I'll admit it -- I had a tough time paying attention to this movie. Time after time during it's weary 2.5 hours my mind would start to drift away to more interesting and substantial things. This movie is unfortunately nothing more than a dull remake of Braveheart. It has all the stock characters in place: rugged, down-to-earth hero, his slain family, the princess who loves him and the effiminate prince who hates him. The whole movie was filmed in a murky indistinct way, and half the time you couldn't tell what was going on (except in the oddly lucent "floating" flashbacks when everything seemed very computerized and unreal). There are no high points of emotion in "Gladiator"; an epic movie needs ecstatic joys and breathtaking lows, but all this movie gives us is grim unpleasantness, which is not fun to watch. I don't know why there's so much crowing about the acting here: everybody does what they're required to do, but nothing extraordinary happens that couldn't have been done by thousands of actors across the country.
Reviews
22 Reviews
Marnie
(1964)
Thoroughly Bizarre
2 March 2000
I just saw "Marnie" in a theater as part of a retrospective of Hitchcock films, and I can say without hesitation that of the ten movies I saw, "Marnie" was definitely the worst. The plot was everywhere, and never really decided on what it was doing until the final scene. After watching the beginning few scenes, I thought I was watching a suspense-comedy with lots of laughs and white knuckle tension. Suddenly it shifted gears and I was watching a hokey "sex-melodrama" that was trying to take itself very seriously. The audience I watched it with had lost of laughs for scenes that I don't think were intended to be funny, such as Sean Connery's suave seductions on the honeymoon boat, or the part when he peruses a book entitled (I kid you not) "Sexual Aberrations of the Criminal Female." The flashes of red color did nothing for me, nor did the explanation at the end leave me with a fully satisfied explanation for why exactly Marnie had so cooly stolen so much money. There are surprisingly few scenes that are directed with much technical invention; the one memorable scene is the double shot of the robbery and the cleaning woman. On the other hand, the relentless zoom-in zoom-out of the stacks of money during the second robbery attempt left me queasy and rolling my eyes in exasperation. I think Sean Connery was miscast as the leading male. He tries hard to be Cary Grant, but can't quite pull it off. Tippi Hedren gives it her all, and fares decently considering that she had to direct herself for most of the movie (apparently she and Hitchcock were not on speaking terms at the time), although she was better in "The Birds." Bernard Herrman's score is lush and beautiful, but the script is just downright crummy, in both plot and dialogue. If you want to see a really good Hitchcock movie, there are tons of masterpieces to choose from, but "Marnie" is definitely not one of them. The most avid Hitchcock fan might find it of interest, but for the regular moviegoer it's not worth your time.
The Talented Mr. Ripley
(1999)
Underwhelming
26 December 1999
Warning: Spoilers
***WARNING***(MILD)PLOT SPOILERS*** This film really disappointed me. It had an interesting premise, but the most interesting parts of the plot were never developed. Near the beginning of the movie, Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) tells us that his talent is impersonating people -- taking over their character and identity. He even demonstrates this with a little voice mimicry that is really impressive. Then, we are lead to believe, Tom is going to use this talent to take over Dickie Greenleaf's life and character, but this simply doesn't happen. Sure, he pretends to be Dickie to different people at different times, which leads to a lot of predictable confusion, but never does Tom actually take on Dickie's mannerisms and ticks. In fact, in the latter half of the film, one of Dickie's friends even remarks that a room that Dickie supposedly decorated (but that Tom actually did) reflects absolutely nothing of Dickie's personality. This is such a lost opportunity! As I said above, the plot turns are ultimately predictable, once you catch on to the basic premise of the movie. Man lies, man lies some more to cover up old lies, and is finally driven to murder to keep everything straight. Maybe some of this would have seemed sharper and fresher if the film moved along more briskly, but instead, everything is drawn out so much that things just get boring. The acting is competent, but no one really shines except for Gwyneth Paltrow. I must commend Matt Damon, though, for taking this gutsy role -- it certainly cast him against type, and it was a brave career move for him to take it. The script was not really up to snuff. Movies like this need sharp, subtle dialogue to keep you interested when the plot can't, but some of the dialogue here was painfully obvious and transparent. I think this movie would have done better if it had been made in black and white during the 1950s. If made back then, it would have had to have been more creative in disclosing some of its darker sexual undercurrents, which would have made the movie all the more interesting. The plot of this movie belongs squarely in the '50s, and having it made in the cynical '90s deprives it of a critical sense of genuineness. It's just like watching the '90s remake of "Psycho": even if some of the plot points were there, it just never feels quite right.
Family Matters
(1989–1998)
good show, but faltered toward the end
21 October 1999
This show started off as an innocuous, routine half-hour in ABC's TGIF line-up, but soon stood out because of it's unusual heart and because Steve Urkel was such a runaway hit. He did for "Family Matters" what the Fonz did for "Happy Days." The show was usually entertaining without being too sappy (ala Full House) or serious (ala Boy Meets World). However, towards the end of the series, the writers seemed to get desperate and appealed to ever more ane more bizarre plotlines, usually based on a marvelous invention of Steve's, such as the time Steve invented a transporter machine that took the whole family to Paris. I also seem to remember a time when Steve created evil midget versions of himself and Carl that terrorized the family for a couple of episodes. What was that about?! I didn't see the last season, but from what I've read, I didn't miss much. Watch reruns from earlier seasons only.
All in the Family
(1971–1979)
Very Good, But Outdated
20 October 1999
I'd often heard of "All In the Family" while growing up, but I never saw it until it recently started airing on Nick at Nite. I knew that the show was about an old-fashioned bigot and his liberal children, but I was honestly surprised at just how bigoted Archie Bunker can be! His attitudes and stereotypes towards other races and cultures truly surprised me. It was honestly odd for me the first few times I saw the show to realize just how liberal Gloria and Michael's ideas about equality were. I suppose that that's a testament to how far we have come with race relations today.
In a way, though, I think that maybe younger generations should not watch this show: it may bring to light old stereotypes that have already died, or are dying. Just the other day I was watching the show with my 15 year old younger brother, when Archie made a derogatory remark about Michael's Polish heritage. My brother turned to me confusedly, thinking that he had missed a plot point, and asked why Archie disliked Poles. I was reluctant to tell him about the stereotypes that Archie and other people like him had about Polish people. Telling him this made me worry that he might forever unconsciously carry these stereotypes with him in the back of his mind.
Nevertheless, the show is excellently written and acted, and every episode has many memorable moments. The characters play well off of each other, and I especially enjoy the interaction between Archie and Edith. This is a show that truly belonged to its time.
In a way, though, I think that maybe younger generations should not watch this show: it may bring to light old stereotypes that have already died, or are dying. Just the other day I was watching the show with my 15 year old younger brother, when Archie made a derogatory remark about Michael's Polish heritage. My brother turned to me confusedly, thinking that he had missed a plot point, and asked why Archie disliked Poles. I was reluctant to tell him about the stereotypes that Archie and other people like him had about Polish people. Telling him this made me worry that he might forever unconsciously carry these stereotypes with him in the back of his mind.
Nevertheless, the show is excellently written and acted, and every episode has many memorable moments. The characters play well off of each other, and I especially enjoy the interaction between Archie and Edith. This is a show that truly belonged to its time.
American Beauty
(1999)
A Different View
9 October 1999
Warning: Spoilers
I was not immediately swept up and absorbed by this film as so many other people apparently were; I think that that is due in part to the fact that (1) I have not spent most of my life in the suburbs and (2) I have never had a corporate job like the ones Kevin Spacey or Annette Benning have in this film. That said, I couldn't quite relate to the isolation and anger that their characters felt. And frankly, it scares me to think that so many people could relate to these characters' lives... It's a sad commentary on the state of American culture.
That said, I still thought the film was very good. The writing was sharp, the acting was impeccable (especially by Spacey and Benning), and the direction was focused. There are many memorable scenes (ie. Spacey's fantasies, Ricky's video-taping, etc.). Still, the movie had its problems (**WARNING** **WARNING**: **PLOT SPOILERS**): First or all, the whole series of misunderstandings that led Col. Fitts to believe his son was gay was just too improbable. Those types of misunderstandings, (especially what the Col thinks he sees when he's looking from the window) belong in silly romantic-comedies. Also, I could see the Col's little secret coming from a mile away. I mean, when a character in a movie like this is so defined by his opinions on one subject, you know he has to be hiding something. Furthermore, I wasn't convinced that Carolyn (Benning) would have really had the guts to shoot Lester (Spacey). She would have gotten blood all over her $4,000 sofa if she'd done that. :) More likely, I think she would have just continued with her affair and ignored Lester and his mid-life crisis.
Okay, maybe I'm just trying to find fault with the movie just to go against the hype and bring the movie back down to earth. It's still a great movie, and deserves to be seen. I'm anxious to see how it stacks up on Oscar night. My prediction is that this one will go all the way, unless it's died down too much by the time March rolls around. Oh -- after the movie, it struck me that this would be the kind of movie that Billy Wilder would have made if he were still directing today. After all, it did borrow the technique of having a dead man narrate the story from Wilder's "Sunset Boulevard." This movie's tone and attitude reminded me of a '90s version of "The Apartment." Not in plot, or anything like that, but just in style. Does anyone have any opinions on that? I'd be curious to hear what others have to say on that subject.
That said, I still thought the film was very good. The writing was sharp, the acting was impeccable (especially by Spacey and Benning), and the direction was focused. There are many memorable scenes (ie. Spacey's fantasies, Ricky's video-taping, etc.). Still, the movie had its problems (**WARNING** **WARNING**: **PLOT SPOILERS**): First or all, the whole series of misunderstandings that led Col. Fitts to believe his son was gay was just too improbable. Those types of misunderstandings, (especially what the Col thinks he sees when he's looking from the window) belong in silly romantic-comedies. Also, I could see the Col's little secret coming from a mile away. I mean, when a character in a movie like this is so defined by his opinions on one subject, you know he has to be hiding something. Furthermore, I wasn't convinced that Carolyn (Benning) would have really had the guts to shoot Lester (Spacey). She would have gotten blood all over her $4,000 sofa if she'd done that. :) More likely, I think she would have just continued with her affair and ignored Lester and his mid-life crisis.
Okay, maybe I'm just trying to find fault with the movie just to go against the hype and bring the movie back down to earth. It's still a great movie, and deserves to be seen. I'm anxious to see how it stacks up on Oscar night. My prediction is that this one will go all the way, unless it's died down too much by the time March rolls around. Oh -- after the movie, it struck me that this would be the kind of movie that Billy Wilder would have made if he were still directing today. After all, it did borrow the technique of having a dead man narrate the story from Wilder's "Sunset Boulevard." This movie's tone and attitude reminded me of a '90s version of "The Apartment." Not in plot, or anything like that, but just in style. Does anyone have any opinions on that? I'd be curious to hear what others have to say on that subject.
Shakespeare in Love
(1998)
Very Disappointing
9 October 1999
My first thought when I heard the plot of this movie was one word: hokey. I mean, a woman dresses up as a man to be onstage and inspire Shakespeare, etc. Come on -- we've had movie characters cross-dressing to get a job from "Tootsie" to "Victor/Victoria" to "Mrs. Doubtfire." I couldn't understand how a plot like that could generate such hype. But a friend of mine assured me that it was great, so I saw it anyway. Unfortunately, my opinion of the film did not change much after I saw it.
Nothing about the plot was original. I kept waiting for a fantastic, new plot twist that would make me sit up and say "wow." It just didn't happen though. I mean, who could not watch this movie and just *know* that there would be a crisis right before the play that would threaten that (gasp!) the play might not go on? Come on. This movie wasn't all bad though. The costumes and the settings were great and very colorful, and the directing was strong. Also, the film did have some nice inside-jokes about literary characters, etc, such as the real reason why Chris Marlowe was killed, and some funny parodies of the Hollywood lifestyle, etc. But inside jokes do not a great movie make.
Now, I don't want to sound like this is a bad movie. In fact, it was a rather enjoyable way to spend two hours or so. But it simply didn't live up to the hype. My thoughts on why it won the Oscar: maybe the voters heard the English accents and fell into the usual American trap of assuming that anything with an English accent is automatically brilliant, intelligent and witty. Or, they could have heard that Tom Stoppard wrote the script and done the same thing based on his reputation as being one of the premier playwrites of our day. Perhaps Hollywood just loved the jokes on itself that were in the film and couldn't resist giving it all those Oscars. Whatever was the reason, I think it's a shame that this film took many Oscars that other films deserve. I would like to see how this movie stands up twenty years or so down the road. Which movie will ultimately be more memorable -- this pleasant, slightly above run-of-the-mill comedy, or great movies like "Saving Private Ryan," "La Vita E Bella," or "A Thin Red Line"? I think time will tell.
Nothing about the plot was original. I kept waiting for a fantastic, new plot twist that would make me sit up and say "wow." It just didn't happen though. I mean, who could not watch this movie and just *know* that there would be a crisis right before the play that would threaten that (gasp!) the play might not go on? Come on. This movie wasn't all bad though. The costumes and the settings were great and very colorful, and the directing was strong. Also, the film did have some nice inside-jokes about literary characters, etc, such as the real reason why Chris Marlowe was killed, and some funny parodies of the Hollywood lifestyle, etc. But inside jokes do not a great movie make.
Now, I don't want to sound like this is a bad movie. In fact, it was a rather enjoyable way to spend two hours or so. But it simply didn't live up to the hype. My thoughts on why it won the Oscar: maybe the voters heard the English accents and fell into the usual American trap of assuming that anything with an English accent is automatically brilliant, intelligent and witty. Or, they could have heard that Tom Stoppard wrote the script and done the same thing based on his reputation as being one of the premier playwrites of our day. Perhaps Hollywood just loved the jokes on itself that were in the film and couldn't resist giving it all those Oscars. Whatever was the reason, I think it's a shame that this film took many Oscars that other films deserve. I would like to see how this movie stands up twenty years or so down the road. Which movie will ultimately be more memorable -- this pleasant, slightly above run-of-the-mill comedy, or great movies like "Saving Private Ryan," "La Vita E Bella," or "A Thin Red Line"? I think time will tell.
Good Premise, but Doesn't Quite Deliver
28 September 1999
This movie began strongly and sharply, with a quickly moving plot that grabs you from the start. The filmmakers waste no time in thrusting you into the middle of the action. However, by the time finally ended, I felt that all of this was really much ado about nothing. The ending was very anti-climatic, when it should have been the culmination of an hour and a half of suspense. Instead, we actually kind of have three separate threads that are tied up separately, and that kind of diffuses the bomb somewhat. Perhaps I expected too much though; I rented this film because Entertainment Weekly had said that it had one of the best ending plot twists out of all of the movies in the seventies. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I never found out what that plot twist was. There was no single, shocking moment when everything that I thought I knew about the movie turned upside down, as there was in movies like "The Usual Suspects" or "The Sixth Sense." As for the acting: the real gems in this movie are in the supporting players, especially the hostages on the train and the various cops involved. They exhibit strong New York personalities which are fascinating to watch. Walter Matthau also does a fine job, but... Walter Matthau as the hero in an action film?! Maybe I've seen "The Odd Couple" and "Grumpy Old Men" one too many times, but to me he seems to be the last person to star in an action film. I would have given the part to Clint Eastwood. Plus the sight of George Costanza's father (from "Seinfeld") as a tough-talking, Italian cop threw me for a loop. In any event, if you see this movie, you won't be any worse for the wear, and if you don't see it, well, you haven't missed much. I give it a 5.
The Tonight Show with Jay Leno
(1992–2014)
Unoriginal and Repetitive
22 September 1999
I simply can't understand why this show is the highest rated of the late-night shows. The jokes are often sophomoric at best. Also, I really don't understand why Jay has a reputation as being such a nice friendly, guy. To me, he often seems mean-spirited and overly sarcastic during his celebrity interviews and especially when he talks to people in the audience or on the street. I say skip this show, and just wait for Conan to come on after him -- his show is usually much more inventive.
The Cosby Show
(1984–1992)
Excellent!
17 September 1999
This is one of those rare TV sit-coms that are almost absolutely believable. The chemistry and familiarity between the characters is so great that you can really believe that you are seeing a true family on TV. Highly recommended.
Jackie's Back!
(1999 TV Movie)
Lot's of Fun!
12 September 1999
This was a great, entertaining movie. The setup was good and the acting was especially enjoyable. Overall, fun entertainment, and I hope they show it again on TV. The movie started out strong and continued to be so until the end, when things suddenly turned a little too emotional. The writer's should have followed the "Seinfeld Rule" -- no hugging, no crying, no learning.
Halloween
(1978)
Nicely Filmed, but Ultimately Disappointing
10 September 1999
Before I even saw this movie I had practically made up my mind that it was going to be one of my favorite movies of all time. I love well-constructed stories, especially ones that keep you on the edge of your seat, tensely wondering what's going to happen next. After reading so many glowing reviews on this comment board, I knew Halloween would be the movie to end all movies.
I was wrong. Maybe I built the movie up in my mind that no film could meet, but whatever the reason, this movie disappointed me. Although it is nicely filmed with interesting camera angles, light and shadows, and good direction, it just isn't at all scary. Yes, yes -- I know that we should look at it in the context of the time it was made in, etc., but it still didn't work. The single most damaging thing to this movie's scare factor is the speed that Michael Myers walks. He practically inches forward in every scene! All he does is stiffly step forward with his knife held high. If he were really that intent on killing, I think he would have a little more urgency in his step. To see what I mean, watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
At least Leatherface knows how to run, and it makes all the difference! To see Michael walk so slowly makes it just look like a cheap excuse to give the heroine a chance to get away and make the movie last a little longer. Also, the touch of the supernatural at the end makes things even worse. It's much scarier to believe that Michael is a normal human being who has gone terribly wrong than to think that he has some type of magic powers. In any event, watch it and decide for yourself. It might not have worked for me, but apparently it worked for a lot of people here, so give it a try.
I was wrong. Maybe I built the movie up in my mind that no film could meet, but whatever the reason, this movie disappointed me. Although it is nicely filmed with interesting camera angles, light and shadows, and good direction, it just isn't at all scary. Yes, yes -- I know that we should look at it in the context of the time it was made in, etc., but it still didn't work. The single most damaging thing to this movie's scare factor is the speed that Michael Myers walks. He practically inches forward in every scene! All he does is stiffly step forward with his knife held high. If he were really that intent on killing, I think he would have a little more urgency in his step. To see what I mean, watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
At least Leatherface knows how to run, and it makes all the difference! To see Michael walk so slowly makes it just look like a cheap excuse to give the heroine a chance to get away and make the movie last a little longer. Also, the touch of the supernatural at the end makes things even worse. It's much scarier to believe that Michael is a normal human being who has gone terribly wrong than to think that he has some type of magic powers. In any event, watch it and decide for yourself. It might not have worked for me, but apparently it worked for a lot of people here, so give it a try.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
(1974)
Good Enough
10 September 1999
I just finished watching this movie, and overall it was good. I was a little wary before watching it because two other big name horror films from this period (Halloween and The Last House on the Left) had really disappointed me. This one actually surprised me in the amount of gore it showed considering the time period it was made in. There are some truly disturbing scenes, especially when the hitchhiker is picked up. The acting is not always stellar, and Franklin especially got on my nerves with his terrible delivery of lines. Also, the film was obviously made on a low budget, and some of the special effects aren't too exciting, but still, for some reason it worked for me. The movie was almost ruined though when "grandpa" entered the scene.
American History X
(1998)
Good but too Short
1 July 1999
This was one of those films that needs to be about an hour longer -- both because it is so good and because it skims the surface of so many of its' plot points. For example, the prison scenes needed to be longer and more in depth. One whole year of Derek's sentence is covered in just a few minutes! Nonetheless, this movie had a powerful and moving message that will not soon be forgotten.
Other than that, though, this was a very good and disturbing movie. It was nicely shot, with good use of color, camera angle, close-ups, etc. All of the actors do a good job as well, especially the two leading roles. I recommend it highly, although if the director ever comes out with an expanded version, it would improve the film immeasurably.
One other thing -- I have to say that I think the movie unfairly (and maybe unconsciously?) labels anyone who is against affirmative action and immigration control as a right-wing racist or even a skinhead. Watch the two dinner scenes to see what I'm talking about. Remember, you can be a fair, honest, unbiased person and still be against affirmative action.
Other than that, though, this was a very good and disturbing movie. It was nicely shot, with good use of color, camera angle, close-ups, etc. All of the actors do a good job as well, especially the two leading roles. I recommend it highly, although if the director ever comes out with an expanded version, it would improve the film immeasurably.
One other thing -- I have to say that I think the movie unfairly (and maybe unconsciously?) labels anyone who is against affirmative action and immigration control as a right-wing racist or even a skinhead. Watch the two dinner scenes to see what I'm talking about. Remember, you can be a fair, honest, unbiased person and still be against affirmative action.
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg
(1964)
Only the French Could Have Made a Movie Like This!
15 May 1999
What a beautiful and sad movie this was! The score, as everyone before me has no doubt already noted, haunting and beautiful, and I loved the fact that every word of the script was sung. It's amazing how much music can add to the feeling of a movie. If the characters were to simply speak the simple lyrics (at least as they were translated into subtitles), it would have seemed banal and trivial. But the way they are presented here -- c'est magnifique!
The Mummy
(1999)
Not Worth Your Effort
13 May 1999
Overall, I was disappointed with this movie. I know it's supposed to be mindless fun, but geez -- some parts were just stupid, even if you checked your brain at the door! For example, after Rick and Evelyn are confronted for the first time by the giant, horrible mummy, Rick shoots at him a couple of times, and then runs out of the building. Outside, when they are asked by others about the mummy inside, Rick just matter-of-factly goes, "Oh, I took care of him." What?? Come on! You'd think they'd at least run out panting or scared or something. Another example: the whole group of characters spends a good portion of the beginning of the film on their way to Hamanaptra, an adventure in itself, as they lose all of their possessions, etc. Finally, they get there, and you think that most of the movie is going to take place in this ancient scary place, far from civilization. But after the scene I first described, the next scene shows them suddenly in a nice hotel in Cairo! There's no explanation of how they got out of Hamanaptra, away from the mummy and the bugs, etc. These inconsistencies happen throughout the film.
Also, the characters made too many wisecracks for my taste. If you're going to put characters into implausible situations such as this, at *least* have them believe in what they're doing! The wisecracks remind us of the weakness of the plot and prevent us from really getting into the movie.
Overall, I would give this movie a 4 out of 10, if only for some exciting moments and good special effects. But don't be fooled -- this is in no way the "Raiders of the Lost Arc" of the 90's.
Also, the characters made too many wisecracks for my taste. If you're going to put characters into implausible situations such as this, at *least* have them believe in what they're doing! The wisecracks remind us of the weakness of the plot and prevent us from really getting into the movie.
Overall, I would give this movie a 4 out of 10, if only for some exciting moments and good special effects. But don't be fooled -- this is in no way the "Raiders of the Lost Arc" of the 90's.
Grosse Pointe Blank
(1997)
Slightly Above Average
8 February 1999
Overall I would say that I enjoyed this movie, but I do not think it is nearly worth all of the rave reviews it has been receiving. Basically, it's a one joke movie -- I mean, how many times can you get a laugh out of a hitman going home for a high school reunion. "So what do you do now?" "I'm a hitman." Ha ha. Funny.
Luckily though, it does have a couple of good subplots and witty moments to keep it propelled through its ending. If you have a free night and a borrowed copy sitting around, watch it. If not, you're not missing out on too much.
Luckily though, it does have a couple of good subplots and witty moments to keep it propelled through its ending. If you have a free night and a borrowed copy sitting around, watch it. If not, you're not missing out on too much.
The Black Cauldron
(1985)
Very Entertaining for Kids and Adults Alike
8 January 1999
I saw "The Black Cauldron" when it first came out. I was about six at the time, and ever since then, I had always wondered why I had never heard about it again. I only had vague memories about it, but I remembered enjoying it. I had heard somewhere that Disney was so ashamed of the film that they had promised never to release it. However, upon viewing it today, I have no idea what they were so ashamed of. The movie is very entertaining in its own way; yes, it's very dark, and maybe not appropriate for young children, but I enjoyed it. There is some excellent bits of animation in it, and it's a pleasure to see some vintage Disney before it started churning out the overblown, empty films it has made recently. The movie is able to keep a quick pace so that you never get bored. All in all, I would say that it is not one of Disney's best efforts, but it is certainly nothing to keep hidden away for 10+ years.
The Golden Girls
(1985–1992)
A Fun Show For All
8 January 1999
"The Golden Girls" is a very enjoyable show. Although sometimes the characters are a little locked into playing character-types instead of characters (i.e. Rose=kindhearted dope, Blanche=southern flirt), I still get a kick out of it.
Halloween II
(1981)
Decent sequel if you suspend your disbelief -- a LOT
8 January 1999
The problem I have with this movie and so many others like it is that it is so incredibly unbelievable. The idea that someone who walks as slowly as Michael Myers does could accomplish so much without anyone seeing him is incredible. Think about it...he had to break into the school and leave some telling little clues, then he had to WALK all the way to the hospital, where he is able to creatively kill numerous doctors and nurses, and still find time to go outside and slash all of the car tires. Does this make sense? Of course not. The movie also seemed slow and anti-climatic to me...maybe for its day it was considered fast and cutting edge, but it just can't hold up today. If you're a fan of the genre, I suppose you'll find it entertaining, but if not, well...Don't say I didn't warn you.
Thoroughly Modern Millie
(1967)
Terrif!
8 January 1999
This movie is lots of fun. The songs are great and bouncy (particularly the title song) and the plot goes from one "madcap" caper to another with such joy that you can't keep from smiling. So what if it's a little implausible -- it's fun!! Enjoy it!!
The Dick Van Dyke Show
(1961–1966)
Great Show
8 January 1999
"The Dick Van Dyke Show" is definitely one of my favorite shows. Every episode is well written and acted, and is genuinely fun to watch. All of the characters are well defined. An interesting window into the suburban world of the 1960s.
Tell Your Friends