Reviews

I stumbled upon this short film from indie Rainmaker Films, and was moderately impressed. The story was smart, though the writing was littered with clichés ... I think the film works well visually, and I was interested enough to watch it several times, so there's clearly something here that with work could have become a marketable modern noir film. However, as it stands, it is too short, the script is forced to tell a fairly complicated story in sixteen minutes, and that forces the viewer to come along for a ride they may not fully have followed. And the twist seems tacked on, almost an afterthought (or perhaps too well thought out for it to really work ... I had a hard time suspending my disbelief, despite noticing the setups throughout). I liked the indie actor who played Jimmy Ritz, though, and would like to see more of this Todd Licea (he seems like a combination of Edward Norton's compelling voice, with a screen presence like John Cusack). In the end, I gave this film a six for its potential. I'd like to see more of what Rainmaker Films has to offer, that's for damned sure.

As flawed as the acting is in this film version of Stephen King's "Firestarter", if you take it for what it was (a low budget horror flick) it serves the intended purpose. Upon competing viewing this film, I was impressed that, for the most part, the screenwriter followed the book quite closely. I was also impressed by the cast that the filmmakers put together. Who would have expected to see Martin Sheen, Louise Fletcher, Heather Locklear and a talented young Drew Barrymore in this kind of film? I will admit that in most cases, the acting was TERRIBLE. But I think that was mostly the fault of the dialogue. And the special effects were rather cheesy, though I think they were much better than most I've seen in movies of this style and from this period. Overall, I found the movie to be a good popcorn flick, and I certainly didn't feel cheated out of the two hours I spent watching it. My score: 8/10.

I have noticed that some people hate this show becuase of the flashbacks, some people hate the show because of the "bratty" kids, and others hate the show because they say it is overly derivative. But the fact is, there's nothing new under the sun, and in the end, EVERYTHING is derivative of something done before! If you're waiting for a new show to come along that is totally original, you're in for a long wait, because it isn't going to happen. Sure, the Simpsons broke new ground in the late 80s, but even that show is beginning to become derivative of itself . . .

Now on to "Grounded . . ."

I love this show. I'm a college student, and I don't have a ton of time to sit around and watch TV. But "Grounded For Life" is one show I make time to see, along with such prime shows as "24" (maybe the first real ground breaker in a while) and "Futurama". The writing isn't always the best on the planet, but I love all the characters. People say the parents are bad parents, but really they're like everyone else on this planet. They f*** something up, and they do their best to fix it. As for annoying kids, these kids aren't that bad, they're just playing the parts that were written for them. Lilly, the daughter, plays her part perfectly, accenting the trouble kids can get into and the way parents can overreact (though she thinks she knows everything, she isn't always right). The oldest son is obsessive, always worried about hygiene, while the other younger son is just plain goofy. The parents are aptly played by Donal Logue and Megyn Price, and they do a decent job of going through these hilarious episodes. We also have the brother Eddie, who is my favorite character, always in some kind of trouble, but we never do get a full idea of what all he's involved in. And then there's the grandfather, who finds himself always hanging out at the house of his son, essentially involving himself in every story, reminding me somewhat of the way the parents of Ray Romano act on "Everybody Loves Raymond", minus the utter insanity.

There's also a solid cast of regular side characters, including Brad, the ineptly goofy neighbor boy who's obsessed with Lilly, and his father, who hates the Finnertys worse than any people on earth (just watch the episode about the charity boxing match, you'll see EXACTLY what I mean!) These characters give the show a flavor lacking in all but the best shows (i.e. "Malcolm")

The best thing about this show is the flashback motif, because they're not the kind of flashbacks as used by Titus, where they're mostly (annoyingly) for the benefit of a quick laugh. These propel the story, because they ARE the story. Each episode starts after the fact, and each character tries to explain what has happened. Like one other reviewer here said, often the stories overlap, and it isn't until the end, when we find out what really happened.

Give this show a chance! It's a hilarious riot whenever I sit down to watch it, I only wish I had caught this series during its first season! Give this underrated show a chance to show you what good television is!

I went to see this movie, hoping that with John Woo directing, we might get a movie that would transcend the cliches of the second World War in giving us the story of the Navaho code talkers, who were real heroes of the war who are often overlooked when we speak of that era. However, what we got was the story of Nicholas Cage's character. We only saw Ben Yahzee and Charlie Whitehorse through the eyes of men who seemingly didn't really understand them . . . often characters took a mocking "let's hate the injuns" attitude to their compatriots.

I think this movie would have been a lot better and more interesting to viewers, had it taken the perspective of Yahzee, which could have given Woo the chance to give the Navajos the kind of tribute they really deserved. In the end, this turned into a cliche ridden gore festival, which in the end left me feeling cold. Where "Saving Private Ryan" featured a chilling portrayal of wartime violence that was artistic and haunting, "Windtalkers" was almost glorification of violence . . . in some scenes, Cage almost seems to relish his ability to slaughter the Japanese, while in other scenes, we are given brutally unnecessary views of violence that seemed almost simply for violence's sake. (Watch that scene with the decapitation, or the scene where Cage slits the throat of the man about to kill Yahzee and tell me those were necessary).

My final verdict: 5/10. The movie kept my attention despite its flaws, but I kept thinking afterward of what this movie could have been, rather than what it was. This is really a sad thing, considering how long I waited in anticipation of what I expected to be a quality film.

I'll say this flat out, I am a huge fan of Stephen King's work. But I also know when to take a movie at face value. What needs to be said about the TV version of "Salem's Lot" is that, YES! It was a TV movie in 1979! I don't care how good a director and what kind of budget you were going to get at that time, there was no possible way they were going to make this true to the book. So when I sat down and watched it for the first time, I ignored the book (which is a classic), and took this movie for what it was, an ADAPTATION of the book! In the end, I came away from this with another movie I enjoyed, a movie that, though it has flaws, is a nice flick to watch on a dark night. Nothing horribly scary here, mainly because of the rather cheesy effects, but what can we expect from a TV movie? "IT" was made eleven years after this and barely did better, but yet I consider THAT movie to be a TV movie classic. "Salem's Lot" shouldn't be treated any harsher, should it?

I collect Stephen King movies, and have seen nearly everything that has been based on his books, as well as having read all his books. And I still rated this an 8 out of 10, despite the setbacks of it having been made in the seventies. Sure, it would be cool to see a modern remake of it, but I don't think anyone could come close to the subtleties of this classic horror picture. Watch it for yourself and give it a little respect . . . why not?

I saw Little Nicky, and I was frankly disappointed in the fact that Adam Sandler, who I believe to be a very creative man, did not tread any new ground. The jokes were all old, and when they actually found a joke that worked (a.k.a. "the deep south", you 'll get it when you see the movie), they burned it into the ground (no pun intended).

I thought the plot sounded saleable, but the movie didn't live up to my expectations at all. The whole thing was predictable to the point of obsessive. So many guest stars were thrown in just for cheap laughs that I almost became ill (I still feel that Henry Winckler deserved MUCH MORE than this cameo), although a ray of light was the appearance of Chubs Peterson of Happy Gilmore fame.

But what annoyed me the most was how this dim-minded movie seemed to cater to tit jokes (just listen to Rodney Dangerfield) and other pre-adolescent humor. For everyone who has seen such Sandler gems as Happy Gilmore and The Wedding Singer, this movie just shows that he needs to take a short vacation to come up with new ideas.

He has a new film coming out in December, called "Eight Crazy Nights" (billed as a Hannukah musical). Maybe he can redeem himself.