Reviews

I wanted to like this movie, and hoped for some interesting comedy drama. But it was incredibly disappointing. Interestingly, the plot is quite similar to the book "The Corrections," where siblings (one of whom is a professor), have to deal with a father with dementia. But where that book has all sorts of drama, morbid humor, and heart-tugging emotion, this movie flat-lines. The trailer indicates there's some droll humor and an intriguing relationship between the siblings. But other than those excerpts, there's not much here to respond to. There are no twists or complications to speak of, and the relationships grow tiring after a while. A self- congratulatory ending doesn't help either. What could have been a compelling story ends up being just another nail in the coffin of Hollywood releasing adult dramas. Skip this.

I went into this documentary (on the Trio Channel) with some suspicion. What could it say that hasn't already been said about the glut of Awards Shows?

The answer: plenty.

There's some wonderful history here, some intriguing factoids, and very very funny bits. It's great to hear from both the people that make awards shows, and the people that cover them. The program does a very thorough job of tracing how awards shows have always been intended to paint their sponsoring academies or foundations in a good light, and how the fake prestige of those academies was ignored starting in the 1970s with awards shows designed just to get ratings.

Things I especially liked: It's funny watching Joe Pesci go off on an interviewer at the DGA Awards, and some of the sound-bites from red-carpet celebs are very witty. And the sequence on how publicists control the red carpet was awesome, as was the footage of celebrities hogging gift bags at the Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards.

Things I didn't like: the title's kind of lame, and it might have been tighter at 60 minutes instead of 90 minutes. But overall, a very good doc.

If you can find this on Trio before it totally goes off the air, watch it. Maybe it'll show up in libraries too.

I can't believe some posters are waxing nostalgic about this movie.

It stinks.

When Neil Simon is funny, he's pretty funny.

When he's off, it's excruciating to watch, and man is he off on this. I saw it when it first came out, and it seemed hopelessly dated then. I can only imagine what a relic it is now.

Yes, Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn were good in FOUL PLAY, but that had a great script going for it. This absolutely, positively does not.

The jokes fall flat, the scenarios are strained beyond belief, and it just comes across as a bit of Hollywood hopelessly detached from reality.

In fact, it might just be worse than MODERN PROBLEMS or UNDER THE RAINBOW.

Watch this at your own peril, unless you want to see Exhibit #A in Chevy Chase's unprecedented run at picking awful scripts.

Ewww! I saw this on a plane and was thunderstruck over how awful it was. The writing was virtually joke-free, and the direction incompetent. Even the sight gags--which are the easiest part of comedy to pull off, were lame and uninspired. Leslie Nielsen has really embarrassed himself here. In his successful Zucker Brothers spoofs, he's a master at playing ridiculous scenes completely straight, and thereby making the funny stuff work. Here he acts desperate. He mugs just to inject some life into the dreariness of it all, and, as other reviewers have mentioned, embarrasses himself mightily. If you want to see him in a movie devoid of intentional laughs, check out the original POSEIDON ADVENTURE. At least that flick has some inadvertent giggles.

Just saw this on a DVD a friend had bought from the A&E website. And all I can say is ignore the incoherent review that says the Russ Meyer line was taken out of context--it wasn't (and the rest of that review is bewilderingly lame). In any case, this is a well-written, comprehensive, and enlightening look at breasts and their place in pop culture. The section about women athletes and breasts covers some topics that no one ever talks about, the bit about women who use their breasts at work contains some surprising revelations, and it's also interesting to learn how much cleavage has been involved in political scandals. Plus, the editing, interviews, and cinematography are all top notch. At two hours, this documentary might be a bit long, and Carmen Electra isn't going to put professional narrators like Liev Schreiber out of business, but this is definitely worth seeing.

The Canadian film A WINTER TAN predates HOW STELLA GOT HER GROOVE BACK, but has a similar plot. A woman going through a midlife crisis goes to the tropics to rediscover herself.

It takes place in a warm, sunny place, but it moves like a glacier. A tone-deaf, relentlessly aggravating, horribly written, ludicrously acted, crappily shot, stultifying glacier.

Lured by an inexplicable positive review, I'm one of the forty-three people who paid to see this turd in the theater, and I'd like my seven bucks back. The theater wouldn't give it to me when I, along with most of the audience, walked out midway through. (And I NEVER walk out of movies--in thirty years of serious movie fandom, I have walked out of two movies: This and the horrible late 70s remake of PRISONER OF ZENDA.)

At least Canada has given us some pretty good beers over the years. God knows I drank a ton of them to get rid of the taste of this offal.

I love the original, but went to see this not because of my affection for the 1976 movie, but because I really liked the raucous comedy of BAD SANTA, written by the same writers and starring Billy Bob.

Unfortunately, this remake was disappointing in almost every regard. There are about five great one-liners, a couple of well-chosen updates to the original, and that's about it.

Everything else is flat and unremarkable. The biggest problem is the casting of Amanda. Yeah, she's convincing as a baseball player. But as an actress, she makes you shudder the first time she says a line. Can't act a bit, and her voice might be lower than Billy Bob's. The kid who plays Kelly Leak has none of the original's casual menace. And Billy Bob wears sunglasses throughout almost the entire movie. You never see his eyes, so you have to really look for the comedy. And it ain't there.

Don't waste your money...

Based on a great play and maybe better old movie, this film had promise. A likable cast, a once-skilled writer/director, surely it could work as a romantic comedy, right? WRONG.

If there's a lazier, more pleased-with-itself, predictable, trite, non-urgent movie than this, I'd like to know--so I can avoid it too.

If you go in expecting the Nora Ephron of WHEN HARRY MET SALLY or SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, you'll be disappointed. This is the Nora Ephron of similarly lame movies MIXED NUTS and MICHAEL.

This movie is remarkable in only one way: the product placements for America Online are perhaps the most unrelenting you've ever seen.

Do yourself a favor and rent the original SHOP AROUND THE CORNER instead. Back then, Hollywood knew how to make a romantic comedy.

If you love SPANKING THE MONKEY, FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, and THREE KINGS, then congratulations, you have great taste in movies. They're funny, intriguing, surprising, and and compelling. You might think David O. Russell is a genius. If you think like that, then spare yourself major disillusionment and skip this movie. It's got a few good lines, and funny situations, but is otherwise totally uninvolving. Characters yell and scream and run around for no reason and wonder what the point is. So do audiences. It's a scattershot movie that can't decide whether it's a satire or a philosophical exercise. Instead, it's just a muddle.

This is certainly one of the best courtroom dramas ever. The cast, director

Sidney Lumet, screenwriter David Mamet, and especially Paul Newman are at

the top of their game. Newman should have won the Oscar for his role, but

Oscar voters can't get enough of bio-pics, and gave it to Ben Kingsley for

"Gandhi" instead.

The drama, twists, and emotion are perfectly depicted, as Lumet uses long

camera shots and the wintry Boston setting to slowly build the tension. It' 's not a whiz-bang, action-filled movie, but for those who have some patience, it's

totally rewarding. A must-see.

This show had some of the best belly laughs outside of THE SIMPSONS on network TV.

Some sketches were stupid and felt like filler (the rule of thumb on comedy shows) but some bits were so inspired you couldn't believe they were on NBC.

This show died too soon--it was totally worth the time you spent on it.

If you like TV that's not dumbed down, try to find these episodes.

You won't be disappointed.

This is one of Woody Allen's best films, yet it's strangely forgotten

during any discussion of his work.

This is a consistently funny, surprising, romantic film. Mia Farrow,

Jeff Daniels, Danny Aiello, and Dianne Wiest are all in top form.

It's not for dolts, however. You have to have at least a passing

knowledge of old movies and their conventions.

Don't bother renting it if your companions are the kind that can't

stand black and white flicks, or if they hate period pieces. They

probably won't get it.

But for anyone else, this is a classic, one that would have probably

caught on better if it only had a happier ending.

One doesn't go to see a movie called DADDY DAY CARE hoping

for high art. One merely expects competence, some fun, a couple

of laughs. Some family entertainment, along the lines of MRS.

DOUBTFIRE, etc.

This film delivers nothing of that sort. It flatlines throughout. The

structure goes something like this: characters explain in

straightforward, witless dialogue what their current problem is.

Characters choose equally witless solution to problems. 10-15

seconds of chaos ensue, then lead character starts worrying

about his kid, and platitudes follow.

That's it. No plants and payoffs, no character arcs, nothing builds

toward a finish.

It's staggering how lazy this film is. My jaw hit the floor a couple of

times at the sheer ineptitude of it. For instance, the daddies learn

there's a beehive on their porch. So they have to get rid of it. Okay,

that's possibly an obstacle where you could a funny way to get over

it. Instead the filmmakers simply send Daddy Two to go hit the

beehive with a broom handle. Guess what? The bees come out

of the hive when that happens. And as a topper, they chase Daddy

Two!!! And even Daddy Three!!! That's what Hollywood thinks is

funny in 2003. Never mind that audiences in 1915 would have

yawned at such a scenario.

It gets much worse, but I'm trying to forget that I spent 30 bucks

taking the family to see this mess.

I'll get over the thirty bucks, but I'm truly sad that Hollywood

demands so little of its filmmakers now, especially in comedies.

In action movies, and suspense thrillers, there's good Hollywood

product. But good comedies are few and far between. And when

a movie like this does well in the box office, it kills off all hope.

Please don't see this movie. You'll only encourage them.

Back in 1998, the AFI's list of the 100 best American movies created a ton of controversy. This was at a time when the Internet was young, there wasn't as much listmaking in the media, all the end of the millenium/century/decade lists hadn't come out yet, and AFI hadn't yet started doing annual countdown shows.

People actually paid attention to this list, and most people didn't like it--with good reason. There wasn't a single Lubitsch or Preston Sturges movie on it, a lot of the movies had only a tangential link to America, and the other omissions were too numerous to mention. The 3-hour CBS show didn't help matters much by being really star-studded to the point that ditzy actors and actresses were screwing up details about great movies.

The TNT series, of which this movie was a part, was left in the shadows due to the attention that the CBS show and the list itself received. But the TNT series was very good. Each part focussed on ten movies linked by theme, and instead of being quip-heavy, the shows let the movies themselves show their greatness.

"In Search Of..." was especially entertaining, and featured some great, great movies. The script was intelligent, the cutting was well-done, and in short it made you appreciate these classic films.

Perhaps Ridley Scott's worst movie, and that's saying a lot.

Turgid, overwrought, anachronistic, inaccurate, laughable, sanctimonious, and egregiously politically correct.

A film to recommend to your vilest enemies.

This is a profoundly unsatisfying film. The story is inexplicably

weak. In movies of this ilk, usually there's a clash between Good

and Evil that culminates in a scene where you root for Good to

blow up Evil's deathstar.

Not so here. Instead, Harry's a weak wizard who keeps getting

rescued by others. The last, interminable, hour has Harry being

directed into a spider's nest by a supposed friend. All looks dark

until A MIRACULOUS FLYING CAR saves his ass. Okay, so now

we hate the supposed friend, and wait to see how the supposed

friend is in league with the bad guy Malfoy, right? Wrong. Instead,

the climactic scene is between Harry and a just-introduced giant

snake. All looks bleak for Harry until a MIRACULOUS FLYING

BIRD comes to save his ass and flies away. Harry now has the

strength to fight the snake. But as he kills the snake, he's injured.

He's gonna die. All looks over until THE MIRACULOUS FLYING

BIRD comes back a second time and saves his ass all over

again. You don't expect it can get much worse, until the last scene, in the

dining hall, when all the kids give a huge STANDING OVATION to

the supposed friend that sent Harry into the spider's nest. But wait

a second, supposed friend is a minor character and a betrayer to

boot. Why would everyone applaud him while beaming like idiots?

And why would sappy music come in? And why would the ovation

last ten freaking minutes? Your guess is as good as mine.

This is a piece of dung that needs someone to wave a magic

wand of story structure and logic over it. Forget the chamber of

secrets, this film has more in common with what normally goes in

chamberpots.

...because this dreary movie was inexplicably devoid of suspense. It's got a good set-up, a woman trying to protect her son from

becoming a murder suspect.

Okay. There's built-in tension there. Just don't hold your breath

waiting for it to expand. Because it doesn't. Instead, the movie

devolves into a completely unbelievable romance between Mom

and Mr. Nonthreatening Blackmailer With A Heart of Gold.

I can't recall a movie where the central conceit was so completely

contrived.

Don't let the unfathomable good reviews fool you. This movie is

anemic.

(I give it a three because the acting's not bad, it's shot beautifully,

and even the music is fairly good. Which makes the movie's

wimpiness and refusal to make things tough on the characters all

that much more frustrating.)

The humor on this show aimed higher than most of the pap that goes on television. Some sketches were absolutely hilarious, others much more conventional and obvious, but it was always worth tuning in.

Don't be dissuaded by bad reviews of this program--it just shows that THE DOWNER CHANNEL aimed higher than the lowest common denominator, and if it left slower, denser viewers behind, so be it.

If you can catch it anywhere, it'll be worth it.

Biting, sharp dark comedies are in short supply these days, and I had high hopes for DEATH TO SMOOCHY. The cast and creators have done excellent work before, which is why this soggy film is especially disappointing. It's not without humor: the song about stepfathers is brilliant, and there are inspired one-liners here and there. But overall, the movie is inexplicably repetitive and uninspired.

Once the main conflict of the movie is established (Rainbow Randolph wants his job back while Smoochy brings his uplifting schtick to children's TV), the story simply limps around in circles.

The plot throws in sequences about organized crime, but the characters just keep repeating themselves until the ice skating climax. You know a movie is in trouble when a lead character is continually asked to roll her eyes or snort in surprise/indignation, and unfortunately, that's Catherine Keener's main job. It's difficult to watch her with nothing to do here if you've recently seen her in the brilliant BEING JOHN MALKOVICH.

It's good to see Robin Williams cast off the sappy good guy roles he has recently been playing, but his character is strangely without dimension. His lines depend on empty profanities, which come across as more and more hollow as the movie unfolds. Danny DeVito's hyper directing style doesn't help much either--a scene in super closeup between DeVito and Harvey Fierstein is as irksome as it is unsensible.

In short, a disappointing movie that fails to take advantage of its very ripe-for-satirizing subject matter.

This is a solid, well-made documentary about the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. Most of the action focuses on Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the two track stars whose raised fists on the victory stand created a huge scandal and a storm of misunderstanding. The film tells its story well, but is hurt by the fact that John Carlos for some reason did not sit down for an interview with the filmmakers. Instead, the film treats runner Lee Evans as the second-most dramatic figure after Tommie Smith.

Evans is good on camera, and an appealing character, but he simply doesn't end up being that important. It's unfortunate that the makers couldn't get Carlos as an interview subject--it diminishes an otherwise fine film.

A boring, meaningless, self indulgent piece of tripe. Nothing's worse than a movie that thinks it is amusing and most certainly is not. Don't be misled by the promising cast--the actors here just prove that actors are nothing without a good script. And one thing this movie lacks is a good script. Stay far, far away from this waste of celluloid.

This may be Billy Wilder's best. A tough, cynical, but incredibly tight, well-written work. It's a shame no one knows about it. I also think it's one of Kirk Douglas' best performances. Over-the-top for sure, but any heightened drama comes out of the urgency of the story.

See it whenever you get the chance.

This is a stultifyingly slow, dated, cliched, predictable movie, a horrible waste of time for anyone hoping to discover another great Cary Grant movie. The set-up is labored, the twists are forced, and Ann Sheridan's performance is deadly boring. It's inconceivable that the star (Grant), the director (Hawks) and the screenwriter (Lederer) also teamed up on the sublime "His Girl Friday." (This is surely Hawks' worst movie as well.) The one thing it has going for it is on-location shooting, but it's as if Hawks spent all his energy capturing that and forgetting about comic timing. The level of wit is epitomized by the fact that the creator of the story (Henri Rochard) gave the lead character the same name. Wow, what an imagination.

It would be a high crime if you tried to introduce non-movie buff friends to the magic of old, B&W movies by showing them this stinker. They'd never trust you again.