Reviews

I really doubt that the production crew even visited or looked at a photo of the interior of a submarine, nor had they any idea of what Navy life was like.

I've never witnessed such uniforms on surface ships, let alone what's worn on a WWII submarine.

Speaking of submarines, who designed the set?? Have they ever(!) seen the inside of a submarine? Or at least, a photograph of the ineterior of a submarine? Understanding the requirements of a movie set, this- overall- was completely amateurish, with a complete lack of research of any portion of a Navy life onboard a submarine- or even a surface ship during WWII. Lordy, they should be ashamed.

With high hopes in seeing Ms Rauch escaping her Big Bang Theory persona, the disappointment started early in the film. "Crass" is a word used in a few of the reviews and I can see why- neither a decent comedy nor a decent drama, this centers on a weak-in-character sports figure who lacks any talent whatsoever in personality or empathy towards olympic hopefuls, store clerks, fellow workers, or even her dad and, throughout the film, makes zero progress in improving those basic human skills.

I have yet to understand why that silly, gymnastic sex scene was used- it furthered nothing for the film or the character; I suppose the director thought he was being ground-breaking or something.

Overall, perhaps Mr Buckley should stick to commercials and shorts and leave the film industry to adults.

Others have written on this, and I find I cannot expound any further upon the topic-- tight editing, great cinematography, likeable cast, wonderful writing.

So, why did I give it a 7 instead of a 10? Well, a 10 is for an outstanding movie, that one that grabs you by the ...well, you know.. and makes you realize your life has been nothing but a daily bore; this movie doesn't accomplish that. Instead, it allows you to wallow in another's joy, to experience happiness not in the degradation of another but in the pureness of accomplishment, whether it be in a game or in a relationship. I mentioned $$ in the title-- yes, another few bucks for a decent fake mustache for Roger and a set of glasses WITH glass.. these, and only these, two items continually distracted me. Yes, I can be petty but hey- it's only my opinon, right?

There is so much dead time in almost every scene, excessive looking, walking, useless chatter.

Remake with all the air let out and see how tight it is.

Really a crap movie. Poor plot, poor acting, overkill on the special effects.

The selection of actors was probably predicated on the age-old formula that spawned the The Poseidon Adventure--- fill the card with past big names and you have a hit.

Sorry----- no success. Again.

Too may stereotypes. Too many clichés. Many men with automatic weapons cannot overcome one man with a pistol firing over his shoulder.

Good grief.

OK, Mr Butler is a fairly decent actor; why he did the movie-- must have been for the money.

Plenty of gratuitous violence, none of it needed; must have been just for the shock value.

Mr. Fuqua should have stuck to rap music videos or electrical engineering.

Cruddy dialog, predictable scenes.

Not really worth watching.

Morgan Freeman.... shame on him. Must have needed the money, too.

Find a sharp stick and poke yourself in the eye before suffering through this.

Since others have commented so accurately upon the unrealistic script, sight gags, below-par acting and annoying child actors there isn't much more to say.

The salaries for JGWI: Stiller: $25,000,000, Aniston: $10,000,000, Kidman: unlisted for this flick (her last dozen or so films averaged her around $10,000,000 per picture- none of which are worth mentioning)-- which leaves two questions, "what do we get for Forty-Five Million Dollars?" and, "Why isn't there a 'Minus' Rating Star available?

One positive note: We now know that Mr Sandler, in a one-on-one with Aniston, is totally unable to act, preferring to keep staring at her breasts- and Aniston, in her almost-up-to-a-two-dimensional character- fails to notice his inability to look up.

Adam Sandler comfortably wears the phrase oft used for Ben Stiller: "Not funny on any planet."

Dennis Dugan's talent appears to have peaked in 'The Waltons'.

Well, every review I've seen in print liked this movie- meaning they only glimpsed the previews for whatever other movie they were paid to comment upon. Most of the other comments have hit the nail squarely..

OK, Kidman couldn't rescue this with her character. Ferrell shouldn't be in movies at all. The rest of the cast? Mis-cast.

My major faulting would be the cronyism in directing/writing. Ephron should be ashamed for wasting time and money on this, what with her better efforts of days gone by in such high regards.

I guess studios only go by what name will sell tickets to the senseless masses.

I'd rather watch a Michale Moore Mocumentary Propaganda while being water-boarded before finishing this movie.

Not campy, not corny, not funny and not worth the time to watch.

Scripted by what must have been a twelve-year-old demented child, this trash reeks with 'lack of responsibility' in every scene- just as a child's imagination would run: All For Me! No Consequences For Any Damage!

Finding any social worth- whether satire, comedic or parody- is impossible; the acting was worse than a 7th Grade rendition of Jesus Christ Superstar.

I would prefer to marathon-watch all of Ben Stiller's tasteless works sober before ever sitting down to any further attempts by Michel Gondry, Seth Rogen, or Evan Goldberg.

Their parents must be so mortified.

I sought out this film as John C. Reilly and Kevin Kline were listed.

The opening was fey, but with the star power, I discarded my feelings and waited.

As it continued, I found myself taking breaks- making phone calls, a sandwich, even contemplated taking up smoking, before returning to see how this would end.

Enter John C Reilly, an actor I admire, with falsetto- good grief! "Springtime for Hitler" immediately sprang to mind.

So, in closing, my initial thought of 'insipid' carries my overall view.

Listed as a family movie, this poor rendition of Noah is a miss but most importantly, this is NOT a religious movie; this has as much to do with religion as 'Finding Nemo' has to do with gill netting.

While not containing the voluminous amount of bathroom humor as 'Bruce Almighty,' it is disappointing to see it drop in on this movie. Please bring back 'Song of the South'.

Additionally, the redundancy of the two-by-two was overdone and boring; the point was made quickly. The sight gags were poorly done and, true to the move - overdone. The script lacked .... just about everything.

Finally, Steve Carell is not a good actor for a leading character (or any character, for that matter). Wanda Sykes could have done the lead much better; more talent and style.

It attempts to be a comedy but falls far short of its goal.

Always being interested in broadening my horizon, I watch many, many movies and, in the case of a movie I don't like, try to understand my dislike

• whether it stems from personal prejudice or if the movie actually deserves my dislike.

There are many things in this movie to dislike

• lifestyles, acting, directing and, mainly, editing.

Having lived in Los Angeles from 1958-1968, I understand most of the lifestyles depicted herein and, properly directed and edited, this would be an enjoyable movie.

However, this is the product the the MTV-video generation - scattered, useless cuts, too-short ASL and pointless direction.

Watch it only if you have nothing to do and MTV is off the air.

I read the comment about adding spoiler information but there is nothing I have to say that would spoil this for someone else - the director has already done it.

If you're a naive youngster wanting to see a submarine - go to a naval base. If you're a mindless... well, this is a poorly done soap opera done by someone that should have stayed a computer graphics artist.

I suspect the budget for this was around two hundred dollars. For two hundred and ten, they could have purchased a used Bluejacket's Manual to help them with the basic military ideas - of which they had none that were believable.

Invest your time in something else, such as ...anything.

I would have to agree with the majority that the Navy erred in the investigation and subsequent findings, be it from Old Boy mentality or just covering your six.

But I must disagree on the quality of this 'movie', the acting, props, dialogue, costumes, writing and directing.

First, and most obvious, all concerned had little information of the Naval Service, protocols or traditions.

Second, all concerned didn't bother finding a Navy adviser to point out a few things (previously mentioned) about officers, enlisteds, chiefs and shipboard life - a step that would have paid off handsomely.

Finally, although I was unable to locate proof online, I believe this tripe led to the series JAG.

In my twenty-four years of service, I witnessed many things and have to agree that the Old Boy stuff does occur, but what the writers have officers and chiefs doing is - land-lubberly and un-informed.

One final note: during the epilogue, the narrator states the ship was awarded a Navy Unit Citation, and that the medals were never delivered - true! A citation is a letter, entered into the man's service jacket. There is no medal to present, or to receive.

With the exception of Timothy Bottoms and Cloris Leachman, and the addition of Annie Potts, the acting fell far short of its predecessor, The Last Picture Show. I felt as if fading legends returned for one last curtain call, leaning upon greying memories of better times rather than reaching in and dusting off their talents. Bottoms and Leachman were, again, superb. Quaid was immediately tiresome.

Another note: the sound (not soundtrack) left something to be desired - many scenes had background levels that over-rode the centerpiece of attention. I watched it twice and still was distracted by it. Reviewing the Soundman's credits (over 300 items), I was unable to discern if this film was a fluke or if it was his trademark - because none of the listed items had I ever had the inclination to watch.

So, overall, this is a 3 of 10, unless you catch it for Bottoms, Leachman and Potts.. then an 8.

I've re-watched this after finding the sequel in order to refresh memories. My initial reaction is that of my younger years: a good movie. Upon watching Texasville, I realized it fell short of the original- not only in the story, but the acting. With the exception of Timothy Bottoms and Cloris Leachman, none of the remaining original castmembers proved worthy of re-hiring.

However, after sitting through another viewing of LPS AFTER watching Texasville, I was struck by the quality of acting by all the cast and the superb direction of Peter Bogdanovich.

This movie is still a classic.