Reviews

Most people are surprised by the ending of this movie. I was also surprised, and I usually am not. The mumbling presentation of the preparations for the heist leave out just enough so we don't quite understand what is going on. This can often be frustrating for an audience, but in this case there is enough humor and suspense to keep our interest. Matt Damon's role as an eager but not very experienced crook provides both the humor and the suspense. We want him to succeed because he is such a nice guy, but he is so green that we fear he will mess the whole thing up. I would have given him the Oscar for this movie. He distracts us beautifully from what is really going on.

When our eleven thieves, the good guys in this movie, are on the verge of being caught by the wary casino owner (played by Garcia), we feel bad for what we think is their imminent demise. But the twist is that they have fooled us all. When the SWAT team comes in to arrest them, there is no one there. It's not until after the SWAT team leaves that we realize the whole thing was staged, and our friends, the crooks, were playing the SWAT team, and they took all the money.

The big problem with this movie is that our protagonists are criminals. "Root, root, root for the bad guys; if they get caught it's a shame!" It's not exactly as American as baseball and apple pie. It is more entertaining than most crime dramas.

People might think Bo Duke is an idiot because he gets more turned on by his car than by a beautiful woman, but when there was a big fight in the saloon, he was the only one smart enough to put on a helmet. Cooter couldn't possibly fix the car up in one day, but he did, so it was funny. You wouldn't trust a fat man in his underwear with an armadillo on his head to save the town. The general lee races right by the much slower "race cars" but can never outrun the police cars. The bad guys wouldn't be such bumbling fools in real life, but this is not real life.

This whole movie is a bunch of dumb people running around like idiots, doing stupid things. Bo Duke does this in such a good-natured, friendly, and happy way that it just seems like harmless fun. Jessica Simpson is just delightful. Even in the out-takes she is sweet and nice. And Willie Nelson is the kind of guy it would be fun to party with. Any critic could take a grouchy stance and complain about this movie having no redeeming characteristics, no interesting plot, no good acting, and a really lame script. If so, they just missed the joke. They're just making fun. A good attitude is all that is required to really enjoy this film for the party that it is.

The first movie was very different from the book, but it was still delightful because of Gene Wilder's lovable eccentricity. The songs in the first movie were wonderful, especially the two that Gene Wilder sang himself. It was a good movie, so why the remake?

Tim Burton has outdone himself. This "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is not only his best work; it is better than the first movie. It's even better than the book. Every change it made from the book was an improvement, and there are several changes, including but not limited to: Shortening of the oompah-loompah songs so they give the same meaning without being so boring, the addition of many witty and comedic comments by Willy Wonka, much more dialog from the bedridden grandparents, and a completely different ending to the story. I won't spoil the new ending, but I'll tell you that I liked it very much, it made me cry, and I feel much better about things in general.

I was always bothered by the first movie because Charlie and his grandpa had stolen the fizzy-lifting drinks and Grandpa Joe wanted to sell the everlasting gob-stopper to Slugworth. In this new version, Charlie Bucket is a true hero, the kind of kid any parent would want his kids to be. If you have children, you need to take them to this movie. The book is also great, but if you read the book to your kids first, they will be both surprised by and delighted with the movie.

This is a pretty interesting movie, but they tried to improve the true story by making the horse a superhero. Having the rider resist temptation to give in to the lusts of the flesh and the evils of filthy lucre was noble. I can buy the idea that an old alcoholic can turn down a sexy french woman and thousands of dollars. I couldn't buy the idea that a horse that was injured with a spear that went through its side/shoulder could get up and outrun the other horses ahead of it, winning by a few seconds a race that took several days. Still, our hero is a likable character, someone we can all root for. And his rider is a pretty good guy, too. There's not much acting in this movie, and it's a bit long and boring in parts, but it's a long race.

This is a perfect vehicle to display Danny Kaye's comedic talents. It is jam-packed with memorable quotes such as the "brew that is true" sequence, "get it, got it, good" and "the Italian court; what better place to court Italians." The clever lyrics of the songs, the impersonation of different languages, a hilarious sword-fight scene, and an endless list of one-liners keep this movie going from start to finish. This movie would be perfect if they could have put a paper bag on Angela Landsbury's head.

They get a little too silly (and long) when they march around in the knighting ceremony so long and fast that Danny Kaye's pants fall down, and when the midgets are beating up the King's men, rolling them on barrels, and catapulting them into the ocean. But that's certainly acceptable for little kids. This is still a great movie for everyone.

Victor von Doom plays the Green Goblin, and our Fantastic Four play Spiderman, but in a sappy, silly way, without such good acting. The Thing was particularly annoying as he lost his temper faster than a two-year-old having a tantrum. The romantic interest between Mr. Fantastic and the Invisible Girl is puzzling at best. The hot-shot flame-thrower dude is so conceited that, even though he is really funny, I still didn't like him. Reed Richards, Mr. Fantastic, is the only likable character in the movie, and the only one with any real acting ability. The basic story of the rich man losing his fortune, blaming it on the hero, and turning to evil is the same as Spiderman.

This movie gets boring toward the end as we wait for our heroes to stop grumbling and fighting with each other and stop the bad guy. I loved the comic books as a kid and was really looking forward to this movie. It was disappointing for me, but I think your average preteen who has never seen the comics will enjoy it. They really should have had someone who knows something about science advise them; they got some of the science wrong as well.

This was a very realistic portrayal of an almost mythological story. Perhaps it really happened this way. All the characters were well-acted, even the sniveler Paris, played by Orlando Bloom, but especially Peter O'Toole, who is brilliant. From the first battle between Achilles and a Goliath-like giant of a man, we learn that speed and agility are more important than size and brute strength.

But this movie is about more than just battle scenes and violence. It's about philosophy and politics and faith. It's also about love, but not just romantic love between a man and a woman. It's about Achilles' love for his brother, whom Hector kills, and Hector's love for his brother, Paris. It's about Peter O'Toole's love for his son, Hector and his faith in his Gods. It's a little long with its big battle scenes, but otherwise this is a very good movie.

This is just a matter of taste. I don't like jazz. I don't like big production numbers. I don't like discordant music and the anxiety it creates. I'm not crazy about the whole "Romeo and Juliette" story. But it is very well written and very well performed. One of my favorite actresses, and the most beautiful actress ever in my opinion, is Natalie Wood, and she is great in this movie. Whenever I hear the song, "Maria" I think of her. There are some funny parts, and some of the music is memorable, such as "There's a time for us", but I don't think I could watch it all the way through without fast forwarding. But there are a couple parts I would rewind and watch over as well. I suggest you rent the DVD and watch it with remote in hand.

When my teenage kids read the book, they told me, "You have to read this book, dad. It's great!" So I read it and didn't like it. When they asked me what was wrong with it, I went on for an hour about the flaws in the book. They aren't problems with historical accuracy; I don't know that much about history. They are flaws with logic and common sense. The worst part of the book (and this is a spoiler for the book) is that the "good guys" intentionally kill the "bad guy" which made me feel like they were worse than he was, since he never intentionally killed anyone.

The movie is actually better than the book. It has two attractive women who are as heroic as they are beautiful. Most of the men are bumbling idiots compared to them, and one of the men falls in love based on his historical knowledge. It's a good adventure movie for teenagers who don't think too deeply or are not bothered by plot details. It is hard to decide which guys are good and which are bad. I didn't care too much who ended up winning.

The basic premise of this movie, that an intelligent computer, if put in charge of running everything, might decide it knows what is better for us than we do, and therefor restrict out freedom, is a great idea. That the genius human creator of this computer would realize what he had done, be opposed to it, and try to stop it is still a very good idea.

The idea that he would have to create a special robot, make it kill him, and team up with Will Smith to stop the computer in charge, well that starts over toward the ridiculous. The way the computer tries to kill Will Smith, and is unsuccessful in all it's attempts, is just downright stupid. They've turned a great science fiction story into a ridiculous fantasy with their special effects. If you are able to suspend your disbelief and not think about these things, then this is a great movie for you.

The beginning was really quite interesting. I was never sure if a scene was a dream sequence, part of a film being made by one of the characters in the film, or something actually happening in the movie. There were many intense, suspenseful moments when I wasn't sure if the murderer was going to pop up and kill someone. It wasn't scary because I didn't care if any of these people got killed. It was confusing because so many of the people who were not the killer would act so creepy. I couldn't guess who the real killer was until he was revealed in the film, something very unusual for me. It was fun to see some of the urban legends I grew up with being acted out, and during the first half, I laughed more than I do at most thrillers. The second half of the film, unfortunately, was full of murderous violence and the deaths of many of the characters I didn't care about.

Hugh Grant does his usual acting job of hesitating and acting surprised most of the time, but acting isn't a problem in this movie. When he has cocaine planted in his apartment by the bad guys, his closest friends and associates are quick to believe that he adopted drug use as a way of life. When he finds a homeless group underneath the city, they know too much about what is going on, yet don't trust him. Why were they not less trusting of the bad guys who were doing experiments on them? Why were the bad guys using innocent homeless people instead of prisoners or the terminally ill? The bad guys didn't make up very good cover stories for what they were trying to hide. Why not have one of their hit-men pose as the nearest relative of Claude and take his body away? Why wouldn't they need to keep a patient's body after he died for the research they were doing on him? It's a good story idea, and it presents a good moral question, but there are too many flaws. I can see FBI agents allowing research to be done that could help their loved ones, but I can't see them killing innocent people to cover it up.

When they are first attacked in the beginning of the movie, I thought I was really under attack. I had never seen such great special effects in a real movie. I've come to expect great explosions in science fiction films, where we don't really know what it would actually look like, but this was real. I saw cannonballs ripping the ship into slivers right in front of me. And the people who were hurt were real people, not some gory monsters from a horror film. What I'm saying is that real people, saying things that they would really say, can make the special effects even more stunning.

But this movie is not about effects. It's about a captain's quest for revenge and a scientist's quest for knowledge, and the beauty of the relationship between them. There are virtually no women in this movie, and only one joke. But the movie is enthralling. The emotion is real and raw, and the dialog is fantastic. The suspension of my disbelief was complete in this film. The acting is perfect. The people are so real that I felt I actually knew them, and cared about them very much. I feel almost as though I was in the movie. How great is that? I thought it was the best movie of the year.

Topol plays Tevye in one of the greatest acting performances of our time. His continual praying monologue throughout the film is a perfect depiction of a devout religious man. Though raised to strictly follow traditions, he bends a little to allow the happiness of his children. Yet he doesn't bend enough to violate his religious obligation. He can accept the trends of change in society, but he will not deny his fundamental beliefs. Though he could bear the sadness of poverty or exile to Siberia, he cannot endure the loss of religious belief, and he counts his daughter as dead to him when she marries a catholic. Because of the great acting in this version of the movie, the emotions are real, and the great music helps bring that emotion out. This movie shows the sadness and the happiness of life. It's a real-life experience that I've enjoyed watching over and over again.

As a father of nine children, I was encouraged by the beginning of this film. Steve Martin has a wonderful wife, Bonnie Hunt, who has written about her wonderful family of 14 and how well they all get along. Her husband has the perfect job as a football coach. When he gets a job for much more money at a bigger school, they expect him to spend more time at work and therefor less time at home with his children. At the same time, his wife is doing a book-signing tour to promote her book, taking her away from her family. They both fall for the evil idea that money will bring them happiness that their large posterity has not. He lies to her, telling her things are fine without her. When she comes home to shoot "Oprah" in her own home and finds the house is a shambles and the kids have no discipline, she is willing to break up their marriage because he didn't tell her that she needed to be home. She obviously wanted to be doing her book tour; he was just trying to give her what she wanted. Her irrational anger at him, willing to break up the marriage because he was being so supportive of her career, really made me not like her. The children were mostly being very unlikeable while she was gone as well. Steve Martin's stupidity in telling his wife things were all right when they weren't left me with no one to like in this movie. There were some funny moments, but not many, and it left quite a nasty aftertaste.

Among all the constant bickering between Chris Rock and Ben Stiller, there were two funny lines that actually got me to consider laughing, though I didn't actually do it. Unfortunately, I don't remember what those lines were. I know we're supposed to be impressed by how cute these little animals are with their fancy animation, but they were always either arguing about how hard they have it or singing praises about how great they are. As for being a role model for children, if any of my children acted the way these characters do, I would beat them soundly and send them to bed. And the moral of this story is . . . No matter how good your computer-generated animation is, a bad script will still make a bad movie, regardless of who does the voice-overs. This would be a good movie for children not yet old enough to talk, but I would wait for the DVD.

I generally like Adam Sandler movies. I've gotten used to his crudeness and vulgarity. I don't accept them, and I'm sure he would be funnier without them, but I expect his personal habits to be gross and disgusting. I also expect him to have some redeeming quality, being nice to some kid or kind to some less fortunate old woman or something. I don't think Adam Sandler stars in this movie. I think he goes through the motions as though some body-snatcher had taken over for him. He has the same predictable ending where the bad guy decides to be good at the last minute, but the lead role could have been played by an extra.

***** Spoiler: don't read this is you haven't seen the movie *****

As for Chris Rock's part in the movie, when he dies and they had their little memorial service for him, I wasn't sad at all. In fact, I was kind of glad he was gone. During the big game, I hoped Adam Sandler would be killed off so Burt Reynolds could play quarterback and save the day. That would have made a much better ending.

I know some people can't fathom the depth of emotion this film can bring forth from viewers. Though the story is altered from the true story on which it is based, the main characters still show the pain inflicted by the depression. It shows the poverty that we think is so terrible, but is still rich compared with other nations. But mostly it shows the faith and courage that if we work hard and stick together and have integrity, opportunity will present itself. When someone poor works hard and finally has success, it is far more satisfying than success that has come easily. There is some great acting, not just by Russell Crowe, but by his trainer and his wife, and his little children. This is a great family film. I can't imagine why it would be rated "R." I would love to have my little children see it.

Spoiler*** Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie yet*** The good guys turn out to be bad guys. This is one of the things I thought made the movie really interesting. Liam Neeson plays a really great character, but after he teaches batman everything he needs to know to be a great superhero, we find out he wants to use his "superheroness" to destroy Gotham City. The girl, Katie Holmes, makes a fairly attractive love interest, and she is as goody-goody as Batman is dark. The special effects are not over-done and don't ruin the movie as they do in some other movies. This movie has several twists and surprises, all of which fit in with the logic of the movie and are very well done. The movie is a bit long and slow-moving in some parts. There are a bunch of great actors in this film; they should have been allowed to do more acting. There are too many fight scenes and crime scenes and too much sneaking around. Batman's interest in the woman was confusing. I wasn't really sure if she was his sister or his girlfriend; you couldn't tell by how they treated each other.

Although the movie is a little long and silly in the beginning, particularly waiting for Charlie to find his golden ticket, and especially the song Charlie sings with his mother, once we enter the chocolate factory, the rest of the movie is just magical. Though Willy Wonka is obviously crazy, he's crazy in a good way, and he sings two of my favorite songs. (One is about springtime being the ring-a-ling-a-ling time. The other is "Pure Imagination.") The oompah-loompahs also sing songs with real meaning about the behavior of children which most parents should take a lesson from. It's an educational farce about the problems of our modern world coming from the permissiveness of parents who allow their children to indulge in all sorts of selfish gratification. Chewing gum, overeating, watching too much television, and general greed and covetousness are all condemned, and finally, integrity is praised. This is a movie all children should see, and parents who haven't seen it should see it as well, though they might want to fast-forward through the first half-hour.

I am not a fan of country music, but I'm not sure that's what I would call what the soggy bottom boys sing. Though not realistic, the characters in this film are both likable and comical. I love the language they use. For example, after picking up a hitchhiker who has sold his soul to Satan and noting that his other companions had become "saved" Everett comments that he is as of yet unaffiliated. Their odyssey leads them through some classical situations, but always with a humorous turn. Holly Hunter is Everett's beautiful but nagging wife, but his love for his daughters brings him back to the straight and narrow. Not only is the acting great, but the script is brilliant. The music is well-done and sometimes wonderful, especially at the baptism. If it had been rock and roll instead of country, I might have given it a 10.

Spielberg shouldn't be allowed to make science fiction films. He managed to take parts of the book and parts of the old movie and add in enough of his own nonsense to make something far inferior to either. He took the crazy curator from the book, give him some of the ideas of the artilleryman and the name of the scientist killed in the beginning of the book to make the only really likable character in the movie, brilliantly played by Tim Robbins, who is deserving of another Oscar for this performance.

Tom Cruise's character is a jerk who becomes even less likable throughout the movie; Dakota Fanning plays his screaming banshee daughter. They, with his very brave but equally stupid son, manage to survive to the end of this movie while everyone around them is being killed. There is no explanation how the son survived; I guess it was supposed to be a miracle. The real miracle is that so many other critics liked this movie that makes so little sense.

The aliens come down in little spaceships in flashes of lightning. Why in the lighting? No plausible reason. They use their big tripod machines to destroy everything. The machines were put there millions of years ago to prepare for this invasion. Why didn't they have the invasion millions of years ago when they first put the machines here? I guess because Spielberg wasn't here to film it then. Why didn't the bacteria that kills them now kill them back when they buried these machines millions of years ago? How did they go these millions of years without finding out about bacteria? If they're millions of years advanced beyond our technology, why don't they have spacesuits the way we do? Why did Cruise's character's ex-wife ever marry him in the first place? I could spend the day asking questions about things that happened in this movie that don't make sense, but who would want to read that? If you haven't read the book, if you haven't seen the old movie, then maybe this movie is for you. The special effects are good, but don't look too closely or they won't make sense either (i.e. the monster coming up in the river, under the boat). Actually, Tim Robbins is the only reason I didn't rate this move a 1. His acting is really good.

What made the old movie and the book both so good was that the story was believable; it was something that could actually happen. They also had some good protagonists that we could identify with and care about as they tried to survive the alien holocaust. This movie has neither of those. There are too many flaws. Too many people know things they would have no way of knowing. Too many people act in ways that people would not act. The special effect violate the laws of physics as well as common sense. This movie could easily have been so much better if Spielberg hadn't glammed it up to try to impress people with nastiness, the way he did with bugs and spiders in his lost ark movies. I was more than disappointed by it. It made me angry.

To people who are full of themselves, this would be a really stupid movie, but when I saw it as a kid forty years ago, I was fascinated by the giant animals. I didn't realize it was bad animation; I thought the giant bee was real, and I thought the mysterious island was a real place. I had no idea how bad the acting was or how cheesy the script was. I scoffed at "Swiss family Robinson Caruso" as I then called it; all they had to do was fight against people, not giant crabs. It had the same allure as a good dinosaur movie without being confined to one family of creatures. Captain Nemo's submarine was a bonus. I haven't seen this movie for several if not many years, but I'm still afraid of bees.