Reviews

That's exactly what I said after seeing this movie. I was hesitant because I haven't thought any of their previous movies were funny at all, but this one was a gem. Alec Baldwin was absolutely halarious, as was most of the rest of the cast. There's not a whole lot I can say other than to recomend that you see this film if you're into laughing, if you're not then go rent any of the other Farrelly bothers movies.

This movie seemed to last forever. I can't understand how anyone with at least the intelligence of a gnat could find anything worthwhile in this "film". First of all the direction was so unimaginative that my grandmother could have done a better job and she's been dead for over 20 years. It's a telling sign that a director has no real skill at movie making when he has to resort to using slow motion every 10 minutes. The dialog was so mind numbing that after a while my friend and I had to start making fun of the film just to entertain ourselves. The acting was absolutely horrible and amateurish. Tom Cruise seemed as though he was just going through the motions. I know this guy can act, he did a slendid job in Magnolia and Born On The Fourth Of July, but more often than not he simply sucks. I realize sometimes action flicks are not long on dialog or plot but usually they have some good action and at least dialog that's at a second grade level, this film had neither. I wouldn't even recommend renting this when it comes out.

No question the special effects in this movie (especailly the first 30 minutes) was great. But I don't consider a movie great if special effects are all it has. This movie was not very good other than special effects. It was just like all the other war movies I have seen. But I guess when you're Steven Spielberg you can throw up in the camera and the resulting "film" people will flock to see.

I like Stanley Krubrick as much as any Krubrick fan but I'm not so blind as to admit when he's made a bad film. I can't believe some of the people here who have said this is a materpiece, and I'm certain that it's because it was made by Krubrick. In fact I would be willing to bet everything I own that if these same people were shown this movie and didn't know who made it they would see the truth that it was a horrible film. Oh well some people like anything that a certain director does no mtter what. I'm realistic enough to say this film was horrible and it's too bad it was Krubrick's final film, a big blemish on an otherwise brilliant career.

I think alot of people who didn't like this movie either missed the point entirely or they aren't familiar with Hollywood. This was a great satirical look at Hollywood and the those who inhabit it. Steve Martin is probably one of the best comedy writers around today. And Eddie Murphy has finally made a movie where he's actually funny again. I thought Eddie Murphy's dual role was great, each character was halarious. See this film if you like comedy and satire.

This is a message to all those people who call other people ignorant just because they don't like the same movie. Can't you just say you liked the film without insulting those of us who didn't find it so illuminating. Also I feel you can wait 10,000 years and this movie is still going to be aweful. I'm a big Krubrick fan but I thought he totally missed the mark on this one. The movie was shallow (no story to speak of). It had an idea but that idea was very undeveloped. The acting was deplorable, especailly Nicole Kidman. The sound track was just plain annoying with that single note at a time piano part. This was not only a bad movie when compared to Krubrick's other movies but it would have been a bad movie if it was made by a first year film student.

This movie had to be one of the worst films I've seen in quite a while. I think I cracked a smile once or twice during the entire proceeding. It was poorly acted and totally historically inaccurate. I realize a movie based on historical events will take liberties with the truth, especailly comedies. But this movie bares very little resembalence to the truth. For those who wish to know the truth about the whole Watergate scandal (not the fictionalized version that Woodward and Bernstein foisted upon an unsuspecting public) read the book, "Silent Coup-Removal of a President". It's the most researched book on the subject ever. This movie was not only unfunny but it got really mean-spirited about half way through. Every copy of this video should be gathered up and taken to an empty lot and burned and then the ground should be tilled until no remnant of this aweful movie can be seen and the earth on that spot should be salted so nothing will ever grow there again.

This movie was one of the best of 1999. Also I agree with Tom Crook above who said people on this site think they're critics. You know the people, the ones who think anyone would be the slightest bit interested in reading their 1000 word essay on a movie. Or the ones who have a by-line like their real writers. People call themselves published writers if they post something to a internet site like this one. Man what a bunch of losers. Just tell us succintly as possible if you like the movie or not. I don't (and I'm sure most of the people who come to this site don't) read reviews here that are more than a paragraph. If you want to be a published columnist, get a job with a real publication if you can, if you can't maybe you're not good enough and if you're not good enough for a real publication to pay you to write then why should I want to read what you have written?

I can't understand how anyone would think that this waste of film was any good. The acting was so over the top it was distracting and most of the jokes fell flat. Plus which I hate movies about actual events that bear no resemblance to the facts. The movie started off innocent enough but then turned into some mean spirited attack on Richard Nixon. There were a few laughs but they were very few and very far between. I wouldn't even recommend renting this film, it's just not worth the time it takes to watch it.

I thought this was a great movie. I can see how some people may not like it because Hollywood has trained people to shun movies with intelligent dialog. This movie renewed my faith in man and in God. If there was a downside to this movie it was Ben Affleck. Don't get me wrong he's an OK actor but when I watch him in anything he's been in it always looks like he's acting. But the rest of the movie was so good that I hardly noticed Ben's lack of natural acting ability.

Some of the postings I've read here have said they don't like this movie because it's unrealistic. These people apparently never worked in an office, because all the office jobs I've had have been exactly like the office in this movie. It couldn't be more accurate. Also someone said here that the scheme the main characters come up with is lame and unrealistic. It was a real scheme that people have actually tried in the past, so it's not unrealistic or lame. Everything in this movie was reasonable and true to life. I also read someone's post that said the music distracted from the movie being good. I thought the music was great, did the person who wrote that about the music even hear and understand the lyrics? If they did they would realize that the music enhanced the movie and mirrored what was going on at the same time. I haven't seen a better movie this year and haven't seen a funnier movie since "The Big Lebowski".

I thought this was a documentary on how to make a bad movie. The makers of this film would have been better off taking the film and cutting it into guitar picks, at least then it would have been useful. I think I may have smiled a couple times but didn't laugh once. It amazes me what passes for humor in some people's opinion. I may have found this movie funnier if I was in the sixth grade but if you're an intelligent mature person skip this film and stare at your blank TV screen for 2 hours, it will be much more entertaining.

I did not see Shawshank Redemption in the theater and was hesitant to see it because everyone told me what a great movie it was. Usually when that happens and I see the movie it never lives up to the hype, SR not only lived up to its hype but surprassed it. Anyone who didn't like this movie either has no heart or no brain. It's a movie which forces you in a gentle way to think and to feel.

Three Kings was a good movie (I'd give it 3 out of four stars.) But nothing spectacular. The cinematography seemed like it was trying to hard with all the stop action scenes which got to be annoying after a while. This movie is worth seeing on video but I wouldn't necessarily spend the money to see it in the theater. It was entertaining but was forgotten shortly after viewing it, not much here to make you think.

It saddens me deeply that our society has sunk so low and has lost any taste in what a good movie is to see so many people applaud this waste of film. I'm not a prude and by no means am opposed to scatalogical humor, but this movie isn't even funny, it's just sick. They should take every copy of this movie, put them all in a pile and burn them. And then bulldoze the land where they were burned and salt the earth so nothing ever grows there again.

I just had to comment on this movie to give another view to the only other review that's here for this movie at the time. This movie was made in 1964 and thus should be judged according to its time. I thought the movie was excellent in the fact that it took alot of chances for 1964. It dealt with prostitution and child molestation in a very real way. The cinematography was very good for a picture of its time. The lighting on some of the scenes was absolutely erie and sometimes very emotional. I think in todays world of movie making the art of lighting has been lost or at least severely under developed. This movie is well worth seeing if you can find it.

The people who have said that this movie was poorly written apparently have been brainwashed by Hollywood to think that a movie has to have a lot of sex and violence in order to be good. This a very intelligent film, great dialog, great acting and flawless directing. I won't go into the plot because by now you already know the basic premise of the movie from reading the other reviews here. I'll just say, "See Mumford" if you appreciate intelligent films.

This was a very good movie. The young actor (Haley Joel Osment) was awesome. I've been reading some reviews here from people who say this wasn't a very good horror movie, well it wasn't suppose to be a horror movie, it's a psychological thriller. Hollywood has apparently infiltrated the minds of these people to make them beileve that blood and gore and big buget specail effects are what make a good movie. People don't seem to like anything that is going to make them think because their minds are so vacuous that they sit there in the theater and wait for it to be filled by Hollywood drivel. This movie is certainly worht the price of admission and more.

That's exactly how my daughter and I felt when we left the theater after seeing EDtv, the worst movie I have seen in recent memory. I don't know what people liked about this film. Ron Howard has made some great movies in the past so I guess he eventually had to make a real stinker and this is it. The Truman Show was a much better film about the same subject matter. For that matter if one wants to see probably the greatest film made on this subject matter, see Real Life, written, directed and starring Albert Brooks. Back to EdTv. I kept looking at my watch hoping and praying it would be over soon. If you have nothing better to do and you can't find any hot pokers to stick in your eyes then rent and watch EdTv.

It's too bad that some people are calling this film the scariest movie ever. I didn't find it as scary as it was thought provoking and splendidly done. The film makers succeeded abundantly at making a film that was truly brilliant. It's too bad that Stanley Krubrick died, after "Eyes Wide Shut" he could have learned alot about film making from the makers of Blair Witch. The movie is so well done that when it was first shown the film makers had private investigators calling up and saying they wanted to re-open the case and find out what happened to the three film makers. They had to assure them that it was only fiction. I saw two films this weekend, Blair Witch and The Haunting, the former was brilliant, the latter was just another typical Hollywood formula film that depends on specail effects and computers to entertain. See the first movie but pass on the second.

If you like Hollywood formula movies and computer generated effects that look computer generated and a poorly written script where a house is the only worthwhile thing to see in the whole movie, then by all means see The Haunting. This movie was annoying with it's false scares, you know the scenes where they have the suspenseful music and camera shots that would lead one to believe something is going to happen and then the character opens a door or rounds a corner only to find another member of their party or a cat or something else as harmless. It's okay to have false scares but they must be used in moderation or it's like the boy who cries wolf, by the time it's a real scare it's not even scarry. A much better movie to see in the same genre is The Blair Witch Project. The makers of the Haunting could learn a few things from the makers or Blair Witch about how to make a great film without the normal Hollywood trappings.

On the original Saturday Night Live Dan Akroyd use to do a skit as a pretencious film critic who only reviewed the worst movies, "Eyes Wide Shut" would have been a perfect candidate for that skit. There weren't many redeeming qualities in this movie. The acting was very flat and Nicole Kidman especaily turned in a performance that would not have gotten her a part in a high school production. The cinematography was annoying. Especially the scenes where the Tom Cruise character imagines his wife in a sexual liason with the Naval officer of her fantasy. The orgy scene was another disaster, with it's digital effects to cover sexual acts. I mean either shoot the scene with real people engaged in sexual activity and show it or find a better way to viel it without resorting to cheap technological tricks which look horrible. The sound track was marred by that truly annoying single note at a time piano part. The ending was absolutely absurd. This is not only a bad movie for a great film maker such as Stanely Krubrick, but it would be a bad film for a first year film student. Save your money.