Reviews

I caught this a little into the movie. It was at the incredibly cheesy scene when Sinise is looking at video of he and his friends at a party.

It was laughable but it only got worse. So I watched for about 45 minutes before I just couldn't take it anymore. Not a single second of this movie was believable. From Dr. Pepper trick to the tether scene outside the spaceship. Sinise is a relatively talented actor and Robbins has his moments, well one anyway (Shawshank), they couldn't rescue this flick.

After the 45 minutes I was anxious to get here and see the reviews from the disappointed. And yes, they are here but I am truly shocked that people not only liked the movie but actually are praising it so highly. Thus my summary tag line. Amazing that viewers can be drawn in to a film of such low quality.

Watched it on a 65" TV with a high end surround sound and there are a couple of moments the movie utilizes the technology available to it but by and large the effects, by today's standards, are amateurish and very low caliber. This would have been visually stunning in 1976 but in 2000, and certainly now, it's somewhat of a joke.

But the effects aren't the only downfall. The dialog is equally pathetic. Acting marginal to awful. Direction atrocious. It fails at every level.

And there are people that like it. That is awesome and utterly amazing.

With the ridiculous book as a source it was an uphill battle for this movie to be anything other than ridiculous as well. The movie however did have the benefit of a 2 hour, or so, format. The book is interesting for about 3 or 4 chapters before it spins into absurd puzzles, mazes, and riddles. By the middle of the book, it's virtually unreadable. I finished it but it was painful.

The movie never grows nearly as tiresome as the incredibly overrated book, but it does suffer from the same over the top tendencies. The script, given the text from which to draw, was decent. The scenery and cinematography typical Howard. Good to better than good. It's no Apollo 13, and cinematography masterpiece, but The Davinci Code is compelling visually.

Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks. Multi academy award winner, all around likable fellow, and a fine actor. Terribly miscast here. I was never able to buy in to him in this lead role.

I would say this is a watchable movie if you haven't read the book. If you have, well if you like the book I really couldn't begin to guess if you'll like the movie because you clearly have some issues with quality, but if you are like most sane people and think the book is complete rubbish, then the movie will be a bit more of the same. Sunday afternoon on HBO perhaps. Spending money at the rental store, definitely not.

Caught this about 20 minutes in while channel surfing. I saw Johannson and figured it's worth a look. Almost immediately I noticed the incredibly poorly written dialog. I was a bit shocked Scarlett would agree, or her people would agree and recommend, to do a film that was so clearly written by a guy/gal still in drama class, possibly at his or her high school. This is something anyone who's reading this could probably have written. The plot was interesting enough and the flow of the events was in line but the words themselves were so inadequately written, you sort of expected it to be a joke at times.

Well, imagine my shock when I came here to what I thought would be a complete pan of the film and the first thing I see is it's a freaking Woody Allen film. Now I am no Allen fanatic but the guy did write Annie Hall. He can write dialog. But based on this picture I am not completely sure there wasn't a ghostwriter for his 70's, early 80's career.

The movie, is not without some merit. It's the script and it's juvenile delivery of the lines that make it suspect as a general movie, and as an Allen film, a jolt to the system. It's pitiful.

I am glad to see there were at least some reviewers who were sober enough to review the movie with some credibility. If you think this was a masterpiece you must think Caddyshack 2 was a pretty good flick.

I had to add some sanity to these reviews. Life changing? Puh-lease. You need to get out more. And from the sounds of it you are. But because of this slightly better than average movie? Wow.

Pitt is over the top. He's good but he is a good actor and it's expected. I typically like Norton but he does nothing for me in this picture. The twist at the end is unique but you find yourself asking a lot of questions that can't really be answered realistically about situations that happened previously. So the twist doesn't wash for me.

Before that I found the movie rather dull. Yeah, a bunch of guys start a club where they fight and the actions of the club and club um, owner/managers, get progressively more extreme.

It's not a terrible movie but it's not in the top 1000 movies of all time either. It's a solid 6 to 7 stars. Maybe 8 if you really like Pitt, Norton, or Helen Bonham Carter. Though she was not particularly noteworthy here either.

The movie is well done. Shot nicely. Lighting and general cinematography is why I rated it so high. It's stylish and very effective in that area. But the overall plot, while unique, seems a bit too out there for me. This is a Sixth Sense movie with fighting instead of ghosts.

Yeah, it's a decent movie. It's not special though.

Is that there are people that have a high enough IQ to write a review, and actually liked it. One of the worst films of all time. I have not been a Carvey fan after SNL but you have to expect more from a guy with his comedic timing and characterization ability. I can only imagine how he must have felt when this wrapped and he looked at the finished product. I can only assume he missed the daily's as any reasonable person would have quit after the first day. That's how bad the film is. There isn't a single scene that isn't embarrassing. The characters are absurd, the acting atrocious, the plot non existent. No question, this movie is a wonderful example of why IMDb should allow zero stars for their reviews. It absolutely doesn't rate the one star I gave it. The idea that people would recommend this movie with a straight face only goes to show what kind of trouble the population at large is really in. I have to think the caretakers of those who enjoyed the movie wrote the review for them because nobody with a IQ higher than 50 could have thought anything other than this movie was an incredible disaster.

A lot of potential here that is generally fufilled until the very end. I won't get into details because spoilers, whether noted or not, are IMO wrong. But in the closing scenes there are a couple of events that just wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't happen. Really ruined for my date and me. It was a captivating movie until that point. Actors were right on the money. Script was very good. Cinematography was well done.

Viggo is making his mark and getting better with each film. I am not a Naomi Watts fan but she was actually good in this movie. Didn't overact as she typically does. It's worth seeing and I did ultimately give it a 7 because of the quality of the film up to the very end but they really blew it with the ending. .

Take the big moment of this movie. What the trailers touted. What was supposed to be the meeting of giants. The coffee scene with Deniro and Pacino. Both legendary film actors with credentials that are undeniable. What possessed them to allow this scene to get to the screen is beyond me. If your 10 years old you could have written the dialog. If your not and have kids, they have. In fact I have written this dialog as have many people that have put pen to paper and were ever drawn to cop/robber dramatic films. "your going down brother" Need I say more.

Then I read the reviews here and I am even more stunned. If you eliminate the horrific Pacino/Deniro scene you have a decent movie. Perhaps I would have given it a 5. Plot lines that were meaningless. A movie that tried very, very hard to be something more than it is, or was. Over direction. And the rest of the script wasn't Shakespeare either. It wasn't just the "big" scene. It was all of them. Kilmer's part was comical. I don't think that was the intent.

Anyway, I suppose, based on the unbelievable reviews for this movie here, I am in the vast minority. So if you haven't seen it yet all I would say is this. If we assume you have some degree of film intellect, then do not expect to see what you read in some of these reviews. If you go in not expecting much you may very well enjoy this very ordinary movie. if you go in expected the "Best movie of the 90s" or a "masterpiece" you may be sorely disappointed. I will laugh about these reviews for days. Utterly amazing otherwise intelligent people could be hypnotized by the hype of this film. Guys, at best it's a 5 out of 10.

Diamond's attempt at generating some publicity as his dismal career continues.

Dustin Diamond, of Saved by the Bell fame, if you want to call that fame, self shoots a home video under the premise that two girls on a bachelorette party night, want him as the prime entertainment for the evening. The setup is these girls saw him do a show and asked him to come see them after, in their hotel room.

The video starts with Diamond speaking into the camera as he holds it giving the audience, which is supposed to be his buddies assumably, what might happen next at this party. He enters the room and almost immediately starts to look and comment about the sex toys. Which of course gets the action started as the girls are supposed to be drunk. Fellatio, girl/girl and intercourse with Diamond included ensue. Puntuated at the end by a Dirty Sanchez on one of the girls. Throughout Diamond is making inane and ridiculous commentary along the lines of "woohoo" "unleash the beast" etc, etc.. Apparently, if this is his real personality, he is as boring as his SbtB character Screech, from which the video title is derived.

It's fairly clear, fairly early in the video, that this is staged and considering Diamonds career took a nose dive after the kiddie sitcom and has never made it off the mat, who could blame him for trying to get something, anything, going. Unfortunately, the girls he manages to get for this video, almost certain strippers but just as certainly B or even C grade strippers, can't keep this interesting. If you mute out Diamonds pathetic color commentary I suppose it's watchable, if nothing more than seeing a D list celebrity in a sex video. The novelty of it wears off almost immediately however if you have the volume up.

So watch it if you have a friend that got it free or something but certainly do not pay money to see this feeble attempt at maintaining some celebrity for a never was like Dustin Diamond.

I will say perhaps it got better though I wouldn't believe it. I lasted about 30 minutes. it was so painful I just couldn't finish. I enjoy the TV show. have watched it from the very beginning and had they maintained something akin to the TV show it may have been watchable. They did not.

I literally sat that with my mouth open, amazed at just how bad this movie was. Shame really. I am not a big fan of Short. He's in the same category as Robin Williams. Pathetic over the top comic talents, though I will say Williams is a fine dramatic actor. Short however has come up with a pretty entertaining character in Jiminy Glick. To his credit. The movie on the other hand, is so poorly done that there isn't even a shred of humor in it. At least the part I could stand. I can only think, as I often do, that there are people who proactively write reviews for movies on this site and other, with the sole purpose of generating favorable buzz so the DVD and rental does well. I cannot buy anyone who witnessed this travesty found it enjoyable on any level. Writing, directing, cinematography, character development...all of it done badly. A waste of time and money. Avoid at all costs.

Invariably this movie is compared to "Dazed and Confused" as they are both roughly about teenage life in the 70's. The similarities end there. D&C is infinitely more polished and better in pretty much every category. The production on "The Stoned Age" is poor as clearly the producers did not have a lot of money to roll into this one. Writing isn't very good. Costumes have serious holes if they are actually trying to be authentic to the 70's era styles.

Having said all that, this is a pretty funny movie if you can get past the many many weaknesses. Along the lines of Bill and Ted's or Waynes World and with the huge bonus of Keanu Reeves or Dana Carvey NOT being in the movie. Mindless, childish humor that works on a lot of levels if you grew up in the 70's and are an adult, or if your an adolescent currently. I wouldn't pay 7 bucks to see this in a theater by any means but it's worth a few bucks from the local video store. And if you have some good herb to smoke while you watch, it will enhance your viewing experience. You tend to forgive the many failures of the movie. Not endorsing smoking dope necessarily. I haven't in years but when I did, this movie was much better. After all, it is called The Stoned Age and smoking ensues throughout the flick. All I'm saying. :)

Sean Penn is decent for once? Gimmie a break. That guy's credibility just went poof. By this time we've all seen movies that float about with scenes out of sequence. In this case, it's too severe to be affective. It was about 30 minutes before I really started getting what was going on as I had read no spoilers. Overall it was worth the rental however the director could have done the story better justice had he/she chosen to just go a bit more conventional with the sequencing. Penn is outstanding. A given at this point in his career. Del Toro is also strong as usual. Watts is also excellent. The performances are what keep this movie compelling regardless of the chaos of the scene shifting. Worth watching/renting, but not among the top 20 movies of the year.