Reviews

I saw Mindhunters last night and am in awe of how far and how fast a good director can fall. It seems like he doesn't even know how to direct a scene anymore without having everyone in seems like complete amateurs. With a few exceptions, Mindhunters had me whincing the whole way through. The delivery of lines, the pauses, the pacing, the whole look of the film reminds me of Albert Pyun's work. And like Pyun, Harlin has also fallen in love with a rapper and casts him in every film no matter how wrong they are for the part. LL Cool J was SO out of place in Mindhunters but then again so was everyone else. They all seemed like tourists who just signed up for a Whodunnit Mystery Weekend, completely unprofessional. If they can't profile someone committing elaborate murders 2 ft from them, how in the world can they be trusted to solve normal FBI cases out in the real world.

If the victims are smart, and the killer is smarter, you can have a great story. Not so here. Since the killer is only as smart as the man who writes him, and this killer is pretty dumb, the victims have to be demoted to the intelligence level "retard" or the story won't work. And for us as the audience to respect and care about these characters, the filmmakers have to assume that WE are about as smart a bag of wet hair. What a slap in the face.

Can somebody out there please make a smart thriller that actually respects the audience??

One day I was watching an episode of Family Affair and about 3/4 of the way through, something odd happened. Tim Curry said something mildly amusing and then, in the background, I heard something that while not a real laugh, was definitely a chuckle. I checked to see if I'd missed a character in the scene. Who made that noise? , I wondered. I then realized that this show had a laughtrack all along. I didn't even know it was a comedy.

It actually took 3/4 of an episode for even the LAUGHTRACK to laugh....once. I have never seen that before.

If this is a sitcom and I'm still not convinced it is, it has to be the least funny one I have ever seen in my entire life. I am not kidding. It's like adding a laughtrack to the Days of Our Lives or something.

Too bad, because Tim Curry can be one of the funniest actors, if he had good material to work with. Not the case here...Here he looks really bored and ashamed of himself.

It seem as though everyone who's seen this film loves it. The problem is that few people have seen it and I know why: It has the world's most boring cover. Ooh, an ungroomed Michael Douglas smiling.

I received this film as a present a year ago and thought ..."piece of junk" but when I watched it recently I was pleasantly surprised. I've rarely seen characters as sharply drawn. The story is my favorite type, the kind that can't be summed up one sentence, but it's also the hardest to bring on screen. Films like Wonder Boys have a tendency to be boring without proper direction but Curtis Hanson does a great job with a great all-star cast. But the one thing I found most refreshing about this film was the way it went against the grain, almost purposely creating situations where characters could very easily become cliches. That never happens in Wonder Boys. People with grudges against other characters don't nesessarily act out with revenge. Successful writers, such as Q, may seem a little snobby but nevertheless find themselves in quirky situations along with Douglas and never complain about it. And Douglas's character even gives one of his students drugs, without the film ever suggesting that this is a negative thing. All these things make Wonders Boys deeper and more intelligent than most films and I highly recommend it. Do NOT be fooled by the extraordinarily boring cover.

I hate the Friday the 13th series! When I was five, I didn't, but then all I wanted to see was dumb teenagers get sliced up. Now It's just boring to watch these mindless morons run around Crystal Lake and the same thing just happens over and over again. But this one is a little different, or different enough to make it a satisfying movie experience. Tina Shepard is the difference here, a young girl with telekenetic abilities who puts them to good use against Jason in the second half of the film. She hurls nails and television sets, collapses cabin ceiling on Jason and basically just throws him around like a rag doll. Finally he gets some worthwhile competition. In other words, if you love Jason, see this. If you like good horror movies, don't. It's good but not that good.

p.s I would to love to see a poster for the next 13th movie: Jason, sitting alone in a rocking chair, machete across his lap, on the porch of a Crystal Lake cabin, wondering why in the world nobody wants to camp there anymore...

I catch this show every time it's on without fail and have loved pretty much everything about with two exceptions:

1. The list of suspects are always so short that identifying the killer is a cinch. (I've been correct on the last 8 episodes straight and I'd made my guess within the first 10 minutes)

2. I don't know much about Las Vegas police procedures but it seems to me that the detectives don't detect, investigate or interrogate nearly as much as they would in real life. C.S.I agents do it for them. It's as though the lab work portion of the C.S.I was too boring to base a show on so they have the characters act like cops while the real ones hang around at the back of the room (if they're there at all) saying as little as possible so Grissom and his pals can flaunt their intellects and play mind games with the suspects. Is that their job? Don't think so...

With these exceptions, C.S.I a great show with high production value, good writing, the works.... Just wish they'd make it a little harder to guess whodunnit.

This section of the review is written for Anna:

Hi Anna. I wanted to like this Anna, I did. I watch it. But I is bored. You do nothing funny. You silly. You yell. And you dumb-dumb. Please stop this Anna. My eyes hurt like boo boo when I see you. I go watch Osbournes instead...

For the IMDb readers:

I can understand the logic: put a famous person (or family) in the limelight and rake in the bucks. It worked with the Osbournes so what went wrong here? ANNA NICHOL SMITH went wrong. So what if she is fat and retarded, she's famous right? It's gotta work right? Wrongo! If all it took was stupidity and obesity, I would be doing shows on about have the people I know. The problem is: She is boring, just like half the people I know.

Anna is also on drugs most of the time, which takes her from the blond airhead level of intelligence to the downright retarded one. But hey! Ozzy seems like he's on drugs ALL the time too (even though he isn't) but he has wit and charm and the ability to deliver some terrific one-liners. Anna doesn't. Anna is just dull and pathetic. If you don't believe me, go watch for yourself.

I used to be a John Carpenter fan. I say USED because I have now seen Ghosts of Mars.

Back in the 80's Carpenter made 3 of my all time favorite films, Christine, Big Trouble in Little China, and of course the Thing. After that, I was sure that he could do no wrong...but I was wrong. He's unfortunately joined a small group of filmmakers that were gods in the 80's but have evolved into pathetic amatuers (John Landis is, I believe, the president of this club)

Ghosts of Mars is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, especially since it commits the thriller/slasher genres worst sin: It is boring. Boring and definately not scary. The acting is wood, the plot silly, and the effects are all cheese. So I'm surprised that several of these user comments are actually praising the film. I can't see why- I took nothing away from this film at all.

Someone even wrote that Ice Cube is alone worth the viewing. That is not only a bad opinion but a downright filthy lie. This chubby toughguy is always making that ridiculous face that he thinks makes him look like well, a toughguy. It's totally unbelievable. The only bright spot on this turkey is the always lovely Henstridge, who looks great but doesn't do much to help the story. Then again neither does anyone else because there barely is one.

All in all, even for the die hard Carpenter fans, expect disapointment. Or be dillusional about the movie like some of these other users who'll love anything that starts with: John Carpenter's.....

Like that's something to brag about anymore...

During one of my frequent visits to IMDb, I checked out Albert Pyun's page of cinematic offenses, and noticed that the guy is responsible for at least half of what I would call the worst movies of the 90's. He has now moved into the 21st century with a new bomb, appropriately called Ticker.

I try to give as much credit as possible to filmmakers, as I know how difficult it can be to even get a film off the ground. And considering the calibre of actors appearing in Ticker, I was fully prepared to give credit to veteran director Albert Pyun (if credit were due.)

It isn't.

As someone else already mentioned, it is amazing that this guy still finds people to finance his "films." I can name of the top of my head a few people who could all have made better entertainment with that squandered budget: me, my mother, my grandmother, hey even my cat...

I am also amazed that actors such as Tom Sizemore, Dennis Hopper and yes, even Steven Seagal would appear in such films. Sizemore and Hopper, in the hands of worthy directors, are superb. In the hands of Pyun, look like there having no fun at all and subsequently do little to help an already pathetic film such as this.

The plot: A mad bomber (Dennis Hopper) is (for reasons unclear blowing up the city.) Tom Sizemore is the detective out to stop him, with or without the aid of the zen preaching leader of the bomb squad (Steven Seagal.) add also the beautiful Jamey Preissly as the Hopper's girlfriend who is detained by Sizemore. There is also a bunch of insignifigant bombers in black swat suits (led by Ice T) and a bunch of other guys in black swat suits whom are really members of the swat team making them impossible to distinguish. In other words, this is one big mess in desperate need of some talented direction.

But I do recommend Ticker. I had a great laugh watching it, seeing Seagal using 10 seconds to waddle down 6 stairs while being shot at by a group of men 20 feet away with M16 rifles and hitting nothing, listening to Hopper's Irish accent appear, disappear, reappear and so on, watching the evacuation of a town hall (government building of some kind, it wasn't clear) when what we are shown is a night club evac scene lifted directly out of another film, and hundreds of other serious and obvious inconsistencies unfold before your eyes. For the purpose of hilarity and ridicule, Ticker is great fun, and lands firmly in the category of "so bad it's good."

Ron Howard has always been a consistantly talented director, never making a bad or even mediocre film. Even a film such as Ransom that opened to lukewarm reviews from both audience and critics is still better than your average thriller. He has a way of making lines and scenes memorable even when the script itself is only so-so. After following his career, I went back to one of his first, Night Shift which still has the magic I remember it did when I saw it way back when.

The story isn't the greatest and Shelly Long has never been an actress I've enjoyed watching but if you only want one reason to see Night Shift, Micheal Keaton is it. Here he creates what is probably one of the funniest characters I have ever seen in a movie. He is an idea man, constantly speaking them into his taperecorder and thus to his morgue co-worker Henry Winkler. Winkler "the fonz" is the total opposite of what he was in Happy Days, and therefor a perfect anchor for Keaton. If it was just Keaton, it wouldn't work, but Winkler is annoyed at Keaton, we laugh because of it.

If you do decide to watch this movie, be on the lookout for the single most hilarious scene: Keaton's analysation of the word "prostitute."

This film is actually Norways highest grossing film, largely because of the bad rap it's gotten. People flocked to the theatre the way people slow down to look at car accidents. And this accident is worth a look. Sadly, you won't see any heads rolling (it's not that exciting), but what you WILL see is one of the worst films ever made. When it's not boring, it's laughably stupid, which like all horrible movies make them curiously entertaining. I recall a scene, supposedly romantic between the two lead characters, embracing eachother on a street corner when the director for some reason decides to start filming various pieces of garbage in the street; cabbage, kebabs, old greasy liquor bags and so forth. The dialogue is non-existant, you hear thoughts in the characters heads. These thoughts are nothing more than bad poems, so boring that they are hard to pay attention to even if you try hard.

Nothing in this film is worth commending except for it's own laughable incompetance, so if you see it, see it for what it is: a piece of garbage. So bad it's almost funny.

I watched this knowing who the killer was throughout the whole film. I suppose the director was counting on distracting us with Joe Penny and Loni Anderson's sexual chemistry.

Something went really wrong in the lab. I've seen canines in better heat than this. It's hurtful and insulting to assume that we as viewers wouldn't have more intellegence to figure out who did what and when. All the clues are presented to us in an orderly fashion and even my limited IQ was able to pentrate this nefarious plot which was really no more than a low brow version of a Poirot story. I won't disclose the killer..I don't have to. Watch the film for a minute and you'll know. I also know that the person it is, is in no way the person it possibly could be. The dialogue is bad, the acting mediocre, lighting is barf and the script is hurl. I watched it purely for scum intertainment. It barely suceeded as that. It's not that I detest this film, I just hate the fact that it stole an hour and a half of my life without a chill or polt intrigue to show for it. I like bad movies and I don't need SFT3000 or whatever it's called to watch it. But I require an allegiance either way, and Whisper has nothing. Whisperkill is the Switzerland of bad movies. It won't be bad and definately not good.

And after all Joe Penny is Jake, and you gotta love the guy.

It's exactly like Mtv's Real World except with a twist: about a dozen people are stuck in a bar and put in charge of running it...which is smart. People watch it out of curiosity and if they decide to, they can visit the characters. And since the bar is highly publicized on a show that pays for itself and more in ratings, customers can pay for overpriced beer and feel priviliged cuz they're being served by the stars of the show. Nice.

But even so, come Saturday night I'm drawn there for one reason or "another" and as such, Baren is a success both as a bar and a show.

I've always thought of Psycho as a masterpiece of classic horror, one that makes you cringe and sparks true fear, especially when pulling the shower curtain across, leaving you exposed, naked to monstrosities lurking on the other side: and that was before I'd even seen it. Now that I have seen it....I believe that Hitchcock is the most overrated director of all time. With the exception of the the shower scene which is effective in the same way Blair Witch was, it preys on basic human emotions, this one being vulnerability. I mean, what could be more vulnerable that a naked woman in a shower in a strange hotel, a woman who's sinned and you know is "gonna get it" anyway? The only surprise is the short amount off time it takes to discard the leading lady. In that sense, it is a true shock.... but with that exception what does Psycho really have. Nothing. And I have proof. Consider the new adaptation of Psycho by Gus van Zant. It bombed at the theaters and was slayed by critics, even though Zant's version is identical in almost every way. And these are the same critics who call the original Psycho a masterpiece. Their only critique should have been on the acting or the photography, but alot of them attacked pacing and story line, even though they were the same. It's the memory of a scary film that you saw when you were young that won't let you destroy the illusion. Well an illusion is all it is. Rear Window and North by Northwest are boring films speckled with a few exciting moments, nothing more and so is Psycho. I feel the same way about Toxic Avenger. When I was 5, I thought it was fantastic, best movie ever-then I saw it again a year ago and it was filth, complete garbage but at least I let go of the memory of the film and concentrated on the film itself. Some of those Hitchcock fans ought to do the same....

I kind of like this show. I must admit that I rolled my eyes once or twice when I saw that Ice T was in the lead, knowing that rappers usually aren't the best actors in the business. But I soon noticed that this guy has a appealing quality: he's willing to abandon (partially) his tough-guy gangsta rapper routine and make a jerk of himself.

Something Ice Cube ought to do. Every time I see him, even as a comic relief (Anaconda), he always seems to frown and tough himself up like he's afraid he'll lose his rep in the hood or something. At least Ice T take a few risks, drops the bull, and looking appropriately goofy every know and then and I think that makes him more appealing to a wider range of people. This along with the series clever plots and direction, I can think of worse ways to spend my evening.

Every show has one attribute to validate it's existence. I suppose TKR's is the idea behind it: Knight Rider-with a bang. Good idea but unfortunately that alone won't keep a series alive for very long. Especially when the show has a cast of bad actors, ridiculous cars with irritating voices, extremely poor plots, bad dialogue, etc.... On the other hand, TKR had a big budget so it didn't look all to bad. It was flashy and had explosions but like I said, it was so cheesy-packed with stupid situations to make your eyes roll. Only reason I watch it is because it is on before Early Edition (great show). Anyway, avoid TKR if you can. It stinks

I didn't rent this. I bought it.

It was one of those movies in the wooden crates at the video store that are cheaper to buy then to rent. So I bought and I was really surprised. For starters, I thought that it would suck considering that Zack from Saved by the Bell was in one of the leads. Whenever a movie tries to cast a star from the early 90's/late 80's sitcoms, the result is almost always disasterous, but not this time. He was funny, fresh and almost unrecognizable with the black hair and new attitude. Tom Everett Scott is also funny and perfectly cast as the college roommate, intent (at first) on making the top grades and becoming a doctor. Only problems is Zack who creates a minefield of temptations, including drugs, girls and late night out which quickly sink his grade point average to failing. This leads to the plot: If your roommate dies, you get straight A's. Of course, none of the above mentioned want to die, and since murder is out of the question, they start to look for suicidal candidates, with they can a share the dorm room with.

This is where the movie gets fun. The candidates are all great characters with one exceptional one. A guy named Cliff. Cliff has to be one of the funniest characters I've ever seen, and especially in a movie like this, where the acting has to be taken with a grain of salt, he's a true standout. He alone is worth watching this film.

I list this turkey in my bottom five films of all time and I've seen quite a few. But to do B-movies justice, I always look for something redeeming. It doesn't have to be anything big either as long as a film contains some feature of interest. I'll settle for an original plot or a great villain to drive the story forward or a fight scene or dialogue that I can chuckle at, or at least remember. Ex: Men at work, pathetic story but great dialogue and quite a few funny scenes.

Alas, Xtro has no such scene. Only a barage of uninteresting characters, terrible effects, compounded by a score that sent me running for the can. Not only are these characters lacking in realism, personality and well, character. They are about the stupidest bunch of morons I've ever seen. I hoped throughout the whole "film" they would be killed, slowly. Hmmm, but I wonder: what could possibly kill them? Certainly not the alien. That rubber dummy couldn't kill my dead cat. And since this alien is only about 2 feet high, the characters shouldn't be running from it, they should stepping on it.

One more thing: It's ability to become invisible is the biggest blatant ripoff of Predator I've ever seen. Listen...if you want to watch something involving soldiers being stalked by an alien, watch Aliens and Predator, which are among my top five of all time, not this crap.

Been a while since I saw this thing... And I'll never see it again because it was a HUGE fiasco. Another user already commented on this point but I feel I must elaborate: This movie is a chase scene. No plot, no character developement, no dialogue, ..just chasing. It's like those scenes in horror films where some retard wanders around a dimly lit room and all you have to do is wait until they die so something else can happen. But NO, this is it baby! Nothing but chasing, except the people don't die. They have "close calls" throughout the entire boring movie.Another thing... this is the worst villain I've ever seen. My grandma is scarier. And probably more dangerous. Never see this c**p.

I gotta say out front, I had LOW expectations for this film. I had heard nothing good, rumors from friends left me discouraged, so I decided to wait for video. Well I just finished wasting my 2 bucks and 2 hours, and found that low expectation don't necessarily save a film. The story idea is simple, so simple in fact that it isn't even present. Trying to describe this film is like trying do describe Seinfeld: It's about nothing. The whole film is dialogue and background so unevenly pieced together, that I was having trouble figuring out who was who (since most of the male actors are so much alike in personality and appearance) and also because the film started out slow, denying me a chance to get know and care about the characters. And when you don't care...what's the points of watching. In fact the only emotion any of these people inspired in me were dislike. The guys were snobby, wannabe intellectuals who babbled lines they seemed to write before they left home. And the conversations they have were supposed to ignite dislike or at least distrust in the female characters but this doesn't happen. They fall for the guy, although this really doesn't matter because there is no right guy. They're all Ivy League yuppy scum miscreants lacking charm and wit.

So all in all this film fails as a love story, cuz no one falls in love.

And as a social study, because were viewing an era of history known as disco, where the characters don't really love disco. They either love the fact that thay can get into a club or that they are in fact part of the disco era. They're living a lie.

And finally as a good movie in general, because it commits the cardinal sin: It's boring. It expects me to care about characters I hate, and thus I hated this film.

It is not often we see a movie with a sequel that captures the same feel as the original, even when using the same director. In this case John McTiernan made a spectacular action movie with a feel of it's own and definately a style hard to duplicate. But I have to admit Stephen Hopkins deserves praise for his efforts in Predator 2. Obviously, compared to the the first, it's inferior in every way, but Hopkins had a tough job. He had a massive hit to tend with, and a certain style which makes it hard for one director to pick up where another left off. I think he did rather well. It's a movie worth seeing.

I've seen this film about 25-30 times. Nuff said!

It is THE movie that has everything I love. Perfect acting, a narraration that doesn't irritate but adds depth, Kevin Spacey, great scenes, lotsa hidden inside info, Kevin Spacey, a stealthy invisible ingenius villain (did I mention Kevin Spacey?), and, of course, an ending that will leave head spinning. It's the kind of movie you talk about for hours, while scratching your head going " so that's why..." See it at least 3 times.