Reviews

I think it's more than a coincidence that Jackson's dinosaurs are no match for the mighty Kong -- hello King Kong, goodbye Jurassic Park. I see it as Jackson one-upping Spielberg in the special effects department, saying one big ape can take on a bunch of dinos any day.

Stunning, realistic, incredibly detailed so as to appear . . . real. A magnificent tour de force demonstration of what can be done with today's technology.

The cinematographer and Jackson obviously also love incredibly detailed wide shots -- breathtaking, and Naomi Watts' natural beauty -- ditto.

Other than that, eminently forgettable.

The other feature films called "Batman" are to this movie what a Saturday morning ABC Family show is to "The Godfather."

A very powerful, superbly directed movie with a treasure trove of name actors that make it all the more enjoyable.

And the new kids in the movie -- Christian and Katie -- deliver solid performances that are definitely not the bubble gum pap we've been served up in the other "Batmans." (If only these two could have starred in Star Wars rather than the boring, wooden Hayden and Natalie!)

It's a bit on the long side, but I can't honestly say there were more than a few minutes that should've been left on the cutting room floor.

If your senses can take it, sit close to the screen in a new theater with a really good sound system. It will rattle you in more ways than one.

I was worried when I saw this movie was 2 hours, 25 minutes in length. Rarely does a movie of that length hold my interest. This one did.

The casting was terrific, from Orlando Bloom's performance as a blacksmith turned warrior to Edward Norton's unseen face as King Baldwin to Jeremy Irons dark portrayal of Tiberius.

What you also have in this movie is a very balanced, possibly politically correct, treatment of the whole issue of the Crusades and the war of Christians vs. Muslims.

What I liked most, however, was the portrayal of Bloom's character. Balian was the quintessential citizen soldier who did his duty (boy, did he!) and wanted nothing in return.

If you can stomach the violence (properly R-rated), this is a terrifically entertaining movie.

The first Miss Congeniality was decent "junk food" entertainment. My 12 year old daughter ranks it as one of her favorite movies.

We saw "MC 2: Armed and Fabulous" last weekend.

The sequel is just "junk". For the $31.00 I spent for my family of four, I felt robbed. Even my daughter made a "prune" face when I asked her if she liked it.

Sandra Bullock was very likable in the first movie. In this one, not so. Very little of the unsophisticated Gracie playing a beauty pageant contestant came through, and that made it a bore.

Last, and maybe most important, the absence of Michael Caine, Candice Bergen and Benjamin Bratt left three big holes that Sandra Bullock just couldn't fill on her own.

Don't waste your money to see it at the theater. If so compelled, rent it when it hits DVD.

"Get Shorty" was a great movie. It was very clever, well-acted (except for Gandolfini's bogus southern accent), and very, very entertaining.

"Be Cool" was pretty much the same, but was so much like "Get Shorty" in its formula that there were no surprises, so it was a bit disappointing.

Travolta, as Chili Palmer, was just as cool as in "Get Shorty", but was totally predictable, so not as entertaining.

The only character I am still laughing about is The Rock's portrayal of Elliot Wilhelm, a gay bodyguard who isn't particularly good at anything. There is one scene where he auditions for role in a movie for Travolta that is priceless.

And Vince Vaughn is at his usual quirky, over-the-top self as a white guy who acts like a black guy and just can't get anything right.

I don't feel like my $7.50 was wasted, but if your choice is see "Be Cool" at the movies or rent "Get Shorty" (if you haven't seen it), rent "Get Shorty". Then rent "Be Cool" when the DVD drops.

The Terminal is a good movie, but only because Tom Hanks is so bloody entertaining when he has a character to play whom you fall in love with at first sight. In this case, that's Viktor Navorski.

Catherine Z-J is not particularly believable as a United Air Lines flight attendant who can't make up her mind. In that regard, the characters are a bit like Forrest and Jenny, but you could like Jenny as a person. You definitely don't like Amelia.

In the first half of the movie, Stanley Tucci was mostly likable, but then he grew confused about who he wanted to be, too.

The standout "goofball" in the movie was Kumar Pallana, who played Gupta, a lovable Indian janitor who had a perverse sense of humor, a surprising talent or two, and a strong sense of doing the right thing.

I guess what bothered me the most about the movie was that only one person (Amelia) ever asked Viktor (Tom) why he wanted to come to New York City. His reason for being there was something that one of his buddies could easily have taken care of during the months he spent living at JFK. In fact, once you find out why he was there, you have to ask yourself whether he needed to be there at all.

Hanks - 10; the movie itself - 6; averaged - I give it an 8.

Saw the first showing at noon today (an extended lunch hour on a rainy day). Reality check -- this movie isn't a documentary. Even Moore himself has described Fahrenheit 9/11 as an "op/ed" piece -- it is not unbiased journalism. If you insist this a documentary, then I will agree with you provided you agree that Ron Popeil is the single greatest documentation in US history. Let's just call Fahrenheit 9/11 an infomercial for Moore's political viewpoints.

I had seen Roger and Me years ago, a clever "gotcha" piece. It was an expanded version of what 60 Minutes was in the early days, when Mike Wallace would show up after they got somebody to do or say something bad on hidden camera and then try to get that on-my-God-deer-in-headlights look that the bad guys always had when they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Clever, but also a bit dated these days as a tactic.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is more sophisticated, but at the same time pretty transparent in its overwhelming desire to make Bush look like a moron. There were no surprises, probably because a tremendous amount of what's in the movie has been "out there" on the Internet for months. If we didn't have Iraq and Afghanistan 24/7 on many cable channels for months and another couple of months of hype about this movie, maybe it would have had more impact on me, but I wound up being quite bored.

As for his editing style, I'd bet (as he was accused of doing in "Bowling for Columbine") Moore did a bit of rearranging of footage to make certain people look foolish -- some things seemed disconnected, though you were led to believe they were all part of one continuous flow. As one journalist said, the difference between a credible journalist and Michael Moore is Moore just rearranges things to suit his purposes -- a credible journalist will insert an ellipsis (. . .) between words to indicate they've edited for brevity, not content. With Moore, you don't get the ellipsis.

So, Moore gets two thumbs up for being clever, again. But just being clever isn't enough anymore. I suspect this movie will do well financially. It can't have cost much to make. Those who hate Bush will line up to pay their admission to see Bush look like a bumbling hick and they won't be disappointed. Those who subscribe to various and sundry right wing conspiracy theories will also be thorough entertained.

Here comes the tough critique:

Others have written books or produced news stories that have unseated politicians, even Presidents. Moore's use of his films hasn't caused a single change material in the World. I think it's because he's too hung up on making people look foolish and less interested in using his considerable skills to investigate and report on real stories. But that sort of work won't make you quite as wealthy as Moore has become. He's created his own genre and is becoming ever more wealthy with each project. In that regard, you have to admire him as a financial success. But if his true motive is to change the world he's an abject failure.

What's missing is about 30-40 minutes of story. There are at least two, maybe three entire substories from the original "Walking Tall" and the real Buford Pusser story that just aren't there.

The problem is the movie sort of skips from Act 3 to Act 5, and Act 7 to Act 9. The only thing it doesn't skip is the fight scenes.

Also, the "bad guy" is not that believable. Nowhere near as believable as The Rock as the "good guy". They should have found a bigger, nastier actor. It just isn't believable that he could almost be a match for The Rock in a fistfight.

I wanted to like this movie, but didn't. My son, who is 13 and a massive Rock fan from wrestling, didn't like it either.

I really wanted to like Kill Bill. I thought (and still think) Pulp Fiction was a masterpiece of creativity that was still realistic.

Kill Bill is a masterpiece of creativity, but is a cartoon. I'm sure Tarantino meant it to be so (at least I hope he did!). But it just fell in love with itself a bit too much.

Especially the massacre in the restaurant, which had no particular point to make after the fourth amputation. Monty Python did it right -- four amputations in one scene is the max. Anything more is wasting my time.

I'm just guessing that Kill Bill would've made a good movie, but expanded, extended and then carved into two "volumes", it just gets a bit too narcissistic.

It's interesting how Johnson's acting career is taking a track so similar to Arnold's.

(By the way, be sure not to miss Arnold's 5-second cameo in the early scenes of the movie.)

First, the "athlete". Second, the "barbarian". And now, a much more likable character with plenty of lines. Johnson has shown that he can dominate the ring as "The Rock" and now dominate the screen as "Beck".

I went to this movie with my kids, anticipating the usual boring action movie.

Surprise!

Not only did Dwayne (sorry, I just can't say "The Rock") deliver a believable performance as "Beck", but the remainder of the cast was, well, appropriately cast. The only "glitch" was Rosario Dawson's lame attempt at a Brazilian accent -- not even close!!! And Christopher Walken continues to portray characters that are simultaneously likable, hatable, bizarre, funny and just frickin' strange. I crack up just looking at his face.

The only question now is whether this is a one-off for the character, or whether "Beck" will be on-screen again soon. If so, I would hope that Johnson pushes for a character that is more "Indiana Jones" than "Terminator".

See it -- it's a good summer movie, a couple of months late.

After well over two hours, I wanted more.

I felt I'd just gotten to know Costner and Duvall; barely gotten to know Annette Benning. And really never got to know any other characters or the magnificent country used for location shots (Alberta, Can.).

It had the potential to be an "Out of Africa" experience on a somewhat smaller scale, but it just didn't grow enough to satisfy me completely.

Maybe this is Costner's equivalent of writing "I'll never make another Waterworld" on the blackboard 500 times.

Arnold didn't exactly turn in an Academy Award performance, but he did get to squeeze in a bit more humor this time.

Also, surprise, there's a plot twist that was genuinely surprising.

Not bad, but still mostly appealing to those who like to see well-crafted, CGI shoot-em-ups.

My only quibble? It's about 20 minutes too long. Some scenes could have been edited without losing anything. Other than than, a winner.

The acting, especially Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush, was superb. And Orlando Bloom ensured himself a bigger role in his next movie. The story line was actually quite entertaining and the special effects?

The ships always looked like ships, not some CGI image of a ship. And the crew of the Black Pearl?

Let's just say that the effects used to depict the crew were remarkable. A real tour de force, which was very subtle at first and then caused a "what the?" reaction when it sunk in.

As others have said, it's not a movie for youngsters. My 11 and 12-year olds were a little spooked by some scenes, but it is not gory. Violent, yes. A bit repulsive here and there, yes. But never gratuitous.

Go see it and enjoy.

It should have been animated.

Wait, it was animated. The special effects overwhelmed any reality.

What I mean is it should have been a cartoon.

Wait, it was a cartoon. Nothing was real.

OK, it was horrible.

Wait, it was horrible.

A lot of the "monster" shows of the 40's and 50's had similar themes -- somebody's zapped with radiation, which makes them really big or really ugly, or both. The all knowing, all seeing government "takes control" of the problem, but only screws it up in the end.

And there is always "the girl". No matter how big, how violent, or how deadly the monster becomes, it turns into putty when "the girl" comes on the scene.

The Hulk is no different, except its special effects are better.

I'm a fan of Affleck and Garner, not to mention Michael Clark-Duncan and Joe Pantoliano. But, other than the "wow" of some of the special effects (which weren't so special after they were repeated and repeated), I felt like almost everyone onscreen could've phoned in their perfomances.

Sorry, I can't recommend this movie. Even my kids (10 and 12) thought it was just "OK".

The opening was not bad -- in fact, the hovercraft chase sequence had some great moments reminiscent of older Bond films, but from there it swirled down the porcelain.

I won't even comment on the rest of this turkey ...

How does this one rate? Choose from any of the following:

a. It sucks.

b. It bites.

c. It's the worst Bond film yet.

d. I wish I could get a refund of my $8.

e. All of the above.

Hint: there are no wrong answers.

Save your $8 (or whatever you pay at your local theater) and rent two or three Bond flicks starring Sean Connery. You'll be more entertained.

No, not the best movie of the year, but devilishly entertaining. The dialogue is terrific, the actors well cast (but what's up with Don Cheadle's Cockney accent?) and the pace was perfect (thanks to a spectacular directing job by Steve Soderbergh).

Nuff said ....

It's nice to see so many heroes in one movie who are eligible for AARP membership.

As a 50's guy (decade and age), I'm glad Hollywood is making movies where older people are portrayed as they are in this movie -- having fun at the expense of lame bureaucrats and young, less experienced hotshots. Just kidding.

The plot is (of course) very contrived and (technologically) improbable. And the principal players play the roles they have developed in many prior appearances, so there were no "stretch" assignments here.

But who cares? It's pure entertainment, and on that scale, it's a "10".

This will fly out of the stores when it's released on DVD.

Sorry -- this one wasn't funny for me, nor my 8-year old son or 7-year old daughter. Much like "Wild Wild West", this movie suffers from too much money spent on too many techo-tricks and not enough money saved for better story and/or character development.

I swear that on at least one occasion, Matthew Broderick gave the camera one of those 'deer in the headlights' takes, saying "don't blame me folks, I'm just earning a couple of mil doing really expensive sights gags".

I am a big-time fan of Will Smith, Kevin Kline, and Kenneth Branagh. And to make matters worse, I would never miss an episode of the original WWW on TV. But ...

The movie lost me about 10 minutes into the first act and I kept hoping for it to find me again -- but NO-O-O-O-O! Even my 8-year old son thought it sucked (and he liked "Spice Girls"!).

What a waste of $100 million, but it looks like (based on the box office numbers so far) the studio will recoup their investment. I hope this doesn't encourage them to do a sequel .....

Sorry guys, I give this one a "2", one for each of Salma Hayek's breasts, the only story theme that held my attention.