this was Smith's intention when they started casting and shooting the movie. Seeing him on talk shows, you can see through his joking that he was upset about being forced to edit the movie based on the media blitz.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Made (2001)
Vince is great, the movie isn't
9 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
(minor spoilers included)

Yes, this movie is not Swingers, but Favreau wrote a script that plays on the expectations of Swingers. If you've listened to the Made commentary, I'm paraphrasing his own words. He was smart enough to know that most people who went to see this very small release would be the die hard Swingers fans. We went, and we were thrilled to hear the Dean Martin opening song, and see the "Double Down 11" license plate. So, playing on those Swingers expectations, I spent the movie thinking that Vince Vaughn's character would end up being the complete opposite of Swingers. He was going to be a hapless loser throughout the whole movie and then save the day at the end. One of the reasons I don't consider this a great movie is because that doesn't happen. In fact, the ending of this movie was the most dissatisfying ending since The French Connection. There is a scene towards the end of the movie where Bobby is in the back of the limo, and he's questioning where Ricky is. I have a question for writer Jon Favreau. WHERE THE HELL IS HE? Faizon Love's character tells Bobby that Ricky is "being taken care of." So either he's dead, or he's gonna rescue Bobby, right? Nope, he's just not there. They set it up for a big ending, and then nothing happens. Ricky just shows up on his own and screws things up even more.

Again, I don't consider this a great movie because of the ending. However, the thing to take away from this movie is the performance from Vince Vaughn. The way he captures the subtle differences between Ricky and Trent is just phenomenal. I've read other reviewers talking about how utterly annoying Ricky is in this movie. I wonder if those same people loved Trent in Swingers. I ask that because Ricky and Trent say a lot of the same things, and have the same mannerisms. I would guess that if you read the two scripts on paper, Ricky and Trent come off very similar. If you listen to the Swingers commentary, they talk about people reading the script and thinking "who would like this character," referring to Trent. Turns out everybody loved Trent, and everybody hates Ricky.

So, the bottom line is, I don't think this was that good of a movie as a whole. However, the performance from Vaughn, the homages to Swingers, and of course the Screech cameo make this movie worth a look...but probably just one look unless you're a huge fan of Swingers and/or Vince Vaughn.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed