Reviews

First off, I give this a 5 because of the great depiction of the era, the costuming, sets, etc. And because it wasn't awful for all five hours...

However, I'm sorry, but this mini-series was BAD. Kate Winslet is a wonderful actress, and so is Evan Rachel Wood and Melissa Leo and Mare Winningham, but this series just fails to really capture the spark that it needed. Leo and Winningham, in supporting roles, fared better than Winslet, primarily because their characters were portrayed as likable. I don't know what series some of these reviewers were watching, but I found Winslet's Mildred Pierce irrational and irritating, lacking that redeeming quality where you root for her as the heroine/protagonist. I know the story is supposed to be about the relationship with Veda, but it just plays out like a soap opera, rather than something that should be coming from HBO.

I also felt the direction was sub-par. The actors were there, and I believe could have excelled in their parts, but the awful and unbearably slow pace of the film simply overshadowed any possibility of success.

And I'm sorry, but Veda could have attempted to murder her mother, and in this version, Mildred would have ended up apologizing. In one of the final scenes, where Mildred finds Veda and Monty, I thought, this is the reaction? Chasing her through the house, and even that felt contrived and half-hearted. And then constantly seeking her approval, by inviting her to the wedding to Bert (or whatever that was?) only to sort of stick up for herself as Veda's cab pulls away, so she can jet to NYC and meet Monty? Mildred doesn't feel empowered or heroic - she feels pathetic and sad, and not in a moving or good way.

All in all, not really worth the investment of time, and certainly not up to the standards I expect from HBO.

OK....this movie could have been SOOOO much better. Sometimes I wonder how people who really can't act or direct convince other people to pay for a movie. Lohan was not even that great. She didn't carry the movie. Otherwise, it may have been decent. Rather, the extreme over use of blue, the constant fading/filming technique, and the contrived plot made this movie a flat out stinker.

The premise was decent, but really, you should figure out who the killer is within the first 15 minutes or so of the film. Sorry if you don't. Also, I watched it with a friend and she and I kept guessing the next plot piece, not because we are so apt at predicting the future, but because the movie was so freaking predictable. After I figured out the ending, I said out loud "you've got to be kidding me, right?" Not because I was so clever to figure out the ending, but because it was the most ridiculous attempt at an "obvious" twist I had ever scene.

Oh - SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the stigmata thing, are you serious? Limbs just fall off completely??!!?? OK, but make it freaky or scary or spooky or something. Don't have the random science looking guy on the internet explain it like a twilight zone meets sesame street wannabe. It was lame. Stigmata is one of those unexplained phenomenon. Make it interesting, not something that reminded me of the animated sequence with DNA in the beginning of Jurassic Park.

END SPOILERS

All in all, I had wanted to see the film. I am usually drawn to movies that are rated poorly, especially when the lead actress is a coke head spiraling out of control. However, this was a resounding disappointment. The movie, in the hands of a talented or skilled filmmaker with actors who were half decent, may have been a moderate hit. Instead it was Lohan writhing around half naked doing disgusting things with a cigarette (you'll see) with a bunch of should-be-extras-on-a-soap-opera actors who couldn't keep up.

I'd say don't waste your time, but I am sure you will.

If I could give it a zero, I would. I rented this last night and watched it with my father-in-law. We both love horror/scary movies. Well, I thought this had promise until about 5 minutes into the film. The lead character, Nicole, was just too dumb! Great idea to hang around, get loaded, watch TV, listen to the radio, pee in the most vile restroom I have ever seen and just hang out with your bf's broken bloody cell phone. Oh, and don't even suggest that the helpful trucker is your psychopath. The movie could have been decent (like she goes into the woods, and he tracks her down, or she finds some mass grave and some abandoned cars). That may have been typical, but it would have been INTERESTING. I know a horror movie is bad when I can't wait for a character to die so I don't have to deal with their stupidity. Can't think of any character in this movie I wanted to survive.

Also, the plot holes and inexplicable story lines make this movie painful to watch. I have no idea what the writer/director intended, nor do I care.

I watched "Stay Alive" after Rest Stop and it made SA seem Oscar worthy, that's how bad it is.

Joey Lawrence is useless in this movie and he doesn't play the character right.

Oh and by the way, I am not a huge fan of gore in that I'd prefer suspense, but the gore was kind of lacking in this film considering how horrible the rest of it was. There were long periods when nothing gory happened. Really, what kind of gore do you see? A finger bitten off, a tongue cut off, some staples to the chest and slices with a utility knife? Oh and Joey Lawrence's cop getting his brains blown out. Maybe a total of 8 minutes tops.

DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!!!!!! THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE AND WORTHLESS. IT WAS BORING AND PATHETIC.

After reading some of the reviews, I am wondering if I saw the same film. I rented this last night, and I was expecting a great film. What I got was a mediocre attempt at greatness, a film that got caught up in its own supposed "greatness." The movie is SLOW.... I don't mean parts, I mean the whole film. When anything happens, it is crammed into one instance, with eons of pondering afterward. For example, the burglary in the diner. Don't blink or you may miss the part when he kills them. Then, we get an in-depth study in the reaction of all people involved. Note, however, that this was not good movie-making. This was dragging out your point. Then, take for example the so-called stand-off at Tom's home with the Philly mob guys (More on that laughable portrayal later on). They talk, they talk, they say come on, Tom then jumps into action thrusting one bad guys nose into his brain, shoots the other, and then the meek son decides to blast a hole in ed Harris. OK, right.... then more pondering, more thinking, more inaction.

Then the end.... the penultimate scene....the shootout at the brother's house, followed by the drive home, which he magically does in enough time to stay in the dark the whole drive, followed by the unbearably slow dining room scene. Ugh.

What was the point? That Tom Stall was a psychopath Mob killer who buried it away just until someone threatened him. Then....all of a sudden... he turns into this killing machine, which he can control and then goes back for dinner with the family who make him stand for a few minutes, but then let it go. The sex scene on the stairs?!? I don't get it. Now someone will give me some long symbolic explanation, but rational people do NOT act like this. If a movie wants to avoid being labeled a lame action film, or a predictable thriller, stop adding movie-like stuff to it. Am I supposed to feel bad for Tom Stall? For Joey Cusack? For the family, especially the son who really asked his dad if he would "whack" him? OK - Now for the WORST! William Hurt - a head of a Philadelphia mob family with Viggo Mortensen as his crazy younger brother. Superhuman little bro Tom Stall killing all of big bro Richie's bad guys and then putting one right between his eyes. The mob stuff was pathetic! - with the exception of Ed Harris who was at least fun to watch.

I can't even organize my thoughts to comment because this stupid movie has me all garbled. I just kept waiting for some direction, some clarity, some structure, but what I saw was a bunch of separate scenes chucked together to form some semblance of a finished piece. This is not a study in violence, it is not more admirable because it didn't play on the gore factor (which it kind of did because two people had they brains blown out by the same guy). It even played on the sex factor as well with the scene in the beginning and the end.

All in all, much of it seemed pointless. I was not moved. I was not inspired. I felt like I wasted 2 hours of my life watching someone's lame excuse for a thriller. It wasn't even thrilling, not poignant, not thought-provoking.

I am a big fan of films.... I generally try to see the good in all but this was really horrible. I might actually say I hated it. It, meaning the film itself, seemed to think it was better than it was, if anyone can fathom what I mean, and conveyed that sort of emotion throughout, and that made it pathetic, lame, uninspiring, unimaginative, and uneventful.

I wouldn't waste my time again.

Ugh! Where to begin. First, at least this was a bonus rental that I didn't have to pay for. William H. Macy -- it can't be bad, right? WRONG! I don't know what was going on here. The Americans were just TERRIBLE! The German crew was more believable, better actors, and even their subtitled dialogue was better. The American crew was just pathetic, from Scott Caan's attempt at being a hard Captain to Macy's spineless Chief. In what universe would German soldiers during WWII properly treat American prisoners like guests at a budget motel with handcuffs. And the wife appearing to give Macy some morale... just plain dumb. The whole thing is a mess. I don't know who liked this movie, but I would love to know why. I honestly cannot find a reason.

Well, I only happened upon this movie through the On Demand feature of my cable company. The cast seemed promising, so I watched it late tonight. The movie is utterly disappointing because it could have been really good. After reading some of the other comments, I have to agree that the editing killed this film. It didn't seem to flow properly and there were giant holes in the plot. For instance, when Matthew McConaughey's character decides to meet Carol and Rolfe at the party, he asked the hot blonde student to come with him. Why? Then at the party he introduces her and that is the last we see of her. What was all that? Some of the commenters have stated that Steven (his character) had an affair with her. That would make more sense. Also, as mentioned, the baby was so fake at some points that it was almost funny. However, nothing compares to ridiculous ending... I sort of saw it coming, but it was just not right. Carol and Rolfe together? It's wrong. Not because he is a dwarf and she is not, and not because Steven is so confused and conflicted. She is his sister-in-law. Steven claims he loves her and the son, but she just decides to get together with Rolfe. It was odd and unnatural at the end and then we get no closure just the credits. Peter Dinklage and Patricia Arquette seemed wasted in this film. At the end, they just sort of dissipated into nothing and that was it. I LOVE Peter Dinklage. He was amazing in Station Agent, and he could have done so much if just given the chance. The dialogue was weak (that's being polite). The writer tried to be realistic but he ended up being simple and uninspired. I will give the film credit because it deals with dwarfism but it is not about dwarfs. They are part of the film, but not the entire story. The dwarfism is collateral to the other subplots. I guess the film lacked finances and agreement, and that reflects in the final product.

All in all, I am glad I watched it. I was just disappointed because I could tell it could have been better. The performances were decent, but there wasn't enough to work with. Gary Oldman (who once played the ominous Dracula) surprises as a dwarf. He is just fantastic. I don't know how he did, but he did it well.

I would watch it again, but I don't think I would pay to rent it. It wasn't that bad, but don't expect something fantastic even with the impressive ensemble.

I forced my boyfriend to go see this with me the other night with the promise (false, though it may be) that it involved some boxing. Well, he just hated it. Not because it didn't involve too much boxing, but because it made him feel so sad, so depressed as we left the theater, that he just hated it. He said he was nauseated at the end (and throughout the last 30 minutes of the film) because it was just too heavy. My perspective is unfortunately quite similar. We both agreed that the acting was superb, but the story itself was just too sad. It was refreshing to see a movie without the cliché happy ending, but this takes it to new extremes. It was difficult to watch because of the sadness. I can only describe it as 'heavy.' There were a few moments of levity, but not enough to help us escape from the grips of depression and despair the movie so masterfully conveyed. I gave this film 8 out of 10 because it was a great movie. However, I will NEVER see it again. I can't go through it again, and I think my boyfriend would kill me if I brought it home. Just a note... we at least made it through the entire film, but others in the theater were not as tolerant. That being said, I will defend the film, because I am certain the people did not leave because it was bad, but because they just couldn't take any more. I guess that is why it deserved the Oscar. But, all in all, it was a VERY difficult movie to watch. That makes it excellent, I suppose. Unfortunately, MDB will not go on my favorites list. I can appreciate it for the masterpiece it was, but I don't want to suffer through it again. It was just too hard to watch (mainly towards the end). Also, I am usually a crier, but I managed to compose myself through MDB. However, the other patrons, as mentioned earlier, were also not as fortunate. An amazing film that perfectly demonstrates the genius of Clint Eastwood as well as Morgan Freeman, and the amazing ability of Hilary Swank to morph into any character.... it was just SO sad and TOO HEAVY!! I know I keep saying it, but that is the best way to describe it.

P.S. - "Danger" was some nice comic relief, but even he was victim to minor tragedy.... just another example of the heaviness of this film.

He seems to be one of the most underrated actors of his time. In every single film I can think of, he manages to capture the exact emotion of the scene, of the time, etc. He does NOT disappoint in Ladder 49. Combined with the cool understated performance of John Travolta, the movie draws you in. He is really in a supporting role here, and he succeeds magnificently. As mentioned by other reviewers, Phoenix is able to transform his performance of a young man coming into his own. His on screen wife, played by Jacinda Barrett (of the Real World) is unable to keep up. Her evolution is forced, mostly in the earlier stages. I think she managed to play the older more mature wife and mother better than the young love interest in the beginning. I won't mention much about the plot except that this is not another 'Backdraft.' It lacks the over the top action. Ladder 49 is a film about fire fighters, not fighting fires. Fire does NOT take center stage. It's an obstacle, a force, overcome by the hearts and courage of the firemen. I can't say enough about Joaquin Phoenix (except that I absolutely LOVE him) and John Travolta, as well as the rest of the cast. I highly recommend the film. I rated it 8 of 10 stars because I didn't like the ending, although it was definitely well done.

Definitely watch this one.

This could have been great. It's a Wes Craven flick with a decent cast. Unfortunately, the movie falls utterly flat. It seems hurried but then doesn't come through at the end. And oh Pacey. Poor Pacey. What was Joshua Jackson thinking? Was he supposed to be mysterious or aloof? I don't know but his performance is so wooden I wondered if you could express ANY emotion. Additionally the complete lack of chemistry on screen between Jackson and Christina Ricci made the film drag even more. Normally I am a big fan of hers, but oddly enough, she seems out of her element here. Some positive points.... the special effects were pretty good. You could tell which werewolves were CGI, but still good nonetheless. Also, the slight twist at the end was good but it didn't have the shock or the stupidity of Scream 2 or 3 for examples. I think I was disappointed because this is a Wes Craven flick. He has had some flops but I was hoping for something more inventive. Basically, he takes the story of werewolves and tweaks it slightly to fit an LA background (which really didn't take too much).

I would never see it in theaters, but I would have rented it the first day of release. It wasn't worth the $8 in the movies. Wait for the DVD, but I still recommend seeing it if not just to criticize it. :-)

Jimmy Fallon should NOT have left SNL. Either he wasn't ready to be a leading man or he never will be. Ironically, Queen Latifah saves this movie. She is very at home in her character, which makes her easy to watch. Fallon is just too over the top, even in a film like this. Remember - the movie centers on a group of four bombshell Brazilian bank robbers/models being chased by an inept cop who can't drive. The movie wants to be like "Speed" but funny. Sad truth is that I would have preferred Keanu Reeves instead of Fallon. He was just plain annoying. All that being said, the film was watchable. It was in no way, in my humble opinion, as horrible as many reviewers here would lead you to believe. I was entertained. The car sequences were interesting, to say the least, even if totally far-fetched. OH, and Belle's love interest, very easy on the eyes. This is no masterpiece. It fits in the typical funny cop genre, mixed with the crazy car chase/fanatic twist. It wasn't that good, but it could have been worse, so I gave it a 6/10. If you take it for what it's worth, you might be moderately entertained.

THIS DEFINITELY HAS SPOILERS SO BEWARE!!!!

Considering its tiny budget and short filming time, this movie was excellent. There is definitely a "Se7en" feel to it, but not so much that it's repetitive. The story itself is quite original, especially in its execution. Granted, the killer making others do the killing isn't that original, but "Saw" is by no means typical. OK, so I really enjoyed the movie, but, as always, I have some griping to do.

SPOILERS!SPOILERS! SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!

First - the ending - I was a little annoyed. Not so much by the unveiling of Jigsaw, but the implausibility of him being in the room the entire time without a trained oncologist realizing he was not dead. Second - the Zep or Zap factor - his 'game' seems a little convoluted. I understand this is a movie, but it could have been done a little better. Why make him a part of all this, when he seemed to defend John at the hospital as a person? Third - the sawing - why wouldn't the Doctor use his shirt to get the cell phone and tell his wife he was still there? He could have found out that she was safe. Did he really think he could saw off his foot and save himself? That bothered me. It could have been a different twist, like the wife was OK, but Jigsaw was on his way to finish the Doctor off or something like that. Fourth - Cary Elwes in general - I don't know. At times he just seemed out of place. His hair was too blonde and he was almost chunky. Maybe he was supposed to seem pompous and yuppie-like, but at times I found it unbelievable. Fifth - the loose ends - Did the Doctor actually die? Granted, he was dragging himself out of the bathroom at the end pale as a ghost and he probably made it only ten more feet, but who knows? Do they later find his body? A loud thump five seconds after he crawled out would have done it. (Maybe there was one and I missed it, so I apologize if I did). Do they later find Adam shriveled and dead with Zap or Zep (I am unsure which it is)? Are they leaving the loose ends for a sequel? Didn't Jigsaw have a frontal lobe tumor, so he was dying before all of this began?

All that being said, I still rated this movie 9/10. Why? Because it was that good. So good, in fact, I found myself picking out the aforementioned little things. Why even nit pick like that? Because it could have been perfect. "Saw" had all the potential but only came through about 95%. And that is why I was a little annoyed at the end. Again, still a great movie. One of the best horror/suspense films in a LONG time. Original, creative, scary, freaky, disturbing, etc.

Despite what I have said, I highly recommend this movie. Be warned that it can be quite graphic, but it is definitely worth it.

I, like many others, was expecting the typical romance/love story. And as it started out, when we discover that Allie is the rich girl and Noah is the country boy, I figured I was getting what I anticipated. But as I watched the film, I realized there was more to the story. I don't want to get into it too much, but needless to say, I was very happy by the end. Also, it has to be noted that Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams have tremendous chemistry on screen. Also, Gena Rowlands and James Garner give moving performances in their respective roles. Although I found one of the plot twists quite easy to identify, it was developed in a very interesting way, which didn't ruin it for the viewer. I unfortunately have little time to read for leisure with my hectic class schedule. However, I am pretty sure I will pick up the next Nicholas Sparks novel. All in all, a very moving tell of human emotion which brings you in to the story.

I just watched this movie and, I have to admit, I had some pretty low expectations. However, I was pleasantly surprised. The action was pretty consistent, and I didn't think the story had too many holes in it. Plus, with the omnipresence of cellular technologies, I didn't think the story was too far-fetched.

Just a quick summary.... Ryan is kind of the slacker type who gets a random cell phone call from Jessica who has been kidnapped by these sort of Russian bad guys. We later find out they are cops, but I am still not so sure at the end of the movie. Anyways, mayhem ensues as Ryan tries to help Jessica in various ways. One criticism is that the regular cops never seemed to find Ryan in all his law-breaking adventures. Granted, this is L.A., but I think it would have been a little easier to track him down. Regardless, the story moves along quite nicely.

I enjoyed this film, I enjoyed very much. I was very surprised at this enjoyment considering the reviews I had heard. Kim Basinger is decent and William H. Macy - well - I just love him.

My suggestion: rent it and enjoy!

I hate movies that are hyped up so much that the reality is utterly boring. That, unfortunately, is the case here. Granted, some leeway must be given to this small indie flick. I am sure the budget was virtually non-existent and the premise itself doesn't suggest big action, but it could have been better done. The steady decline began with the lackluster and ofter teeth-pulling beginning. I understand the stage must be set for the rest of the film, but it could and should have been SO much more interesting. The interaction between the husband and wife seemed too rigid, which failed to adequately develop in the ocean scenes. Second, the thrill just wasn't there. The sense of anticipation or imminence failed to come through properly. Maybe I can't explain it, but the suspense just wasn't there. Finally, I had really high expectations for this film, so I add this disclaimer to my review. You should see it for yourself and expect little. You might enjoy it. I, however, rate it as a resounding disappointment.

There might be some spoilers herein... so beware.

Well, I am watching the end of this movie on DVD. I am thrilled that I did not pay to see this film. The DVD was free, thank God. As I sit here and count the minutes until the end of this wretched film, I had to comment on how disappointing this film was. Indeed, an all-star cast does little to give hope to this less than mediocre story.

First of all, I have to say it, I really do not like Dustin Hoffman. I don't know what it is, but I just do not find him entertaining. I just do not enjoy his performance. He seems to lack articulation or something that just flat out turns me off.

Anyways, Susan Sarandon is a waste in this film. Normally, I thoroughly enjoy most of her movies, but this is just boring. Her character is too odd and unaffected to draw any sympathy and without that, I could care less about her.

Holly Hunter is horribly miscast in this film. The movie is set in the 1970s, right? What decade is she supposed to be in? The hard-ass D.A. portrayal falls flat.

Jake Gyllenhaal's character is pathetic. I don't care if they broke it off before the fiancée died, you would be more upset about the senseless murder of your "great friend," as he labeled her. Also, could he not wait a short while before he decided to get together with the strange postal worker girl? He is living with his dead fiancée's parents, sneaking out at night like a teenager. I don't know if the filmmakers tried to portray some kind of struggle in that he found someone he did want to be with, but they failed miserably. The wide-eyed puppy look doesn't come even remotely close to a decent performance. I honestly can say that I found him more interesting in the Day After Tomorrow than in this film.

The parents hate each other, joined together only to get through this, even though they fight terribly. There is no cohesion in this film, no purpose.

And the scene in the courtroom when he 'confesses' because Diana would want him to be honest. COME ON!!!!!! Worthless. I'm sorry but the whole secret of them breaking it off was not that dramatic, or at least it was not conveyed well enough to make the movie worth watching.

The music is better than average, but not enough to save the picture.

In short, this was a waste of my time. I am glad that I watched it at 2am on Saturday night while I did other things. It did not command my attention. It did not capture my interest.

If you are bored one night, I guess you could leave it on while you do something else. Otherwise, don't waste your time.

1 out of 4 stars