Reviews

14 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Hamlet (1996)
6/10
Exhausting
16 August 2000
Yes, the visuals are grand. Yes, there are some good performances. Unfortunately, Branagh's is not one of them.

Kenneth Branagh is just too over-the-top and indulgent as Hamlet. Maybe it is a matter of taste, but it is vitally important that you like the man who plays Hamlet as the character speaks more than the rest of the cast put together.

Another problem is the script; it was written as a play, it was turned into a movie. A really long movie. I have nothing against long movies, but this one really was long on the dialogue. It didn't have to be this way. I think this play has to be cut a lot to make a tolerable movie. (I would see the Zefferelii one. Really conveys the spirit of the original without making it a marathon movie.)

All in all, it was not terrible but I will not sit through it again.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bad, but fun
16 August 2000
I enjoy a good bad movie now and then. This one is pretty hit or miss in the humor department, but John Candy as the beer truck driver is pretty funny.

I give it a three, but it has its moments.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If you can stomach the music
16 August 2000
This was is hilariously bad. One of the most ineptly made movies I have ever seen. Sean Connery has one good scene at the beginning, but even it has some really cheezey effects.

And the MUSIC. It has possibly the worst score in film history. I heartily recommend this film to all those out there who (like me) respect an unapologetic bad film.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brilliant
16 August 2000
Do not miss this one; it has comedy sketches from not only the pythons, but also Rowan Atkinson in top form. Also has some great Neil Innes songs. The only thing that would have made this better would be the presence of Eric Idle.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not their best work
16 August 2000
Yes, this has many of their classic bits and a few less well known ones. But there are better recordings of most of them.

Take the parrot sketch; in the movie, it is done very dry and proper, not the insane tirade it became in its live version.

For the sketches, I would get live performances. All the Pythons really seem to be energized by performing in front of an audience. (I heartily recommend the "Secret Policeman's Other Ball.")
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ensign Pulver (1964)
3/10
Leaves a bad taste in the mouth
16 August 2000
The movie is a misguided sequel to the comedy classic "Mister Roberts." I warn anyone who has seen that movie to avoid this travesty.

What makes is bad? Well, all the seriousness of its predecessor has been stripped. Plus, the cast is mediocre. (Who could replace Jack Lemon and James Cagney?) This one is bad, bad, bad, though Jack Nicholson fans note that said actor has a smallish part.
7 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Coyote Ugly (2000)
3/10
Bad, but its a good laugh
6 August 2000
This movie is not the worst movie ever made, but it certainly has a few similarities with it.

This one pulls out all the old B-movie cliches: small-town girl goes to big city, befriended by bad-girl mentor, has to do something she is uncomfortable with to survive in city yadda yadda yadda.

All the watchers of USA Up All Night or Cinemax should recognize the plot. It just has a higher-profile cast and more budget.

But I love b-movies, and this one is slightly redeemed by an endearing performance by John Goodman and some really funny lines.

Funny, sometimes unintentionally. Entertaining, even though it is really stupid.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good, if not perfect
6 August 2000
Warning: Spoilers
(This is a review of the English Language version)

To start off with, I love this movie despite a few flaws I will discuss later. The animation, though not really slick, is visually interesting. It has some admirably serious themes (which I will not reveal because it would be a spoiler) and actually has some effective humorous element. (Most Japanese movies' humor does not translate well.)

My problems with it? Well, the title character Unico is very insipid and cutesy. I realize that this is a children's movie, but the furriness of Unico somehow doesn't fit the darker nature of the film. Oh, well, he is not really the central character.

I would heartily recommend this one, particularly to fans of Japanese animation.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Drexell's Class (1991–1992)
Mediocre
1 August 2000
I am writing the review merely as an informational service; the show was little worth commenting on. The plot was unrealistic (he was a criminal and got a job as a school teacher?), and the children were written more as adults than children.

Only sparsely funny, this show is deservedly off the air.
4 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Emotional Powerhouse
13 June 2000
I remember wanting to see this movie because I saw the promotional shot of Robbins standing in the rain; I thought it was a beautiful scene. It is a minor scene in the movie.

This movie is, for lack of a better word, perfect. Every moment holds meaning, every performance is dead on. I have watched it more times than I can count, and it always seems new and wonderful to me. More than any movie I have seen, it brings real emotions to the audience and brings comfort to the hopeless.

Sometimes I think a great work of art is one that brings change to the audience. This movie is transforming.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Exit to Eden (1994)
1/10
Not good, but fun
13 June 2000
No, this is not a good movie. Not even mediocre. It is bad. But, hey, it's pretty entertaining despite that.

What is bad about it? The acting, the script (based on one of Anne Rice's more indulgent and stupid novels; hard to believe it was written by the author of IWTV.), the set design. Most of the humor.

What is worth seeing? Well, Dana Delaney and Paul Mercurio are fairly attractive people. Yes, the humor is bad, but Rosie O'Donnell's voice-overs are very funny.

Not something you would be proud to list as a favorite movie, but entertaining if you see it in the right light.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Energetic and hilarious
13 June 2000
I would say that this film is one of the most entertaining I have ever seen. The script is hysterical, the choreography great and the performances are charming.

The humor is wild and broad, like most Australian comedies, and the visual humor is especially good in this one. I think that everyone who sees this movie will probably like it, unless they have something against being entertained.

The love story is very real and touching; this movie sustains itself on comedy, but don't sell it short on emotion. A couple of the scenes really pack a punch dramatically, especially ones involving the character of Fran. The visuals complement, with some truly beautiful scenes.

Watch this movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't waste your time
1 June 2000
This movie is, quite frankly, one of the most mediocre movies I have ever seen. The plot is silly and very 80s b-movie-ish and the performances (except for Wallace Shawn, who is quite charming) are lifeless. I would only recommend this one if you are a die-hard Wallace Shawn fan.
8 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad, bad, bad
1 June 2000
Almost all the many versions of the Beatles' music in this film are lackluster. Though Aerosmith's spirited rendition of "Come Together" is pretty good, it certainly does not compensate for the poor quality of most of the other performances. "When I'm 64" borders on offensively bad. (On a positive note, George Burns' take on "Fixing a Hole" is charming.)

If you are seeing this because you are a Beatles fan, I would steer clear of this one. If you are seeing this as a fan of good movies, I would also give it a miss. If it is three AM and you have nothing better to do, by all means, watch it. But be warned, if you have any respect for the Beatles it might steam you a little.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed