Reviews

Unfortunately, unlike many other conspiracy films, this one isn't even interesting. We eat and drink far more natural sources of methanol and our bodies create and dispose of formaldehyde in much larger doses than Aspartame creates. The film is just a series of a few anecdotes and specialists working outside their fields. Much the same as the ID crowd works.

The movie creator at the very beginning of the film establishes a cause for her own MS and spends the film trying to prove her suspicion is correct. It's sad she has MS, but the film just seems like she is looking for somebody to blame.

If your tired of the assault on science, avoid this film.

This film begs the question, "Why bother?" Every aspect of this film has been done better in at least one movie. The love story cannot compare to "From Here to Eternity." The events at Pearl Harbor are surpassed by "Tora, Tora, Tora." The Doolittle raid was covered more enjoyably in "60 Seconds Over Tokyo." This film is a pale version of all those great movies. Was this movie great as some reviewers contend? Not when compared to those and "The Battle of Midway", "The Flying Leathernecks", or even "South Pacific". The CGI was impressive at some times and unwatchable at others. When crew members fell off the bombed out ships, they flew in parabolic arcs. Now I don't expect animators to be physics majors, but I would like them to have seen something fall. The "Top Gun" gimmickry was hard to take as well. Oh, look at the bad boys. Make sure you remember what they get chewed out for, because it's the secret weapon later on.

Moving on to the events of the day. Yes, we were caught by surprise, though new evidence presents intriguing new questions to the debate. Yes, the bases were devastated. Yes, there were signs that any Monday morning quarterback could spot. But, as the attack happened, training took over. "Pearl Harbor" depicts most of those caught in the event to be wholly inept cowards. I've since gone back and reviewed some real footage of the event, and watched brave men strip machine guns from crippled planes while under fire, stepping in to take the place of those who are shot. Damage control teams fighting fires as enemy planes strafe. This movie is a disservice to all their memories.

"If you want historical accuracy, go to the library" is what I believe one reviewer wrote. I have two very important questions for that reviewer, and all who believe that. Was Pearl Harbor such a boring event that lies need to be told in order to be entertaining? Did the brave men and women who chose to defend our country at a time when most turned their backs on the events in Europe and Asia need to be portrayed so poorly, and on the day that is reserved to commemorate them? Idiotic scenes of Americana saturate the beginning of the attack; a group of boys playing baseball, a woman hanging clothes on the line. IT WAS 7:00 IN THE MORNING! Does anyone who watched the movie know why Cuba Gooding Jr's character got a medal? I'll give you a hint. It was not for boxing.

There are many wonderful stories yet to be told about Pearl Harbor, and CGI can bring that event to us more vividly than ever before, so save your praises for this horse. It's dead.

This is among the best movies I've ever seen. Is it accurate? Does it tell the whole story? Isn't it giving a slanted perspective on Basquiat's life? Who cares? Watch Biography on A&E or something for an historical account of his life if that's what you're looking for.

This movie is a beautifully filmed tribute to an artist by an artist. There is a scene in the film where we watch old 8mm clips of Basquiat's friend Andy Warhol. I get the feeling Julian Schnabel wished there was a big collection of 8mm home movies with which to make a tribute out of, but lacking that did the next best thing and made a movie. I felt like the whole movie was a film version of friends getting together and saying "remember that time he...." The film does tend to jump around a bit, and not everything is explained fully. Think back on someone close to you who died. Think of how you remember that person. Not as a complete biography, but a collection of memories. Times that make you laugh, times that make you cry, times you wish others had experienced so they can know fully what the loss means to you. This movie captures that feeling and draws you into this close group of friends. It lets you share those times from the inside. Each person is represented by at least one clip. Each person has at least one memory to share. Basquait drifts around the film in a dreamy disconnected way. These scenes are only memories. The character does not grow or change because we remember our friends the way they were when they died. We freeze them and wrap them in a protective blanket that repels all fault we may have placed on them in life. I have never watched a film that captures these feelings so well. This film made me feel like I was invited to Basquiat's wake and allowed to share in the memories.

To be honest, my wife dragged me to this film. I think she was expecting more of a Thelma and Louise meets cocktail type film with strong female roles running a bar and not taking crap from anyone. Yeah, they all danced around in skimpy outfits to 20 year old music, but there are sexy and strong willed people in the world. What bothered me about the movie is that it was a long disjointed collection of cliches that we've seen before and done better. Girl goes to New York to be a songwriter (in case you saw the preview rather than hearing about it from friends this is actually what the movie is about). Guess what, no one will buy her songs. Big surprise there. No one will even be nice to her! What a shock! She lives in what looks like the projects, has no job, has a stock dead mother family past. I keep thinking I've given too much away, but this is all the first five minutes of the film. Nothing else develops other than the generic boyfriend with a stock sitcom relationship. Oh yeah, the bar? It could be left out. It has nothing to do with the plot. She doesn't even grow as a person there. All those tough, take no prisoners women who work there? Wimps! They couldn't get together and make one stable person. And they are messed up in a seven dwarfs kind of a way. Oh let's see there's Slutty, and Bitchy, and Bossy. Each one is screwed up in her own endearing way. There is no explanation of why they are like this, and their tag name is the end all and be all of their personality. The characters all march through the plot like dutiful actors hitting the mark because that's where the director told them to go. No matter that it's out of character (Oh but they have none), or that it contradicts what they said 5 minutes ago. The lead character is from 20 miles South in New Jersey. She acts like she's from Nebraska or Iowa or something. Big doe eyed sucker from some farm, or fall out shelter. Doesn't the local library have internet access? There really is no excuse for being that naive in life.

Now there were things I did like. The house she moves from looks like a working man's house in New Jersey. The apartment looks like one I rented in Boston. The bar looked like a New York bar. If we could get rid of the actors, and plot we'd have the beginnings of a pretty good Andy Warhol movie. Call it "Apple".

I often hear, or read, reviews that say something to the effect, "It was nothing like the book," or "They followed the book exactly." To those reviews I say "Who cares?" The Lathe of Heaven is an excelent example of how following the book exactly does not mean that the movie is excellent. I think the novel is one of the best Sci-Fi books ever written. I like it far better than "Snowcrash," or "Neuromancer." This movie is poorly acted, has special effects that are laughable, was edited by a heavy handed oaf without an artistic bone in his body, and has a soundtrack so bad that the "Flash Gordon" sound track looks good in comparison. On the other hand, the script was an excelent and faithful adaptation of the novel, and when it comes out on DVD I will buy it.

As long as we are all dreaming effectively, can we dream that someone will take that excellent script and give it to some real actors and movie makers. I don't need, or even want, a heavy handed Hollywood Sci-Fi adaptation of it. I would like it to be made with the production quality that this incredible novel deserves. Is Alex Proyas available?

This is a fun, cheesey, campy homage to all the bmovie horror and sci-fi films ever made. It also has some of the best oneliners ever put in a movie. I haven't seen the movie in years, but I still remember many of the lines. It seems like many of the negative reviews focus on it being a bad sci-fi movie. It is and it knows it! That's the whole point. This isn't Plan 9 From Outerspace where Ed Wood thought he was making a great movie. This is a tongue in cheek spoof on all those movies. The reason as one review stated it's cliche after cliche is because it is making fun of those themes that are common to this genre of movie. If it wasn't a cliche then there would be nothing to get. If you liked Earth Girls are Easy or Little Shop of Horrors (either version) then you should give this a shot.

I liked this movie for the acting, the cinematography, the dialog, and the editing. Unfortunately the plot had either serious holes in it, or it just wasn't very good. I have a hard time deciding which with this movie.

The plot involves a very compelling and interesting cover-up in the Vatican that provides a fascinating backdrop for what could be an equally interesting "What if ancient miracles manifested themselves in modern America." The problem, it seems, is tying the two together. The explanations for the events given where either weak, or confusing. Why was an atheist afflicted with stigmata? What was the Vatican so desperate to cover up? Why was such a high level priest driven to such unchristian behavior? These questions are answered, but rather unconvincingly. I hope the plots introduced here are re-examined by a new film team, and given the deep examination they deserve. I would even like to see the same cast.

My wife and I saw this movie recently, and I am still creeped out by it. To put this in perspective, we watch movies like Henry Portrait of a serial killer, and Thief, Cook, Wife and Her Lover all the time. None of those movies had the same impact on me as this one. I don't know if it is knowing this was a true story, or the intensity of the killers acting, but this movie draws you into the story and makes you watch as a helpless bystander.

I think the best thing the movie does is show how homicidal maniacs have Jeckle/Hide personalities. The movie never paints the killer with the same broad strokes it unfortunately paints the rest of the cast. There are scenes where I found myself feeling sorry for him, times where he looked like people I know, and times where I could almost like him. The police aren't painted as the heros in the white hats either. Most of them are less likeable than the killer. The whole movie has the feeling like your quiet uncle Joey just murdered your whole family right in front of you.

We did watch the un-cut not rated version, so I don't know what the theatrical release is like.

Star Wars was not put on the AFI's top 100 list because it looked good, had cool special effects, or exciting action sequences. It is there because it is a great film. The Phantom Menace is a typical 90's action/adventure heavy on Special Effects and light on substance. Obi Wan was in Star Wars less than half the movie, but I know more about him than I do about any character in Phantom Menace. Han Solo is a character everyone wants to be, or at least meet. Luke is a gape jawed simple farm boy who is thrust into the big bad world unprepared. Leia is the leader of a movement she knows is more important than herself, or indeed any one person.

The Phantom Menace has all the drama and intrigue of C-SPAN. "The motion before the floor is, should we care about a war over trade on a planet no one cares about? The yeas are 192, the neas are 387, the measure does not pass....Next item of business..." (Yawn!)

There was no character development, no internal conflicts, no hard decisions to make. In short it was a mindless romp through a story we all know the end to, full of pretty pictures and flashy sword fights. Check your brain at the door. We have special effects now, who needs a good story.

To me the mark of a well done intelligent movie is the discussion it provokes after the closing credits. This movie is brilliant! No two people agree on exactly what this movie is saying or even how to interpret the conclusion. Who is really insane? Who is faking? Who believes they are faking, but are insane? Who is sane at all? The questions extend to the audience itself. Each person and each viewing provides new perspectives into the movie and each viewers life experiences alter the perception just enough to provide different meanings for different people. There are so many nooks and crannies we only get a glimpse of that this movie can be viewed over and over each time offering a new and fresh perspective. If you can find this movie rent it, invite several friends over, and enjoy the discussion after.

After reading through other reviews of Entrapment I can't help but feel I saw the wrong movie. The version I saw was a never ending string of cliches embedded into a plot so flimsy it couldn't stand up if it were not for Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The direction of Jon Amiel was a never ending series of well worn manipulation techniques that were not even well done. I don't mind being a passive observer, but I do not like to be blatantly manipulated.

Several times during the movie I found it difficult not to laugh out load at the ludicrousness of what I was seeing. For example, in the well advertised scene of Catherine Zeta-Jones wriggling her way through the fake laser beams I couldn't stop thinking "Why doesn't she just crawl" or "What was the point of that move?" It's indicative of the whole movie. It's a scene played for the audience, and we aren't supposed to be there. In another scene between Sean Connery and Ving Rhames, Rhames scolds Connery for changing partners etc. Who is this scene for? We discover later in yet one more feeble plot twist that these two know this conversation is a sham, but rather than playing it out to further some clever hidden agenda it is solely to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience. And as I've stated before, the audience is not supposed to be there.

There are so many good caper movies ranging from The Great Train Robbery to Ronin to The Great Escape. It is truly a disservice to the research that went into making those movies to add this fairy tale to the same genre. There are movies like Spanish Prisoner and even Wild Things that do a far better job at consistent plot twists and intrigue. Even the bank job concept was better done in Superman III. In short this movie was a waste of time and money.

There are movies like "Plan 9" that are so bad they have a charm about them, there are some like "Waterworld" that have the same inexplicable draw as a car accident, and there are some like "Desperate living" that you hate to admit you love. Cowgirls have none of these redemptions. The cast assembled has enough talent to make almost any plot watchable, and from what I've been told, the book is enjoyable.

How then could this movie be so intolerably bad? To begin with, it seems the director brought together a cast of names with no other tie than what will bring in the 20 somethings. Then tell them to do their best Kevin Costner imitations. Open the book at random and start shooting whatever is on the page making sure to keep the wide expanses of America from being interesting in any way. Finally give the editing job to your brother-in-law, because the meat packing plant just laid him off. He does have twenty years of cutting experience.

This movie now defines the basement for me. It is so bad, it isn't even good for being bad.