Reviews

Robin Williams is one of the funniest people of all time. All time! When he's being interviewed, I cry with laughter. And he's made some excellent comedies over the years, such as "Good Morning, Vietnam." What's he doing in this junk? For that matter, what about the other actors? John Krasinki is great in "The Office," and Mandy Moore has proved that she's good too, in her films. Likewise the supporting cast in the film is solid.

So what happened? We have a lot of talented people making an absolute stinker. I guess a couple of Williams' one liners are moderately funny, but nothing like as funny as the lines he whips off without a moment's thought on the "Tonight" show or other things. It's sad.

I suppose I should mention some specific things about the plot. Sadie (Moore) and Ben (Krasinki) want to get married by Sadie's family minister. He has a "marriage course" he wants them to take, which basically involves them doing a lot of foolish and in some cases dangerous things, like driving blindfolded while the other gives directions, or caring for 2 fake babies while they are supposed to be taking care of Ben's friend's actual children.

I guess a rule of thumb is that whenever you find yourself in a comedy where the joke involves a fake baby making green poo, you're probably not in a very good film.

The only thing that makes me give this 3 rather than 1 star is that I like the actors.

I wouldn't rush out to see this movie, but if it happens to come on TV or if you happen to come across it, it's not a bad way to spend an hour and a half. James McAvoy, who is familiar nowadays as the star of "The Last King of Scotland" (no he was not the one playing Idi Amin) and the faun in the first "Narnia" film, does a credible job as a working class bloke who goes to a fancy university and parlays his lifelong interest in trivia into a spot on the academic bowl team.

Along the way he has to struggle with several movie clichés, like having his working class pal from back home break up a party, struggling with classes when life gets hard, dealing with his mother moving on in her life, etc. It's all standard stuff, but done in a light and airy enough way that it passes the time. We see go back and forth between Alice, his gorgeous, smart, and interesting love interest with blonde hair (Alice Eve) and Rebecca, his gorgeous, smart and interesting love interest with brown hair (Rebecca Hall). (An interesting side note is that Alice is played by an actress named Alice and Rebecca is played by an actress named Rebecca.) Some not-bad comedy bits are encountered along the way, but it might have been good to see a bit more of the side characters. Benedict Cumberbatch is terrific but underutilized as the imperious but highly insecure captain of the quiz bowl team, for instance. His character is comically one-dimensional, but in a film like this that's hardly the point. In all, a good but not great film.

When discussing a film like this, it's hard to give an opinion without someone thinking you have a hidden agenda. For what it's worth, I don't have an agenda. I'm not an evangelical, I believe that evolution is real (as is global warming, for that matter), I believe in the separation of church and state. However I'm also not reduced to tears when I find out that someone in the US has view that are radically different than mine.

A lot of things that people allege are "scary" about this film aren't really scary, just weird. If I were watching a documentary about, say, a tribe on some distant continent, and people said that part of one of their religious ceremonies involved speaking in gibberish, I'd probably say, "Gosh, that's odd" or maybe, if I was being uncharitable, "That's silly." I wouldn't, however, be shaken to the core with fear. Some people reviewing this film seem to think, however, that if white, midwestern Ameriancs who are the ones doing the weird religious stuff, then it's extremely sinister and evidence of something terrible.

The woman running "Jesus Camp" has a lot of really extreme political views that I don't agree with, such as the idea that global warming is a hoax, or that the US should be considered a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. I think that's wrong. However, it's her right to believe that, and it's likewise her right to teach kids these silly ideas too. Is it indoctrination? I don't know. But I have a hard time dreaming up a scenario where the government (or somebody) sweeps in and tells her she can't do that that doesn't sound like fascism.

Likewise, consider the Ted Haggarty segment. I know we're supposed to hate the guy, because of things he's said in other forums, and because he turned out to be a hypocrite with regards to homosexuality. However, in this film he basically seemed like an affable, smiling guy. It's hard to see how someone could find him to be a menace on the basis of this alone.

But these are comments about reactions to the movie. Here's a few things on the film itself. I don't really believe the filmmakers assertion that this is a straight, unbiased account. True, the woman who runs the camp says plenty of things that are bizarre, and I don't doubt that her opinions are being presented fairly. However because the filmmakers kept cutting back to the Air America commentator, talking about how Evangelism is taking over the country, it's pretty obvious that the filmmakers think that this strange form of Christianity is both bad and running things. They imply, for example, that the only reason Samuel Alito ended up on the Supreme Court was because of evangelical pressure, as if there was no other reason for him to be confirmed other than that.

However the fact that the film has a clear bias doesn't make it a bad film. It's pretty interesting to see how the kids interact with strangers, for example. It would be interesting to see how they turn out in another 10 years, for instance. Likewise the film has a brisk pace and kept my interest the whole time, and the fact that it made me think is an indication that the filmmakers were doing a lot of things right.

Lee is a very uneven filmmaker. Some of his movies, like "Do the Right Thing" and "Malcolm X", are brilliant. Others are pretty junky. This movie is a departure from any movie I've ever seen him do, in that it's pretty much a straight caper film, and even though there are a lot of twists, it's not overly about politics, the African American Experience, or sociology.

What I liked about it: - The theme music. I don't know much about popular Indian Music, but I liked the hip-hop inspired Indian song in the beginning. I'm not entirely sure what it was doing in this film, but I liked it.

• The Actors: Foster, Davis, Plummer, Washington - all great performances. the supporting actors were great too.

• The twists: I honestly didn't see what was coming until the end. I knew something was going on funny, but I didn't see it coming. Some people might not like the non-linear story telling, but it held my interest Things I didn't like: - Ultimately they didn't develop the central idea of the story too much. I don't want to give it away, but they should have played up the Plummer story more.

• The ending was a bit too clever.

Overall, a pretty enjoyable film, and a good step forward for Lee.

Robin Williams, Laura Linney, Christopher Walken, director Barry Levinson - can't go wrong with that much talent around, right? Apparently the answer to that question is yes. Part of this movie wanted to be Robin Williams doing his standard off-the-cuff riffing, except they tended to put it in weird, unrealistic situations like a presidential debate in which a comedian for some reason gets a part.

Then it wanted to be a political commentary, except the points it was making were facile and uninteresting. The voting machine company that has a national contract with the election committee is hiding the fact that its voting machines don't work! Except that there is no national voting contract because each state, and in some cases each municipality, does its own thing. And the scenes with the allegedly sinister corporate goons are laughable at best. I've seen more realistic sinister goons in "Undercover Brother." Then there's a strained love story with Linney and Williams that doesn't work, and some nonsense about Linney running way from badguys.

And then the film has the temerity to pass itself off as a "message" movie about doing something with regards to the political system.

No thanks. I'll take a pass on this one.

It takes superhuman effort not to put a pun in the headline of a review of "You've Got Mail." One wants to write "You've got Male! And Female!" or maybe "You've got a Remake!" or "You've got Tom and Meg Again!" The fact is that a solid team put this piece together. Say what you will about Meg Ryan, Nora Ephron, and Tom Hanks, they know what it takes to put together a solid romantic comedy. Is this the most original romantic comedy? No. Is it a solid piece of work, considering the genre - and by that I mean light, fluffy romantic comedies - sure.

I think few people will go into this expecting hard hitting movie, which is good because this is a bit like cotton candy. Hardly filling, but not bad for a lazy afternoon.

A word on the casting. It's loaded with excellent actors: Ryan and Hanks, of course, but also Dabney Coleman, Greg Kinnear, Parker Posey, Jean Stapleton, Steve Zahn, John Randolph. Any one of them could have carried a significant portion of the film themselves, but instead their parts seem to have been cut way back. It's too bad they didn't develop these parts more, considering the talent they had on hand.

I understand that, according to the trivia on this site, the great Michael Palin even filmed afew scenes, which were cut. I find it astonishing that anyone in their right mind would do such a thing. Rule #1 of film-making: Don't if you can get Palin to do your movie, by all means keep his stuff in.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not in the right demographic to enjoy a film like this. I'm a guy, I'm not interested in fashion, and I'm not fascinated by fancy parties. So right off the bat this film had to do a lot to interest me.

And as it turned out, it didn't really do much to interest me. Yes, Meryl Streep is a great actress and she did a credible job here - enough to hold my interest. It's not like she had a lot to work with here - the character was largely a cardboard cutout - but she made me pay attention.

One problem the film had was with its basic premise. Ho ho ho, the characters say, how could someone who looks like Anne Hathaway expect to work at a magazine like this? Uh, maybe because Anne Hathaway is an almost ridiculously good looking young woman, and is the kind of person whose face looks as if it was designed specifically to go on the cover of a magazine? Yes, she's not as skinny as a stick like some models, but she is thin, and when the characters talked about her like she was some ugly duckling it completely took me out of the moment. They should have either cast another actress (although that would have been a mistake because Anne's a good actress) or toned down the dialog.

Stanly Tucci was good as always. Adrian Grenier was fine, although didn't have much to work with. Emily Blunt was adequate.

But overall the movie just didn't connect with me. From the first scenes I could predict almost everything that would come, and I don't mean that in a good way. The decent performances save this from utter oblivion, but I certainly wouldn't rush out to get this one, unless you're a nut for fashion.

This isn't a film that will appeal to everyone, but it certainly appealed to me. It's a movie everything fits into a closed space - literally and figuratively- and every move by one character directly impacts the others. Others have likened it to a chess game, and the analogy is apt.

I wouldn't call the characters particularly deep, but that's not really the point in a film like this. We see just enough background of each character so we know what motivates each of their moves. It's more like a short story than a novel in this way.

The only disappointment I had was that the nature of the plot requires an ending that is sort of tacked on. I didn't think it was a terrible way to finish the film, just not particularly satisfying.

Definitely worth a video rental if you're looking for something kind of interesting.

I didn't really like this movie very much. It was competent, the acting was fine, the scenes were technically OK, but it just didn't inspire me. I guess the others on this board have a different opinion. I don't say this because I'm a Red Sox fan and don't like the Yankees (although, that is in fact true), because I've liked other Yankee related films before (Pride of the Yankees, for example). It just didn't grab me.

It seemed that Billy Crystal was so desperate to make a movie that honors his baseball heroes that he forgot he was also supposed to be making an entertaining film.

The fact that the title itself is based on a historical inaccuracy didn't help. The commissioner never said anything about an asterix, and it didn't help that the film portrayed him as a one dimensional asshole.

"The Truman Show" is a rarity in Hollywood - or movies in general - a film that actually makes the audience think, and is about ideas. How do we know what we see is real? Why do we accept what is around us without questioning it? What would happen if we found out that a fundamental we were making about the world turned out to be completely wrong? You'd think a movie that was about those things would be a chore to get through, but in fact "The Truman Show" is great fun. I certainly wouldn't call it a comedy (although there are a few light moments here and there), but it's not too heavy and goes down easy.

It might sound like exaggeration, but the scene where Truman first starts to realize what's going on is one of the best scenes I've seen in any movie, because of Carrey's acting, the direction, and also because of the Philip Glass soundtrack (which was critical to making that scene work).

If you haven't seen The Truman Show, do yourself a favor and check it out.

I was only mildly interested in this movie when it came on HBO, but decided to watch it anyway. I was glad I did. I wouldn't call this a "great film" but it's certainly interesting, and portrayed a person and time that is not often depicted in mainstream movies.

Antonio Banderas is in the tabloids a lot for a variety of reasons, and because of that it's easy to forget that he's actually a very good actor - something he demonstrates well in this film. The casting of "Panch Villa" is critical to the success of this film, and Banderas is able to create a character that is both full of bravado and yet, in certain ways, vulnerable too.

One of the central themes of the movie is the ability of people to look at actual events or history as "entertainment," which makes this film sound like a boring lecture on the bad effects of modernity. However it's not at all.

Parts of "And Starring" were a little draggy, but overall I enjoyed the movie and recommend it.

"Rumor Has It" has some decent actors, - Costner, Anniston, MacLaine, Suvari, Ruffalo. Each of them have acted in things that I have enjoyed. Rob Reiner has directed some good movies, and Ted Griffin has written some good movies.

So not surprisingly, the team put together a comedy which is at least competent. Shirley MacLaine stands out, as she often does, as the "real life" Mrs. Robinson. (She might believe in weird stuff, but she's an excellent actress.) The others do what they can.

But the movie isn't inspired. There are some laughs, and given the talent involved, the movie is made competently and is at least somewhat enjoyable. But that's about it.

This is a Saturday afternoon, movie-while-you-wash-the-dishes movie. Not bad, but certainly not worth making a big deal about.

Add me to the chorus of people who really enjoyed this film. I think that the two films - "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" - make for a wonderful experience. Both films are interesting enough to stand on their own, I guess, but this is truly a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

The fact that the actors are themselves 9 years older is one of the reasons why the film feels genuine. At one point in the film the Hawke character says that people stay essentially the same throughout their whole lives, even if their circumstances and lifestyles change. I'd say that seems to be true of these characters, and is done in an interesting way: The two characters - and actors - are 9 years older and how are in a different phase in their life, but the same spark that made them interesting to watch in the first film is true here as well.

This is not a film to watch if you're interested in action, or even plot. Essentially all that happens is that two people meet up and talk for about 80 minutes, and that's it. But the conversation is so interesting - particularly since they have the first film to draw on - that it really holds your attention the whole time.

I've heard that Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy have toyed with the idea of making more movies about these characters every few years, and I hope they end up doing that.

Overall, a great film, and one that really makes you think.

"Judgment at Nuremberg" is an important film about an important topic. By that I don't just mean the topic of the activities in Germany during World War 2, although obviously that's important too. I mean specifically the moral question of what you do with people who participated in a bad system when everything is all finished.

Great acting all around here, which is no surprise given the cast list. Maximilian Schell won an Oscar for his performance and deserved it. Also fun to see a young William Shatner - who did a very credible job, actually. He didn't do his trademark William Shatner... dramatic pauses... thing at all.

The only quibbles I have are minor. First, it's over 3 hours, and didn't really need to be. Second, Kramer's camera work is pretty hammy at certain points, zooming in melodramatically when someone is having moment of contemplation or surprise. Third, Kramer knew he was making an Important Film with a capital I and capital F, and occasionally - *occassionally* - the movie felt a bit creaky under the weight of its own self conscious importance.

But really those are just quibbles. It's a great film, worth of repeat viewing and a real conversation starter.

I have a lot of affection for this film, and think it's great fun to watch. As others have noted, the acting is great, the story is light but interesting, and it goes down easy. The music is also wonderful. Sure, Scott Joplin music was actually popular several decades before the 1930s (when the film was set), but who cares? It sounds great and fits the mood perfectly, if not the time period.

If you're the kind of person thinks that good films need to be deep and filled with angst, you probably won't consider this to be a good film, because it's the least angst-y movie imagineable. However, if you like going to movies to watch a fun story and have a good time, then you'll love this one.

"Casino Royale," as some of the others have been saying, is one of the best Bond films in ages. I personally felt that the last few Brosnan outings just got too fluffy and silly to be enjoyable.

Now, to be fair, every Bond movie has had outrageous stunts and over-the-top moments. But it's like a soufflé: If you get it to rise just the perfect amount, it's great. But just a bit too much, and it doesn't go down so easy. The last few Bonds have been like a flat soufflé, whereas this one got it just right.

I should also mention that not only will this film please Bond fans, but it's exciting enough to please someone who has never seen a James Bond movie before, and just wants a great action/suspense movie.

The chase scene in the construction site was a particularly enjoyable sequence.

In discussing this film, you have to separate the Larry Flynt of the film with the Larry Flynt of real life.

First, the movie version. "The People vs. Larry Flynt" is actually a very well made film. Harrelson does a very credible job portraying the wild, unconventional figure, and the other actors - Courtney Love, Edward Norton- are also excellent. The story is interesting and really holds ones attention the whole time. By the end, I felt like the Flynt portrayed in the film was certainly an oddball, but someone that the film genuinely made me care about.

For that reason, I'm giving the film 7 stars out of 10 - for artistic reasons.

Unfortunately, the image of Flynt as a man who happened to like kinky pictures of women and unconventional sexuality doesn't correspond to reality. Yes, "Hustler" magazine showed *some* pictures which were not really objectionable, just a little kinky. But it also had a history of showing truly abhorrent stuff, like simulated rape scenes (some of which were copied in real life) and wildy racist imagery. Larry Flynt, in other words, was hardly just a guy who put out a racier version of "Playboy" or even "Penthouse" who was being put down by prudes like Jerry Falwell.

Now, I happen to be a big believer in the First Amendment, so I think that even material as evil as the stuff Flynt put out should be legal. But that doesn't change the fact that Larry Flynt and his magazine are utterly revolting.

If you don't believe me, go look on the internet for the incident around Hustler and the Portuguese-American woman from New Bedford, Mass. If that doesn't make your stomach turn, you probably need to see a psychiatrist. And there's a lot more where that came from.

Someone out to tell the makes of "Date Movie" that merely referring to other films does not in and of itself constitute a parody of the film. I wonder whether the people who made this have actually seen a comedy before, or if they've merely had someone describe it to them and they're making a movie based on a misunderstanding of the description.

Here's an example of what I mean. At one point in the film there's a parody of "Kill Bill." Not a bad idea, but all that happens is Alison Hannigan dressing up in the signature yellow jumpsuit and carrying a sword. Nothing more than that. That's comedy? I'm not asking for great satire, but at least some effort should be made.

I don't object to lowbrow humor. The farting scene in "Dumb and Dumber," for instance, is a great. But in "Date Movie" the best they can do is have the same scene taking place with a cat. Umm, OK. And this is a parody why? Because of cats? In some cases the film attempts to "parody" other comedies by virtually lifting entire jokes from other movies and rewording them slightly (for instance from "Meet the Parents"). Weak.

In all, this movie is bad. Skip it. The only reason I am giving this a 2 rather than a 1 is that there ought to be room for very bland comedies like this and cinematic travesty like "Battlefield Earth."

I'll admit I wasn't enthusiastic about this movie when I first heard of it, perhaps because the title made me think it was some earnest love story. It's not. Yes, there is a love story in the plot, but it's about much, much more than that.

The film takes time to get where it's going. It's set in Maine, where people move a bit slower than they do elsewhere, so maybe that's appropriate. If you want a film where the plot leaps from one thing to the next without letting you think, then this probably isn't for you. But if you want a slow - yet deliberate - march to greatness, this is it.

There are several very surprising turns during the plot of the film, so I don't want to give away too much. But let me say that when you watch this, you'll think it's about one thing, and then you'll think it's about another thing, and then finally you'll think it's about a third thing. The focus of the film changes drastically form one place to the next.

Word of warning: This film can be incredibly depressing at times. I wouldn't watch this if you're looking for light comedy or a barrel of fun.

I didn't care for this movie, particularly. It's considered a classic by some, of course, and I've been aware of it for years, but only recently did I get around to seeing it.

It seems that about 90% of the film involves car chases, and given the time period I guess they did the best they could. But frankly the races seemed merely like an amped up version of a Dukes of Hazzard episode. I suppose in theory there could be an entertaining movie made of nothing but race scenes, but it doesn't seem to be evident here.

The three leads (Reynolds, Field, Gleason) have all been excellent in other roles, and so it's particularly disappointing that they are given a story and dialog which are paper thin. Reynolds could have saved time by merely looking into the camera and saying, "I'm going to just assume that you think I'm so charming that all I have to do is smile and you'll like my performance." Gleason, a great comedian, is reduced to playing a cartoon which would have worn thin on a 3 minute SNL skit. And Sally Field's character is barely given a reason for existing at all.

I know a lot of people love this movie and will be upset that I said anything against it, and for that I'm sorry. I suppose if you saw this movie for the firs time when you were 10 and got a jolt out of hearing grownups using profanity, then you might enjoy it and have nostalgia for it. Everybody else ought to skip it.

This was on cable TV the other day and I thought, could it be as bad as they say? Maybe it's so bad that it's hilariously good.

Well, it turns out it's as bad as they say, and it's not even interesting enough to be hilariously bad. It's just bad.

Where to start? The dialog is dumb, the effects are pretty bad (by and large), the plot is about what you'd expect, and the entire thing is roughly the equivalent of smearing dog feces onto film and putting it through a projector.

People often neglect to mention costumes in a movie, and not being a costume person I suppose I do the same, normally. But the costumes in this case deserve special attention. Were they bad? Let's put it this way: To call them worse than wearing a gown made from frozen puke would be demeaning to frozen puke. You know those shoes that the Spice Girls wore about 10 years ago with really tall soles? That's what John Travolta and Forrest Whitaker wore the entire movie. Plus they have things that look like boogers hanging from their nose the entire time, and hair that Medusa herself wouldn't be caught dead in. And so on. Look at the pictures and you'll see what I mean.

And if you think that it's inappropriate to include the word "boogers" in a serious movie review, you obviously don't realize how bad of a movie we're talking about.

Yes, this is one of the truly great shows in TV history, just like people have been saying on this board.

To people who haven't seen it before, however, a word of caution before you dive in. It's not that fast out of the gate. Season 1 starts slow, builds up the characters, and sketches out the various plot lines. So don't pop in the first DVD and expect fireworks from episode 1.

A friend recommended this show to me a few years ago and when I first started watching, I said, "I don't know about this..." But I kept watching and found that within a few episodes I was pretty much hooked.

Also, I would say that each season gets better than the last, with the most recent one (Season 4 aired its finale last night) a true achievement. I'm not a cop and I'm not a drug dealer (nor am I a politician or teacher, other jobs that the show focuses on), so I guess I don't know whether it's as accurate as they say - but it certainly feels accurate based on the way I'd expect human nature to play out in those jobs.

Let me explain what I mean when I say that this movie is shameful crap.

First, the crap part. It's pretty obvious in watching this that the screenplay is junk the director doesn't know how to direct actors at all, and as a result the acting is terrible too. It brings new meaning to the word "trite." There are a few scenes that look good on the screen, such as the part with the Japanese planes flying over the kids playing baseball and the like. Never mind that there probably weren't many kids playing baseball first thing in the morning on Sunday, but whatever, the image was at least striking. I'll give it that. It can't really make up for the junky love story, however.

Now, why I use the word shameful. This isn't some fictional event, it was an actual event in relatively recent history (in the grand scheme of things) in which quite a few people actually died. Not only that, but it started in motion a chain of events that was very serious, resulted in a tremendous amount of sacrifice, and should be treated with at least some respect. It deserves better than a crap-o treatment by Michael Bay, the king of schlocky movies.

I'm hoping that in a few years people will forget that this thing was even created.