Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
My hero!
19 May 2003
Some people have suggested that Fox's character in this movie is

just Alex P. Keaton all over again. I think they missed the point.

Alex was in love with money. Doug is not as materialistic; he

doesn't desire money for its own sake, but views it as a tool that

will help him realize his dream. Alex was self-centered. Doug

cares about other people. He is successful because he can

empathize with people and give them what they need. He is very

inspiring. This movie is described as a comedy, but I didn't find it very

funny; I cared about the characters too much to laugh at them.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chances Are (1989)
8/10
A beautiful love story
17 February 2003
People call this a comedy, but when I just watched it, I laughed

only once. I guess the problem is that I first saw it when I was 14,

and I wasn't old enough to understand that it wasn't meant to be

taken seriously. There were quite a few scenes that were meant

to be funny, but I cared too much about the characters to laugh at

them.

I suggest that you watch this film next time you're falling in love,

and try to take it seriously. I think you'll find that, despite a few silly

flaws, it's one of the most moving love stories you've ever seen.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hey, this is funny!
10 February 2003
I don't see why so many people are trashing this one. I admit that there's plenty about it that doesn't make any sense, but there's plenty of good humor in it. The best part is the filming of the commercials. Who would have thought that a shoot that goes horribly wrong would produce footage much better than what was intended? Also, Nia Long is BEAUTIFUL. Out of all the films I've seen, I think this one is a hair above average.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
SPOILERS: about the ending
23 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Another user wrote: "The 'twist' ending was the equivalent of

finding out that everything up until that point had been a dream."

Others wrote similar things. I don't agree. Keep in mind that Kint

testified before a grand jury, so anything that they could check had

to be true (e.g. the attack on the taxi cops, and Edie working on the

extradition case.) He couldn't lie too much and still have a

consistent story. So I believe that his story is supposed to be at

least 90% true. Kujan figured out that Kint was lying because he

saw the names that Kint read off the wall. Most of these, Kint just

used in anecdotes to build up his character. The only one that he

worked into the story was "Kobayashi." So that's one thing we can

be sure he lied about: the man who picks him up at the end is not

really named Kobayashi. We should know that anyway, because

he doesn't look Japanese at all. That's one of the few clues that

there's something wrong with Kint's story.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
(SPOILERS) Oddities in the portrayal of schizophrenia
6 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen plenty of movies that deal with delusions, and I'm used to

the fact that generally they try to make it clear what's real and what

isn't. So I felt like this one played a dirty trick on me. I wonder if

anyone figured out that Charles wasn't real before Rosen said he

wasn't. In the beginning, everything about Charles is perfectly

plausible and consistent. The second time I watched, I looked

carefully for any hints that he wasn't real. The first thing I could find

was that he overheard Nash's remark about fluid exchange, even

though Nash spoke too quietly for anyone to overhear. By that time

Charles' reality was too well established.

I can understand Nash seeing and hearing Charles even though

Charles isn't there. I find it hard to understand that Nash could

see Charles turn off the record player, failing to notice that he had

really turned it off himself. I see this as deliberate deception of the

audience. (Notice that after Nash's hospitalization, there are no

more examples of the imaginary characters manipulating real

objects.)

Perhaps Nash's brilliance is reflected by the fact that in the early

stages, he could create a completely consistent and plausible

delusion. In contrast, after his hospitalization he claimed that

Charles had a cloaking device. This sort of tampering with the

laws of physics is what I expect from a delusional schizophrenic.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Why so ugly?
25 December 2001
I give it 7 out of 10.

I decided I had to see this film when I saw a picture of Rivendell in Newsweek. Unfortunately FOTR has very few beautiful scenes like this one, and too many ugly ones. Of course some ugliness is necessary to the story, but Jackson put in far more than necessary. (E. g., we don't need to see Saruman training his orcs.) Lothlorien should have been beautiful; it was merely dim and dreary. I was also disappointed by the casting of Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett. The roles of Arwen and Galadriel are bit-parts that don't require much acting; they only require perfect faces, and perfect faces were not cast.

The other thing I'll complain about is that Frodo whines too much, giving Gandalf opportunities to utter speeches that are supposed to sound wise, but are actually trivial. There wasn't nearly so much of that in the book.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
very funny, some plausibility problems (CONTAINS SPOILERS)
18 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I give this one 8 out of 10, because it's a good original story, and made me laugh a lot. Just a few minor problems: I think they should have made it more plausible for Gracie to get into the top 10. Recall that they were going to fix the pageant, but the fix was canceled when the other agents left, so she had to get into the top 10 on her merits, and did so, even though up to that point in the pageant she had made a total ass of herself. After she made the top 10 her behavior improved greatly, and it was almost believable for her to be #2, but they could have made her improve sooner to make it more plausible.

BTW, people describe this as an ugly-duckling-becomes-a-swan story, but I didn't see that happen. Gracie does learn to walk like a woman, but her personality remains essentially the same.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rounders (1998)
6/10
Does no-limit make sense?
17 February 2001
I don't understand how people can play poker with no betting limits. Suppose that I have more money than anyone else at the table. You have a good hand, and you bet big. What do I do? I bet my whole pile. It doesn't matter what cards I have; you can't match my bet, so you have to fold. So whoever has the most money can win every hand. Have I missed something? If I have, someone please email me to explain this.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Duets (2000)
4/10
What an idiotic plot.
17 September 2000
I didn't find any of the main characters in this movie to be worthy of my interest. All of them have serious problems, but instead of dealing with them, they just get on stage and sing a beautiful song, and then we feel wonderful and we're supposed to think that everything's better now. Sentimental nonsense. I rate the story 2 out of 10, but the music is good enough to bring it up to 4.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
D.O.A. (1988)
4/10
Where's Meg?
20 August 2000
I rented this movie primarily because it had Meg Ryan in it, and I was disappointed to see that her role is really a mere supporting one. Not only is she not on screen much, but nothing her character does is essential to the plot. Her character could be written out of the story without changing it much.
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Election (1999)
7/10
unusual narration
18 January 2000
When a character in a movie speaks directly to the audience, he is usually a sympathetic protagonist who gives reliable information about the story. In this movie, all of the major characters speak directly to the audience, but I don't find any of them sympathetic, and I don't think any of their statements are meant to be taken at face value. They all make biased statements that reveal more about the speakers than about the things they are discussing.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed