Reviews

I went to see this movie, knowing nothing about the plot and having no idea that it was based on a video game. I loved it. The plot is simple enough to follow while at the same time being complex enough to justify the conflict. The characters, while all static, were made essential to the storyline, thus rendering them valid. The use of allusion, cinematography, and, above all the MUSIC from this movie were all superb.

One thing did bother me, though: "I think this place is haunted." It comes at an odd time and seems to snag the forward momentum of the movie for a moment.

I was not particularly excited about the first "Saw" when it came out, when I heard an idea of the plot, etc. On a recommendation from a friend, I borrowed it on DVD and was happy to have enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

That being said, I was anticipating the release of "Saw II". I was disappointed. The creativity and complexity of the first movie was gone and replaced with formulaic good-looking people. Not that the acting was stellar in the first movie, but the characters were as believable as the story allowed them to be. "Saw II" contained very static characters with a weak string tying them together. If the characters themselves weren't flimsy enough, they were put through a plot line that did not require so many victims, making it confusing. I had no idea what most of the main characters names were, only grazing the surface as to why they were put under the circumstances that they found themselves in.

Overall, a huge, involved plot was set, then managed to resolve only a few of the problems, while at the same time staging a virtual segue into more sequels. The film either should have spent another half hour finishing off the characters (which I hope will be the extended Director's cut DVD when it gets that far) or cut several of them completely from the script. The first movie was intriguing and complete, while this sequel tried too hard to be complex, and that left it feeling a little over-produced. Disappointing.

I absolutely loved Ocean's Eleven. It was well-put together, contained great performances, and was endearing. The sequel was a pathetic attempt to cash in on a franchise. Hopefully, it will never be considered a black eye on the success of its predecessor.

The problem with the movie is its similarity to the first movie. In Eleven, the synergy between George Clooney and Brad Pitt is entertaining. Twelve overuses this relationship. Eleven took the time to explain why so many thieves were necessary during recruitment. Twelve seemed to struggle to fit all of the characters into the plot.

I left the theatre with the feeling that I'd just seen a very cheaply made imitation of a great thing, like the Mexican reproduction of Birds, entitled Beaks. I'm still expecting Brad Pitt to leave me a voicemail apologizing for the movie in its entirety.

Number Two: The Cosby Show

Number One: The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

It's that simple. There has never been another show made, in my opinion, that never ceases to be funny, no matter how many times you see a particular episode. Seinfeld is funny, but most episodes get old after a while. Will Smith is an immortal.

Why does everyone expect every movie to be a groundbreaking phenomenon? This movie should have been titled "Stiffler Kung-fu", as I refer to it whenever I mention it. That being said, I went to see this movie, will see it again if someone else wants to go, and will be buying it at Best Buy the Tuesday it comes out on DVD. "Stiffler Kung-fu" is essentially a chop-socky style movie with Stiffler in it. Seann William Scott is not a serious actor. James King is still reasonably new to acting, so she is believable as the kung-fu girl. Chow Yun Fat shows the kind of versatility that his American counterparts are allowed on a regular basis (Mel Gibson's serious role in Braveheart which gave latitude for joking remarks?). All films cannot be campy, I admit. But all films cannot be deep and serious. Everything cannot be based on a true story. If you went to see this movie expecting a reflective piece on humanity, you obviously didn't watch the trailers or pay attention to the way it was presented and you are an idiot.

This movie was quantum leaps beyond Hannibal, but still severely disappointing. This Thomas Harris trilogy is something I've read over and over again, enjoying it each and every time. I start with Red Dragon and wind down with Hannibal, making sure to savor every page of The Silence of the Lambs. The middle book made the best movie and no one could expect it to be duplicated, but I had no idea it would be blatantly defiled like this. At least Michael Mann's Manhunter was original. Anthony Hopkins is simply not intimidating as Hannibal Lector anymore. The scene with the exercise gym is the best showcase of this (besides never existing in the book). The other disappointment in Lector is the misrepresentation of the story of how Will Graham captured the doctor originally. The novel's version is far more enjoyable as well as more believable, and I'm curious as to what demographics expert changed that.

Harvey Keitel simply does not play a smart enough character to be Jack Crawford. This man is an FBI Section Chief, not some strong-arm cop or hit man; he's educated and has emotions (like guilt for using people the way that he has to).

Ed Norton is phenomonal. He can play any role. What may seem like lifelessness to someone else perfectly portrays Will Graham to me; an empath who somewhat understands what he is and is terrified of his own pathology.

Ralph Fiennes is another lifesaver. At first, I didn't believe he could be physically dominating enough to be Francis Dollarhyde, but I was pleasantly surprised to be corrected, even though he did focus more on the emotional aspect of the Red Dragon than Tom Noonan did in Manhunter.

Anyone who has yet to see this movie, I beg you, miss the very last frame. Just the last line. Stop your DVD/VHS player ten seconds before the credits roll. You'll thank me.

I kid you not. I loved comic books when I was younger and enjoy seeing things like this brought to life in a creative way. It's difficult for some people to understand the anacronic nature of it (Superman as a kid in the present time) and other have a problem with every character having some type of super power, but the characters are complex, having lives of their own while tying into the main storyline (becoming Superman/Lex Luthor/Lana Lang as they appear in the comics). Even the more token characters (Pete, Chloe) have their own style and place in the show.

If these reasons are not enough for you, watch it to see the most beautiful girl on television. There is no disappointment here.

I remember this movie being at the theaters. I remember seeing commercial previews for it. I never once, though, had any idea what the movie was about. All I ever heard was that it was unusual.

Finally, a week or two ago, a friend watched Unbreakable at another friend's house and recommended it to me as he is familiar with my taste in movies. I rented it last night, and am quite impressed. I was only told that it was about comic book superheroes and had no clue what direction it would take given the personnel.

About the movie: it was fantastic. The cinematography was so superbly done that even the infrequent movie-goer will be able to appreciate it. The ending was the masterpiece of the plot, being completely unpredictable without being ridiculous.

I am impressed.

Mystery Date doesn't offer a thrilling suspense, doesn't have an intricate plotline, and doesn't have mind-boggling special effects. It does, however, give an entertaining hour and a half.

This film may be able to be counted as the last eighties movie; the type where the hero is a jerky, awkward boy who does not realize the situation he is in. He does manage, however, to end up in the end with the girl of his dreams. If only one of the Cory's (Haim or Feldman) could have made a guest spot.

There have been some excellent baseball movies made from Field of Dreams to The Pride of the Yankees, but no movie based on the national pastime can ever claim to be as hysterically funny as Major League. Granted, the value of the original was hurt by the second and third attempts at re-creating the atmosphere. Those two films were an embarrassment to all involved.

Major League, however, personified the attitude of "Nothing to lose". Aside from the easily identified woes of the Cleveland franchise of the late-eighties, there were several actors in this film that had yet to hit big or had started to fall from grace. The incredibly strong language of the movie only made it seem that much more realistic.

I don't understand why this movie was made. I mean, I love silly slasher films as much as the next guy, but was this necessary?

If anything good came out of this venture, it was the introduction of Brandy Norwood to mainstream feature films. Though she may not be a great actor and I may not be a fan of segueing other careers into movie careers, she seems to be very comfortable in front of the camera on top of being unbelievably photogenic. She reminds me somewhat of Aaliyah's first attempts at movies, and I think that Aaliyah could be the one exception to the musician-turned-actor dilemma.

I used to watch this show on the usual circuit of bad late night television. I will not glorify it; it only lasted two seasons because it was not a great show. It was respectable, however, and had a theme song that made it memorable.

"All but one man died..."

There are those who will claim Hoosiers as the greatest sports movie ever. Others will lobby for Rudy or The Natural or some other Hollywood favorite.

None of these are comparable to Field of Dreams. This is one of those rare movies that remains untarnished. There are those who have never seen some of the greats like The Godfather or Cool Hand Luke, but it is not common to find anyone between the ages of eighteen and forty that has not seen this film.

By the same token, it is not commonplace to find someone who actually dislikes this movie for whatever reason. That is because it appeals to humanity in much the same way as The Shawshank Redemption. It is a story that everyone can relate to, even if they have never heard of "Shoeless" Joe Jackson or the Black Sox scandal of 1919. It begs showcase the characters as people, not invincible secret agents or martial artists or the girl-next-door that falls for the loveable loser. Instead, Field of Dreams presents for approval several molds of people, offering a very close emotional attachment to anyone who sees the movie.

I am a huge Thomas Harris fan. I was leary when i first heard that Jodie Foster was going to play Clarice Starling, but she was masterful at it. Then, when I heard that Julianne Moore was going to take the mantle, I was disappointed, but nevertheless enthusiastic.

It would be an understatement to say that I was not satisfied with the movie. Going into the theater, I was curious as to how Ridley Scott was going to portray the deep characterization of the novel since the majority of the plot explanation took place inside the ironic order of Lector's perfectly chaotic mind. As it turns out, the matter was handled though being ignored completely.

Comparing this film to it's predecessor, The Silence of the Lambs, is not fair. The Jodie Foster incarnation was a great screen adaption of an incredible novel, while Hannibal was more of weak attempt at making a two hour long story out of a character sketch.

After contemplating my dissatisfaction, I realized that I was being unfair. It is not common for a film to accurately portray a complex novel plot. I began to think of Hannibal as a movie without using my base knowledge of the book and was not as upset with the performance. Anthony Hopkins, though absurd at times, is his usual stellar self and Julianne Moore and Ray Liotta were unexpectedly good.

One last note: if anyone who has yet to read the novel wonders what exactly Inspector Pazzi and his wife were like, they will be pleased to hear that Giancarlo Giannini and Francesca Neri were flawlessly cast.

This could very possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. It drags on for three hours with the most entertaining part being the unusual coincidences in the first few minutes.

Tom Cruise's part, though an interesting concept, becomes old as the movie progresses. William H. Macy is his usual mediocre self. The other performances are completely unremarkable. Not only are the characters difficult to believe, they do not think like normal people, making it difficult to identify with them.

I cannot believe all of the people who enjoyed this film. It had no real identifiable plot, no standout performances, and the most pointless ending in movie history. I gave it a one of ten and would have given it lower if possible. This movie reminds me of the first time I saw Kids. I had heard that it was an interesting movie, but soon learned that it was horribly overrated even though it had a better ending than Magnolia.

Remember, watching this movie is three hours of your life that you can never have back. Use this time wisely and rearrange your living room instead of wasting it and your money renting/buying this movie.