Reviews

First off, seeing this movie is probably worth twice the price of the ticket. The action scenes almost kick too much ass. The special effects are totally flawless. Altogether, the visuals of this movie are simply incredible.

That said, there's too much philosophical fluff slowing it down. It was smart of the Wachowski brothers to include all this meaningless mumbo-jumbo to keep their fans busy, but to the average movie lover, the dialogue is tiresome.

The creators definitely bit off more than they can chew. Way too many what-ifs were created in this movie, and the third Matrix will have to be quite the epic to successfully close the story. My expectations are so high, they're gonna have to summon a miracle to make me happy.

The Matrix Reloaded was an entirely satisfying experience... I just have concerns about the ideas that were conjured up. This is a brilliantly made movie, but they went a little overkill on the pseudo-philosophy. But then again, I guess that's what the Matrix is all about. If for no other reason, see it for the all-GM car chase scene; it is the biggest rush you'll get from a film.

After six years, this piece of crap finally had to spring up in my memory....

Out of pure curiosity, I looked it up at IMDb to see what kind of criticism it got. Not to my surprise, it didn't really get much at all. Suffice it to say it is probably the worst piece of animation ever to hit cable TV. If I wasn't a confused middle school student at the time, I would never have survived a single episode. It's almost as if the creator of the cartoon wanted us to believe that his sense of humor was more sophisticated than ours. In actuality, it was only more warped and perverse. That may be good with classics like Beavis & Butthead but this P.O.S. was unbelievably bad. And I use the term "unbelievably" in its most literal sense. Chances are you'll never have to witness the total ineptitude of this filth, but rest assured, unless you've seen an episode of The Brothers Grunt, you have no idea what "crap" really is.

Just in case you can't picture total "crap," think of a bunch of grey, pulsating old men who look and act like retards. No, not funny ha-ha retards. REAL retards. Drooling, staring, whining, unintelligible retards. Imagine these retards wandering about curiously poking and prodding simple everyday objects like bewildered children. Don't bother to worry about a plot; there is none. They have yellow teeth, yellow eyes, and are quite possibly the most visually unappealing protagonists EVER. The "brothers" are always followed by a detective with oversized nostrils and a strong addiction to coffee. His purpose in this cartoon is clear: The genius who created "The Brothers Grunt" somehow realized that since the brothers could only whine and drool, he needed to stick in a human being to provide actual monologue. Good strategy... too bad it didn't do a lick of good.

Anyway, this horrible, horrible creation has managed to waste my time once again. In closing I'll just say this: "The Brothers Grunt" is the yardstick by which all other crap is measured. It proved once and for all that any yo-yo with an animation studio can churn out MTV-grade nonsense... and have it canceled the same year.

This movie is different. That's about it. It's not innovative, it's not incredibly intelligent, and it most certainly is not a classic. This guy, Bruce Conner, whose name we are made painfully aware of, may have been the first person to edit together 12 minutes of stock footage in a quasi-logical manner (most likely not). So what. I could have done it, and I could have done it a lot better. So could you, probably.

I agree that every film student should have to see this. They should have to see it as an introduction to the concept that there is a lot of crap afloat in the movie industry, and the mere fact that it's unique doesn't do a lick of good when it's neither entertaining nor intellectually-stimulating.

Congratulations, Bruce. You made a real goldbrick.

First of all, my only real gripe about this movie is the camera work. Sometimes its good to be inventive and unique but when you make the cinematography awkward just for the sake of being different it doesn't work out.

Otherwise, I thought this was a pretty good movie, definitely worth the eight bucks. For those of you weekend movie "buffs" that think this is little more than Hollywood razzle-dazzle, you're right... but you should have known better going in to a movie with Owen Wilson playing the lead. When I want to see filmmaking at its best, I watch something like 2001 or Rear Window. But this time, I wanted to see a well-done action flick and that's exactly what I got.

The high point of the movie is the ending. I won't spoil it for anyone but I will say it has to be the most kick-a**-and-take-names all-American ending ever, and if not, certainly close (and like it or not, the ending IS entirely plausible).

A "great movie" is not necessarily one that combines superb acting, character development, intelligent comedy and artistic direction. Instead, a great movie is one that succeeds in doing what it set out to do, and therefore the original Gone in 60 Seconds is great indeed.

The car chase scenes in this movie are superior to all others. The 40 minute chase at the end of the movie is obviously cinematic history, but the chase that excited me the most was when the tow truck was trying (and succeeding) to outrun the police. Critics of this movie fail to understand the joy that is brought to a car-loving audience such as myself when a tow truck with an actual car in tow powerslides and fishtails and eventually gets away. This is not something you see in modern high-budget car chase movies. This is the type of genius you see only in a movie created by a guy who really knows the subject matter.

If you want quality acting, well-written drama, and striking cinematography, go elsewhere... it's as simple as that. The world only needs one Lawrence of Arabia. But if you want to be stunned with incredible action scenes featuring REAL cars (instead of oh, say a Lincoln Navigator like the one in the remake), pick up a copy of this movie. And if you must have something to accompany the car chases, listen closely to the dialogue; while it may not be poetic enough for some people's ears, it'll make you laugh whether the writer intended it or not.

Twenty minutes into the film I thought it would be great. But it lost steam (and credibility) very quickly. There were some very clever moments (namely the gun fight in the alleyway) but the rest was pretty much crap. One question I repeatedly asked myself: What kind of people, criminal or not, would literally toss around a pregnant woman? They were obviously the protagonists, but I had a very difficult time taking anyone's side. Phillippe was a lame excuse for a tough guy (and the accent--AAGH!), and Benicio was... well, truthfully, he was pretty cool. But even Benicio's suave yet stoic presence was not enough to save this movie.

The wrong vehicle for an otherwise interesting concept.

This movie is a failed attempt at melding special effects and decent character interaction. The only good scenes were the computer generated images of the waves, and even those got old after a while. Here's 10 reasons why I hated this movie.

10. Based on a true story?! How could anyone know what anyone said at any moment after the boat shipped off? It appears to me that they took a few names, like the name of the boat, and threw them in a entirely fictional plot. Don't try to fool intelligent folk like me into pouring unnecessary emotion into a Clooney film!

9. George Clooney. Another botched run at portraying a grizzled old tough guy. And where was HIS Bostonian accent? Just like Costner in Robin Hood--totally out of his element.

8. The Captain's time-to-accept-my-fate-and-remain-in-the-cabin-while-the-boat-goes-under scene. Anyone with the serenity and presence of mind to accept death while he's short on air doesn't belong on a fishing boat; he should be stealing military secrets from the Commies or something. There's always hope on the surface...Bobby would have realized that too before trying to communicate with his wife/girlfriend/whatever via some romantic telepathy.

7. The weekenders. What the heck were they doing in this movie?

6. The portrayal of the Coast Guard. Please. They protect our coast...we should give them a little more credit than that. And we know most of that was made up.

5. All those landlubbers. It seemed that everyone who wasn't on the boat suffered from bad-acting disease. And spare me the age-old love/hate cliches.

4. "She's not gonna let us out." One wave?! One wave traveling in the opposite direction of all the others?! They see a break in the clouds and heavenly light pouring down and JUST THEN the writers decide to end the movie. Right. A little abrupt for my tastes.

3. The bogus tension between Sully and Murph. Maybe I missed its origin altogether, but it seemed to come out of nowhere. It served no purpose in the plot and was quickly resolved. The creators of the movie were fooling themselves if they thought that this sub-plot had any meaning.

2. Lack of emotional attachment to the fishermen. I wanted to feel sorry for Murph's family but I didn't. Same with Bobby's wife. I just didn't care. Why? Poor acting and sub-par character development. Or maybe it was the fact that their untimely deaths were the most out-of-place of all the many movies I've seen.

1. FIFTY FOOT WAVES. Is a couple tons of fish worth their lives? NO! I'm sure the real incident wasn't a matter of "Aw, screw it! Let's take on the hurricane! We'll have a couple grand when we're done! Hurrah, hurrah!"

The Perfect Storm, to me, was the retirement home version of Twister. It showed me the potential of a DVD player, but little more. And a Wolfgang Petersen (no relation) movie, no less! Outbreak was cool, Air Force One rocked. Of course, they featured Dustin Hoffman and Harrison Ford. I guess that just goes to show that prominent actors can make or break a movie.

Just like all of Mel Brooks' other comedies, Men in Tights is hilarious. But in seeing this as an outrageous comedy, I think many fail to realize that the reason the movie is so funny is that the characters themselves are acted so well. Elwes is the well-spoken former British noble, Lewis is an eternally annoyed king (I hope it's worth all the NOOOOOOIIIISE!), DeLuise is a FANTASTIC godfather, Roger Rees is a worried and cynical sheriff.... The actors and actresses are so loyal to their parts that the jokes flow forth with ease. Yes, we've seen this kind of comedy before, but the only comedy to achieve better character development, in my opinion, is The Big Lebowski. Very very funny.

Maybe it wasn't quite as good as the original. Maybe it was. I'm not going to judge that. But the new Shaft still rocked. Why? The Samuel L. factor. You see, every movie Samuel L. Jackson is in carries a certain amount of funk-machismo that is exclusive to the man himself. The plot was decent but more notably, thanks to Mr. Jackson, the Shaft character wasn't beaten into the ground, something that is typical of re-makes. The icing on the cake was Shaft's car. We're talking an '87 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS...the true mark of One Bad Mutha.

I can't believe this movie got a rating of 6.4. I gave it a 9 because it is one of the most action-packed and INTELLECTUALLY STIMULATING movie's I've ever seen. Yes, this film was complicated, but to those of us who could follow the plot, it was enthralling. If you didn't like it, it's because you didn't understand it (although many don't want to admit this). Instead of claiming that the movie has "no redeeming values," watch it again, and if you still don't understand Mission Impossible, I recommend either Conan the Barbarian or Police Academy, for they won't leave you so...befuddled.

This film is absolutely incredible. I hate Joel Schumacher for desecrating the Batman franchise with "Batman and Robin," but I am ever grateful for his direction of this milestone of a movie. Before you read the rest of this comment, I'd like you to look at the "Maltin Review," the link for which is at the left of this page under the "Plot and Quotes" section (it's very short).

I asked you to do this for two reasons. First of all, Mr. Maltin makes the observation that the movie is very well acted, and this is true. Each character is portrayed so convincingly that the movie is almost disturbingly real. I finally have a professional to substantiate one of my views....

Secondly, the Maltin Review (ignorantly) poses an important question that I wish to explain. The question is "What's the point?" More than anything else, this movie is a social commentary. It states that morality is decaying. Our values and ethics are gradually wasting away. Each of Foster's (D-Fens) obstacles lacks some sort of decency or respect. Foster himself represents the American goodness that seems to be disappearing from our populace.

So what does Douglas's character do when he is brought to confront these obstacles? He acts accordingly. The viewer should note that Douglas always gives these people what they deserve. All of his aggressors-changed-victims get exactly what they had coming to them, and nothing more. The store owner is set straight for running a consumer-unfriendly business, the gang members die for their own stupidity in trying to take another's life, even the Whammy Burger gets justice for not employing humanity and kindness in its restaurant.

Towards the end, it begins to look as if Foster has gone over the edge. But he really hasn't. He's simply dishing out the justice that the law prohibits. Foster is righteousness incarnate. Although he crosses the boundary of legality, he never commits the immoral. But one man can't get rid the world of its filth, and by the end of the film, we notice that the line between good and bad is severely blurred. I can't reveal the end, nor do I want to, but the most significant line of the movie occurs within the last 3 minutes--watch it and you'll see exactly what I mean.

Okay, I may as of yet failed to explain the point of the movie. Sorry. The point is that common decency is in a downward spiral, and there's nothing we can do to help it. THE GOOD AND THE DECENT ARE OPPRESSED BY THE WICKED (not to sound too biblical). Maybe it's just bad parenting or something, but too many people fail to be compassionate toward their fellow human beings. Take, take, take--Ask not what your fellow man can do for you, but what you can do for your fellow man, for God's sake.

As for the title of this comment, here's something for those of you who have seen the movie. (DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!!)

-The main scenes of the movie are practically foreshadowed with the bumper stickers in the traffic jam.

-The scene in the back of the army surplus store is the turning point. ("I can't. I'll fall down.") No kidding. When Foster's glasses crack so does he. Its the first and only time he voluntarily kills someone.

-The "not economically viable" man is wearing the same outfit as Douglas, tie and all, hinting at the obvious--that Douglas isn't (socially?) viable either. You can *sense* the understanding between the two even though no words are exchanged.

There are tons of other thought-provoking though seemingly invisible elements in this movie. This includes the whole "falling down" leitmotif that requires an entire essay itself.

The last thing I wish to touch upon is the fact that there are no perfect motives in the movie. For example, when Foster is trashing Mr. Lee's store, we notice that a jar of American flags falls to the floor and breaks, almost defeating Foster's patriotic speech about Lee's corrupt business. Later, after creating a scene at the Whammy Burger for being denied breakfast, Foster changes his mind and orders lunch instead. We would like to sympathize with Foster for just wanting to see his family, but in the end we see how violently he kisses his wife, and suddenly it appears that he has gone perhaps a bit to far. Each of these incidents inspires some sort of sympathy for Foster's aggressors, further testament to the fact that the line between good and bad has been blurred.

This movie stole my heart with its previews. No film I've ever seen comes close to being so fulfilling. Falling Down will satisfy 99% of its audience. Take my word for it.*please*.

Batman is by far my favorite movie, and has been for quite some time now. I don't expect others to share my enthusiasm for it, but everyone should realize its greatness in one way or another. I don't think there's much questioning the fact that Batman is the best movie of the franchise. The next three wouldn't even come close to achieving the same grandeur of classic good versus evil comic book heroism as the first.

But to truly do Batman justice, one must look into the atmosphere created by the incredibly talented Tim Burton and his amazing cast & crew. Most notably, there is the acting of Jack Nicholson. He makes the Joker a true bad guy...a psychotic but nevertheless effective crime boss. Then there's Michael Keaton, who's somber and morose demeanor perfectly demonstrates Bruce Wayne's life, a life torn by childhood tragedy (unlike good ol' Mr. Clooney, who wants us to believe that the character of Batman is "hot stuff"). Kim Basinger...Grrrrrr. Top it off with Jack Palance, Billy Dee Williams, Robert Wuhl, Pat Hingle, and Michael Gogh, and you've got a set of professionals, not a slew of show-offs (can anyone say Tommy Lee Jones? What about Arnold?).

Anton Furst designs the greatest (and ironically the most conservative) Batmobile ever, as well as a breath-taking, academy award-winning Gotham City. Danny Elfman's score is amazing. In fact, I place the theme to Batman as one of the greatest "classical" pieces ever.

So how does this all fit together to make one of the best movies ever? Critics said the action scenes were lax, and the movie was just too dark. WHAT DO YOU WANT, EBERT? MALTIN? The action was downright realistic. And what, do you think the war on crime takes place in sunny fields of lavender? The point is that the movie is a realistic depiction of a fantastic comic book series. When you look at it, every element of this movie is perfectly accurate to what would actually happen. Batman is dark and refined because his parents were killed when he was a child. The action scenes are limited because normal people can't leap, bound, and travel at mach 1 like some people wish. Etc., etc.

Okay, I'm on the threshold of digression. Just do yourself a favor and watch this movie again. Hell, it was the 14th highest grossing movie of all time for a REASON. If, after taking all of the aforementioned factors into consideration, you do not find this movie to be truly magnificent, at least try to understand how it can be the favorite of a young, conservative, adult male like myself.

Long live Burton and the first and finest installment of the Batman franchise.

I must admit, there are few books with corresponding movies that I have actually read before seeing the cinematic adaptation. Nineteen Eighty-Four happens to be one of those rare cases. The book was great. It was immersive and interestingly prophetic. But the movie just plain sucked. It is easily the worst film I have ever seen. The only reason I didn't turn it off after the first 5 minutes was the fact that watching the movie was half of a two-part assignment for a class. It was dark and grotesque, but did nothing in the way of achieving the proper atmosphere. The acting was nothing above average, and considering the fact that there wasn't much to act out, this was severely disappointing. The book, for example, didn't give me the impression that Winston was unable to blurt out more than a single syllable at a time. Boring, disturbing, and visually unappealing, the movie totally cannibalized the book. Wait a second...Isn't it British?