Reviews

I think there are a lot of movie goers that have a hard time with Jim Carrey as an actor. Many of his characters are goofy and downright idiotic and so many are exaggerated caricatures of real life that its hard to take his work seriously sometimes. I have seen brilliance in his work on a couple of occasions, but this movie by far demonstrates a side of Jim Carrey that is well into the realms of his developing into becoming a great actor, not just a comedic actor. Jim Carrey displays a depth that he must really have had to work hard to find, because his character is dark, brooding, almost evil to the point that we all can feel the insanity that must be creeping into his characters consciousness as he progresses through the story. A sign of a really good actor is when the actor is able to disappear so well into the character that not only does the audience stop thinking about the person on the screen as being Jim Carrey, but also starts thinking that the person on the screen is really the character living and breathing in their own right. Jim Carrey masterfully is able to do this with this character Walter Sparrow. I enjoyed this movie immensely and hope to see Jim Carrey continue his exploration into dramatic roles. He is fully equipped and capable of carrying a lead role in a drama and am glad to see that he has a very smart agent directing the scripts and projects he chooses to do.

Watching the Bucket List is a thrill of emotional twists and turns. Like life itself, this movie effortlessly is able to display the full spectrum of human emotion through the brilliant acting of Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. These two could easily move into the type of team acting that made Matthau and Lemmon a great duo. Jack and Morgan, both well respected dramatic actors show a side to themselves that they usually do not display, and demonstrate the depths of talent that they are able to get to to be funny and at the same time display the emotions of someone who has been told that they have a short time to live. They play off of one another so well it is completely believable regarding the adventures they get into on the screen. This movie combines comedy, drama and gets to a point that is downright emotional. Rob Reiner adds to his resume another great example why he is a top notch director. I am a guy who does have a tendency to shed a tear or two when watching certain movies, this movie had me openly crying at one point and it felt good. The movie is not a sad reminder of our own mortality, it provides an uplifting message celebrating life and the possibilities we still have while we are alive.

Comics becoming dramatic actors? Is it possible? After watching "Stranger than Fiction", I am convinced that Will Ferrell has the potential in his talent to expand his dramatic presence in movie making. I think if someone were to look at many of Robin Williams or Tom Hanks early works, there would have been considerable doubts that either of those actors could break the barrier placed against comedians becoming considered for serious or more dramatic roles. Will Ferrell proves in "Stranger than Fiction" that he has a much wider range than his characters in many other roles he has played would indicate. Will is generally believable and is able to hold his own against Oscar winners Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. He presents a warm genuine persona that makes his character very believable and likable. While Will Ferrell is known for characters that are over the top and outlandish, he proves that with a proper script, he is just as capable of playing a normal person in a dramatic situation as some of Hollywoods heavyweights like Mr. Williams or Tom Hanks, both actors got their start in comedic roles and stand up. Kudos to Mr. Ferrells agent who convinced him to take this role, and even more Kudos to Mr. Ferrell for making the right choice and play this character. I kept waiting for Ricky Bobby to show up and he never did, thank heavens!

My wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a "B" movie, somewhere closer to a "d" movie, or "f" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass on this one!

The Ring II as a sequel is not bad in that the main characters and story line are really continuous from the first movie. I was anxious to see this film as I had heard so many negative comments when the film was in the theater I was apprehensive that this was another bad sequel. I was pleasantly surprised that this movie has a soul of its own that carries on the creepiness of the original without a basic repeat of the first movie. The cinematography, score and special effects are top notch and the odd use of jerky motion by the ghost Tamara in the film add to the creepiness. The film is a gray toned film from start to finish which creates a dark foreboding atmosphere. I especially like the score for one very simple reason. It is a real orchestral piece without the usual tricks of screaming violins or corny three note horror harmonies to give away the suspense. The film takes itself seriously throughout and I think gives the element of credibility to the story. I was a bit surprised and disappointed at the anti-climatic ending however, and felt that a scarier ending probably would have made more sense. This movie and its predecessor are the first time in a long time I have actually watched a horror thriller where I genuinely was left a bit spooked out after watching it. If any movie can do that to me, I give it hearty credit.

I have seen many movies in the past year, some have been wonderful and some have been downright terrible. My Big Fat Greek Wedding has to be one of the best written and best acted comedies I think I have seen in a long time. While the concept of making a movie about weddings is not unique, I believe that those of us who either have gone through planning a wedding or have experiences with family having too much influence in our lives will relate to this movie better than other wedding movies.

This movie is about an ordinary rather plain looking thirty something unmarried woman who comes from a large extended Greek family. All Greek women are expected to go to Greek school, find a good Greek man, marry him and have lots of Greek babies according to the narrator who is also the main character in the movie. This simple premise is what sets us off in almost two hours of raucous humor centered around planning a wedding where a couple coming from completely different backgrounds has to deal with all the external pressures that happen when two people decide to go down the aisle together.

This movie has several very heartwarming and somewhat emotional scenes in it so don't expect it is just a funny movie. Acting in this movie on all characters was very well done and very believable. I thought however that the roles of the Grooms Mother and Father were rather flat and two dimensional. This movie reminded me quite a bit of Father of the Bride starring Steve Martin, except in this case, the writers for Monty Python obtained the script for final treatment. While the writers for Monty Python did not actually write this movie but was instead written by the leading lady, there were some moments where it appeared that the humor was drawn right out of a book of British comedy. All in all I felt that the whole movie had a British feel to it.

This movie will delight you and leave you with a smile on your face. While the audience in the theater was more of an adult composition, I do not remember any nudity or adult language in the entire picture which means this movie is one that the whole family can see together. I would wholeheartedly recommend this movie to anyone who would like a good laugh.

I have read several of the reviews of this film. Some stating that the film copies some very well known films. While I agree that there are some areas of the film which are not exactly original ideas, I was not disappointed at all with the film. I felt the acting was superb, actually some of the best acting I have seen in a long time. Gibson was magnificent, Phoenix was very convincing, and the two kids were very believable. There were a few scenes in the movie which were slow, but I think this is mainly because there were some other areas that really made me jump out of my chair. I also feel that M. Night uses music or the lack thereof to increase tension for the viewer during the film which at times can make the film appear slower than expected. I was however left with a good feeling as I exited my seat after the movie was over. The final message of the film was upbeat and gave a sense of hope to those who have questioned their faith in a higher being.

One concept of note which was very evident to my mind watching this film is the underlying question of what would I do in the shoes of these characters. I have read a review stating how nice it was to see the lack of any weapons other than a baseball bat throughout the film. As obvious as this lack is, I believe it was an intentional part of the overall writing in this film I was interested to see how M. Night would tackle a subject that has seen lots of screen time over the years, an alien invasion. His previous films spend a great deal of time delving the human emotional psyche, and this film does not disappoint in this regard. I thought it was refreshing to see how the concept of an alien invasion was treated on a more personal and intimate level than other films of a similar type of subject matter. The characters and circumstances that start to unfold during the course of the film are believable and realistic. The reactions of the characters to events as they occur are also very real and leave little doubt of the fears and angst being experienced. I would not be surprised to see at least one if not more of the cast recognized next March during the Oscar night for the performances in this film.

Overall, I believe viewers expecting a Sci-fi thriller will be better prepared if they go into this film expecting a psychological thriller instead. Sometimes, what you don't see, is scarier than what you do. Ask the producers of The Blair Witch Project, they mastered that in their film, M. Night has already proved in his two previous films of note The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable that he is a master of this art as well. I give a standing ovation to M. Night for the work he and the cast did on this film, it will be a classic in time.

After a dry and somewhat sterile Episode I which alienated many fans and potential new ones with introducing a character that has becoming much reviled in movie history by the name of Jar Jar Binks, George Lucas finally remembered the formula that made the first trilogy a success. For the first time since the Empire Strikes Back the trilogy really focused on the mysteries of the Force and really gave viewers a gutsy well written story. I have read critics who have lambasted the movie as having campy dialogue and less than stellar acting. I am a regular movie goer and know the original trilogy by heart and if the reviewers that were critical of this movie had actually watched the movie as a continuation of the same story or a preface to the original series, those reviewers would see that this movie comes much closer to the vision of the earlier movies. Lets face it folks, when it comes time for the Academy Awards, the Star Wars movies win on technical merit as well as musical accompaniament. I am sure these same critics are the ones that complained about the Lord of The Rings as a chase movie. Well duh, if they had read the book, they would have known that.

Episode II is a fantastic glimpse into a universe and history that anyone familiar with the Star Wars universe would really like to see. Many questions that have caused fans to wonder about have finally begun to be answered. The movie does a good job dropping your jaw at how various characters from the Old trilogy are related to people and events in the new trilogy. Origins of some of the conflicts and characters are explained in greater detail, helping fans to better grasp the vastness of the storyline laid down by Lucas. Many people, myself included have felt that Episode I really seemed disconnected from the original series as it seemed more like a fantasy film gone amuck.

Even some of the humor in Episode II which does contain plenty considering some of the darker nature of the subject matter is amusing and is capable of introducing irony into the sequence of events for those viewers familiar with the events that take place in the old trilogy. Lucas is not afraid to have a character make a comment which is funny but at the same time carries a much deeper meaning to it. There is one scene where Obi Wan Kenobi is chasing after Anakin Skywalker and makes the statement "why do I feel like you will be the death of me someday", for the ironic twist is that Darth Vader ultimately DOES kill Obi Wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars. Episode II recaptures the magic of the films and left me hanging on the edge of my seat to see the third installment which hasn't even begun filming yet.

My children are 9 & 4 and between the three of us we thoroughly enjoyed the movie and left feeling excited. Even my 4 year old was left staring at the screen being caught up in the action sequences. There were only a couple of times in the movie when dialogue that was intended for more mature audiences left the younger kids antsy and a bit bored. Thankfully these scenes while important to the story do not last very long between the action sequences.

I would like to tell any of the critics of this movie that those criticisms are unfounded and they need to rethink their concept of what makes a movie entertaining. I heard people in the theater cheering and laughing all the way out the door of the theater because they had FUN! This is not a Shakespearean tragedy nor should a reviewer go into a movie always looking for a reason to dislike a movie and appreciate it for what it is.

For those of you like myself who are fans of the books of the same name,you will not be disappointed by this movie. Unlike the animated versions that have previously been made where much of the story was condensed either for budgetary constraints or time limits, the Fellowship of the Ring while it does take a few shortcuts, there are very few. It is very exciting getting to see places that up until now have been purely figments of my imagination portrayed by someones elses imagination on the silver screen. I felt myself holding my breath waiting to see the various locations of middle earth and how others have dreamed of them. The movie does a breathtaking job in transporting the viewer to this other world and does so with magic good enough to be from the hand of Gandalf himself. Yes, there are places where for dramatic reasons or to prevent a lengthy historical context that certain events from the book were either shortened, modified or changed. These changes however do not change the storyline itself and makes for a very entertaining movie. I do feel however that if you are one of the uninitiated, it would serve you to either read the book before going, or immediately after the film pick up a copy and read it as it will provide more breadth to the story than what an almost three hour film can portray. In addition, there are several scenes in the book that while not central to the main story, add more to the lore of middle earth and help to explain some of the history leading up to the time of the story. The characterizations in the film were very well done and the choices of the actors to play the hobbits were perfect. While I was somewhat anxious to have Elijah Wood as Frodo and Sean Astin as Samwise, after seeing how well they were portrayed on film left me no doubt that these actors did a very admirable job bringing the characters to life. The majority of the cast has some English accent which was my main concern. Both the principle American actors portrayed a passable English type accent themselves which helped prevent them standing out on their own. How the filmmakers made several average height men such as Wood and Astin, and probably more so John Rhys Davies as Gimli appear much smaller than their Elvish or human companions is spellbinding. Special effects in this movie while at first don't really seem to be that obvious eventually take on a more obvious tone as the fellowship moves further into the adventure. As one would expect from a magical world, many things which we take for granted from reading the books are very difficult to accurately portray in a live action presentation. The filmmakers not only did a good job, they surpassed by far my expectations and truly made the experience an enjoyable and fulfilling one. As with any film where there will be sequels coming out, the ending left me longing for December 2002 to follow our adventurers further on their quest.

I will caution parents who are thinking of taking their children to see this movie that it is not a movie made or intended for children. Much Parental Guidance and forethought should be taken before taking children under 12 to this film. Aside from a film which lasts almost three hours in length where much of the dialogue while important to the story is not well suited to entertain small children. In addition, several of the creatures created for the film will probably terrify younger audiences. If you want to take your children to see this film, I might caution you to view it without them first and then decide to take them on your own judgement. Hey, if you do see it first without them, you can see it again right? I plan on seeing it more than once anyway. All in all, this is a well developed motion picture where a great deal of thought went into it's development and execution. I am thankful to the filmmakers for having the courage to tackle such a well known, well loved story with an audience that has a very well organized preconceived notion of how they view the world of Tolkien. The filmmakers did the book justice and that is the bottom line unlike Bakshi's version of 1978 which was a disappointment at best and unfinished as it's final release turned out to be.

Monsters Inc. is without a doubt a well conceived movie. The writing was very good and the storyline, contrary to what one professional reviewer from CNN.com said, does NOT drag in the middle. If anyone has seen the early trailer of this movie, it doesn't give justice at all to the movie. John Goodmans portrayal of the big blue monster Sully is warm, and touching. His interaction with the little girl he names Boo is absolutely delightful. There are actually several scenes where some really heartwarming and tear-jerking things happen. This is very surprising considering Disney hasn't really released a tear-jerker since the Lion King in 1994. Unfortunately Billy Crystals character named Mike while very much in character for him is not nearly as visible in the picture as many movie goers would like. Although he is a main character, his humor is very subdued and he is not as sarcastically funny as he is capable of. Even though John Ratzenbergers (Cliff Clavin from Cheers) role is a small one, his character Yeti is very comical and provides a few moments of comic relief during a particularly tense section of the movie.

The animation however is far more brilliant than Disney/Pixar's previous CGI releases Toy Story, A Bugs Life, and Toy Story II. The environments created for the characters is very cartoon-like in many respects, unlike the phenomenal realistic worlds created in this Summers hit Shrek. The animation is not as complex as Shrek was, but it is very obvious just looking at Sullys heavy fur coat to see the advances computer animation has taken since Jurassic Park rewrote the book on computer effects in 1993. All in all this movie is more geared to kids in the content of the dialog. Parents will find the movie enjoyable, but don't expect as much sarcastic wit and sexual innuendos as Shrek contained as this is a Disney movie after all. I recommend seeing this movie, you'll get a real kick out of the animated short film Pixar created for this release that precedes the movie called "For the Birds". It didn't hurt to have Lucasfilm release it's first trailer for Star Wars Episode II with this movie either.

I took my children to see this movie because it is a Disney movie and the focus for their movies is kids right? Not only did this movie not capture my children's attention, but it also felt like a movie where the script was intended for live action but animation seemed the cheaper way to go. The storyline was weak, the characterizations of many of the characters were hard to understand ie: the mole, and the humor which typically is the part of Disney movies that makes them enjoyable for adults wasn't funny. Although the animation in much of the movie was beautiful, and the action sequences were unbelievable in their realism, the animation could not overcome the fact that the story wasn't there. James Garners character as the snake in the grass commander of the expedition was square, and was like watching a Dr. Jekyl into Mr. Hyde transformation. All in all, I feel that Disney tried to make a motion picture where they target an older audience at the expense of their traditional primary audience. Parents should be warned that younger children may not enjoy this movie as it does not follow the traditional Walt Disney style of summer releases. My young daughter whom I have taken to many movies asked me twenty minutes into a 75 minute affair if we could go home. I noticed many children in the audience acting similarly. I have loved Disney movies since I was a child and this is the first one that I can honestly say really stinks.

For those viewers who really enjoyed getting creeped out by Hannibal Lecter's inhuman characteristics and cerebral linguistic ability in the Silence of the Lambs, don't go to see Hannibal. If you are a Nightmare on Elm Street fan, and love Freddy Kruegers jovial banter when preparing to kill his victims, you will love this flick. Hannibal Lecter has been reduced from a highly intelligent, sophisticated psychopathic killer to a wisecracking killer with unusual dietary habits. The producers of this film along with the director should be ashamed of themselves for wasting the incredible talents of the top two billed actors in this picture. Hannibal was too funny, Clarisse had a chip on her shoulder throughout most of the movie. The chemistry that Jodie Foster and Sir Hopkins shared in SOTL was missing because of poorly scripted dialog in which the two characters didn't really talk to each other, but rather spoke at each other with their own agenda. This movie wants so desperately to be a Saturday night date flick that it forgets that most of the accolades the first movie received were because the acting was so superb that you left the movie with the creeps instead of having nausea. SOTL was for the most part not graphic in the violence it displayed, however Hannibal takes the idea about visceral gross out to a new extreme. If you like gore, you'll love this movie. If you are looking for an Oscar contender, go check out Chocolat, or Cast Away because the golden Statue doesn't give awards for assuming that the prime target audience of this picture is stupid. The movie cheated from the book in some key ways which I will not share in this forum. Shame on Thomas Harris for contributing to this pulp fictionesque movie that could have been more, he's a far better writer than what this screenplay turned out to be.