Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Law & Order: Sanctuary (1994)
Season 4, Episode 19
10/10
One of the best
28 April 2011
I always thought this was the best episode ever made of Law and Order. Long before they went down the path of ending an episode neatly by having unrealistic confessions or discoveries, LAO made well-written, excellently acted episodes that made you actually surprised this was on television. Usually shows like this are left-leaning propaganda machines, and its ironic that Michael Moriarty would leave the show for just that reason, but this is an example of all sides of a volatile issue getting a fair look. No show since the airing of this one episode in 1994 has come close to depicting fair insight into the number one issue in the USA.
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hurricane (1999)
2/10
Inaccurate at best, delusional and disrespectful at worst
18 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on "facts" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of "racist" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.
42 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alltime greats
22 October 2004
This movie came out late 1987, and people were dying for a sequel to "Delirious" which was 1983. If you go back and watch Richard Pryor's "live in Concert" or "Here and Now" you see that Eddie used some of Pryor's stuff, but gave it its own shot of himself (In delirious, Murphy does the "bARBQ scene/story" and he describes his aunt falling down the steps. It is the exact same description Pryor does in "Live in Concert" when he describes black women at funerals.) RAW used all the things that made Eddie Murphy famous; his deadon imitations, and his gift for telling stories. I can't even watch Martin Lawrence, DL Hughely, Cedric the Entertainer and a few others without noticing Eddie Murphy's influences right away. People forget how big he was, and how good- wayyy before he started doing bad talking animal movies. There are some debates over which was better Raw or Delirious....they are both hilarious, but you can tell the mindset was much different only 4 years later. In RAW, Murphy compares himself to Johnny Carson, while in Delirious he was just the most popular guy on Saturday Night Live. RAW is one of the best and funniest concert comedies ever, and I dare someone not to laugh out loud when watching it......NOTE: This movie was reviewed in 1987 when it came out by Siskel and Ebert "AT The Movies", which was when they were getting really popular in syndication, and it spurred one of the best on-air disagreements between the two EVER. Siskel likened RAW, and Eddie Murphy overall, as being as funny (or funnier)and outrageous as Pryor, Carlin or Lenny Bruce. He loved the movie. Ebert despised it, and chastised Siskel for being "immature" and he also felt that Murphy's attitudes toward women were patronizing, damaging and even went so far as to call RAW a "pale imitation of a good comedienne". I thought Ebert was nuts at the time, and now that Siskel is dead, I can't find any review of RAW on Ebert's website. I've emailed him numerous times about it, trying to figure out why a movie that was so popular, and not even that long ago, would not be in his database. Does anyone else thinks that sounds fishy?
25 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Worth owning
22 October 2004
Good movie, worth owning, part for the time it represents, and part because of all the good acting (understated and funny). Richard Crenna plays a great pompous jerk (are we sure he's acting?) Hector Elizondo plays one of his best parts ever as the DAD ("Now he knows Kings!"), and Gretzky's wife even does a half decent job. Fisher Stevens and Bronson Pinchot play good supporting roles as well. Matt Dillon does a great job as a kid who's enamored with Crenna's BS. (One actress who is hot as hell is Carole Davis, who plays Crenna's daughter, and who I am almost positive was a Penthouse Pet at one time. She was also in "Mannequin" and "Shrimp on the Barbie". Hotter than Gretzky's wife).......Anyway, good lines, good script, good ending, good movie.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed