Reviews

This movie is painfully bad. What is truly sad about this, besides the fact that I wasted two full-priced movie tickets on it, is that both leads are charming and likable. Unfortunately, the script here is about as terrible as one can be.

Seriously. The FIRST SCENE features dialog that makes you squirm in pain. It is simply awkward, unnatural, and unfunny. It makes you think, "Should I get out and ask for refund?" The answer is yes. There a few decent moments during the 75 minutes that this movie actually runs, but it is difficult to appreciate them because there are so very many BAD moments. (75 minutes? Yes. Imagine what was left on the cutting room floor.) And not just bad moments, moments that fall flat on their face which are made worse because you know that they (the writers, director, producers) thought these were going to be great laughs. Of course, I could be wrong and the professionals mentioned above simply didn't care. They were getting a paycheck whether this movie was awful or not.

I would have given this movie 1 star, but I gave it two because both Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel impressed me. It makes me sad to think that it is possible these young, promising actors are going to have this terrible movie on their resumes. It would be even worse if some studio doofus who didn't see this movie ends up saying, "That Kristen Bell, she can't carry a movie. 'When In Rome' proved that." Such a shame to waste talent like that.

Wait to see this wreck on cable, and when you see it on cable I bet you don't make it through the whole 1:15.

There is much to admire in this film.

The acting is superb. In fact it is Oscar worthy, whether from Clive Owen or either of the young actors playing his sons. (I fear the 6 year old will get all the praise, but the 14 year old's performance was simply brilliant and more difficult.)

The story is honest, fresh, and touching. This isn't a, "What happens if..." movie. This is not just a true life story, it is a true to life story. You can see that Scott Hicks had one goal, honesty. He succeeds at every level and this is perhaps the most honest film you will ever see.

So why did I debate giving this film a 6 or 7 and not an 8 or 9 or 10? Because in this quest for truthfulness, it often fails to satisfy. It is, in many ways, a movie that only asks questions and provides no answers. They did their best to reach inside this story and create a beginning, middle, and end, but the truth is that at the end you are left without any of your needs met. I absolutely did not want Hollywood elements tossed in, but the story is simply incomplete. It is real. And real stories are incomplete. I suppose I want to praise this movie for being brave enough to not satisfy while warning friends, "Look, this is a very good film, but it's focus is honesty even if that means ignoring your needs as an audience."

Perhaps over time I will come to see this as brilliant. The characters are often not getting their needs met, and neither does the audience. But how do you recommend someone pay $10 to not have their emotional needs met? At the screening I attended, there was a Q&A with Scott Hicks and Clive Owen. Many people joked about a sequel with their questions, because clearly there could never be a sequel. Even Clive joked about sequel titles. You know what? I believe all the sarcasm about a potential sequel came from the truth that this story is unfinished.

So...

If you feel like seeing honesty and emotional truth, if you want a break from Hollywood BS, if you want to see a slice of real life without any pretense or falsehood, rush to this movie. And I do hope you enjoy it more than I did because of these warnings.

There are more than enough reviews of this movie that tell you in wonderful ways how absolutely perfect the awfulness of "The Room" is. What I found terribly interesting when I was brought to a Los Angeles midnight screening of this movie, besides the fact that this damn thing was on five screens at once, is that this movie provides the moviegoer with the rare opportunity to absolutely mock terrible cinema.

I see several movies per year, often from the major studios, that I long to shout at in disgust. "The Room" is terrible to the point that the audience has agreed to do just that. It is liberating and hilarious and downright therapeutic to shout, when a character who has never been established suddenly appears on screen, "Who are you?"

Wiseau shows up at these Los Angeles screenings and revels in what he seems to think is adoration, almost psychotically not in on the joke.

You do not go to "The Room" to see a movie. You go to get even with that screen that promises entertainment and often disappoints. Finally, you get to mock mediocrity. It's enjoyable and liberating. How lucky is Wiseau that he gets rewarded for being awful? At least he is a good sport about taking the abuse.

I've never found it difficult to watch a sitcom though the opening scene before. But this show changed that. My wife and I suffered through a few more scenes before giving up on it, I cannot claim to have watched the whole show.

The shame here is that we are the perfect audience for this show. In our real lives, we do nothing but joke about how parenthood is hardly a picnic. We love humor where children are told Santa is fake. But this show is humorless. Absolutely humorless.

One only wonders if it will be canceled after two episodes, or three or maybe four. And, really, it is just sad that anybody who makes a living in television chose to put this on the air. It makes you feel bad for the actors involved. Shame on their agents and managers for not keeping them away from this trash.

I found this movie to be surprisingly enjoyable. Two caveats to that. (1) You should see this movie with a group of people. (2) Don't ask for more from this movie than you would the average, well, intentionally not that smart comedy.

Anna Faris is basically adorable in this movie. Hilarious, too. And the cast of young actors features a lot of young women on their way up. Can't say much for the men in this movie, as Hugh Hefner as himself is the only male that isn't awkward and out of place. I hate to say this, but again I finished a movie and felt badly for Colin Hanks. Poor guy just doesn't belong on screen.

The story is your generic Animal House/Revenge of the Nerds remake. A few plot holes, a few inconsistencies, but as I pointed these out I was reminded by the people I was watching with that the point of this film was not to be brilliant. It was to be entertaining, and "The House Bunny" entertained us all tonight far more than we expected.

Superjail! reminds me of the brilliant animation that one found 20 years ago in those animation festivals that toured college campuses. Sure, it is twisted and sick, but it is so unpretentious and loyal to its own universe that it is simply genius.

From the massive body counts to the animation that makes 'Yellow Submarine' look drug-free, Superjail! is a gift from above.

I cannot believe how lucky we are that this network, whose bread and butter is cartoons for children, turns around and embraces the cutting edge while little ones sleep. I wish that I could do more than just write this to show the network my support.

"Towelhead" is an incredibly honest and sincere movie. It tells its story without pretense, without agenda, and without b.s.

Looking at the IMDb reviews and ratings, it appears that not everyone enjoys this movie. If you are made uncomfortable by the honest portrayal of adolescent sexuality, racism, sexism, bad parenting, sexual assault, and sexual predation, then you will not enjoy this movie.

If you are like myself and my wife, and you feel that dealing with the life of a young woman torn between cultures and divorced parents, objectified by a society that also rejects her, and as confused and eager and scared of her own sexuality as every young teen has ever been, then you feel this is one of the best films of the year.

But not everyone is going to be comfortable with honesty. I found it to be a wonderful breath of fresh air. Others will be made uncomfortable and will then make up reasons to dislike it. I even read a review by someone who somehow thought that the villain of the story, the clear, obvious villain, was the hero.

First of all, I recommend that people see this movie. I am a straight, married man, and I would recommend it to anyone. I am extremely happy that this movie was made. I was a child when these events took place, and I was fairly ignorant about Harvey Milk, knowing of his activism but not much about it.

Harvey Milk was simply an amazing human being, and his story is moving, dramatic, important and inspiring. Yet there was something about this movie, be it the pacing or something else, that made it less than the sum of its parts. And the parts were all great.

I have to say that the performances are fantastic. Everyone will likely scream for Sean Penn to get an Oscar nomination, but I think that James Franco gave a performance that was equally fantastic. I hope that he gets the recognition that he deserves. In fact, he grounded the film and gave the story a balance, a home. And all of the supporting characters are engaging and well performed.

And the sets, costumes and production design, capturing the 70's with engaging perfection, added a true sense of place to the movie.

So I was left asking, as I walked onto the street, "How do you take a great man, a great story, great performances, and great production design, and make a movie that is good? Not great. Not amazing. Good." Tellingly, the most emotionally charged moment, the moment when the audience cheers the most, proves that movie did not live up to its subject.

See it. Even if, like me, you wish the movie itself was better, you will be glad that you saw this film.

This movie is terribly funny. I went with a group of eight people, ages 30 to 50, and all eight thought it was hilarious.

I disagree with anyone who would call it stupid humor. It is not subtle, but when a movie manages to deal with war, terrorism, personal dreams, and love... well, odds are people who find it stupid or unfunny are likely boring people who should stick to sitcoms where a stand-up has a wife and kids.

This movie is funny and sexy, and does not take itself seriously at any level.

The perfect summer comedy.

This is not a terrible movie. It really isn't. It makes you laugh a few times, it's relatively pleasant, and Steve Martin does some comedy which reminds you that he's a genius.

Fifteen minutes into this movie, I leaned over to my wife and whispered, "Five bucks says this is a first time director." I come home, look up IMDb, and... if only she'd taken the be I'd be buying myself some candy with my Lincoln..

You really feel while watching it that the performances and script are both better than the finished product. Most of the camera work is tight like a television show, not a movie. A lot of the blocking is awkward, and you get the feeling that everyone is just a little uncomfortable. It's entirely possible that the movie would have been more enjoyable with a better director, but everyone had to start somewhere.

I feel very badly for Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, as both seem to struggle a bit with the material. You can see them having the urge to improvise and do more. And you wish that they had done more, because it's a shame to spend $10 to be mildly amused.

"Millionaire Matchmaker" is probably the worst show to ever be on television. I cannot imagine a more repulsive television program being produced, even if a TV producer made repulsive television their goal.

I will not attack anyone involved in or on the show personally, as I believe that is wrong. However, I will say that this television program is only watched by people who enjoy the way it dances around the fine line between gold-digging and prostitution. I have friends who enjoy this show and that is what they get a kick out of... watching guys who should settle for sweet, less attractive, less interesting women pay a faux-madame to set them up with porn stars, strippers, and struggling actresses who one day might be porn stars and strippers.

Honestly, I can see why people find it amusing to watch terribly misguided people do terribly misguided things, but I find it too revolting to laugh.

In the episode that I watched, I found it pretty repulsive until I saw the owner of the agency demand that a potential client whose mother was in the hospital had to be pursued immediately for a cashier's check. That is when I realized this was more disgusting than anything that had ever been on television before. I would hope that scene would demonstrate to potential clients why they should not send in their money.

This has got to be the worst show ever.

I saw this movie last night and was really looking forward to it. I had the expectation based on the preview that it was going to be a clever dark comedy with interesting plot twists to keep me on my toes. I tell you this, so that you know my perspective. I was very disappointed, because although there were a few laughs here and there, this movie is actually very dull. If the expectation is that you are seeing a somber period piece that boils down to a quiet meditation on a flawed marriage, and that this meditation is rather superficial, perhaps you will like it better than I did.

Forgive me for saying this, but at the Q&A after the screening I got the feeling that Chris Cooper and Patricia Clarkson saw this one as a job. They were intrigued by the material, but soon found themselves doing very little on screen. Patricia Clarkson has one scene with three to four lines of interesting dialog, and after that, her character devolves into a stereotype. Chris Cooper gets to play a good range of emotion now and then, but in the end he was forced to play a stereotype as well. I cannot help but say that all of the actors involved came to this period piece and submitted to the vision of the director, only to find that he really didn't have one.

This movie truly suffers for this reason. The plot is very linear with few twists or surprises. The characters are very superficial and behave inconsistently at times, coming across as simple stereotypes. And the film is rarely engaging as a drama and occasionally clever as a comedy.

It is a shame to see a cast this strong stand around and wonder why they are bored. But if you happen to see it and know what to expect, perhaps it can be enjoyed for what it is; a simple tale about a marriage that could have been a short film.

I saw it today. I expected it to be fairly bad, and it was. I enjoyed it in a way. I got to laugh at it a bit, since they pretty much did go for a "let's do stuff that's so much nastier than has been done before even if it's silly" vibe. I'll not include an spoilers here, so no examples.

The one thing that bothers me most is that Fox has the Alien and Predator franchises and they combine them for box office gold, and yet they limit the budget horribly. Watching the movie, you can tell that they spent 1/3 what they'd spend on an average action movie. Perhaps less. That's not fair to the audience.

Anyway, only see it if your attitude meets the following criteria:

1) You don't care if this movie is inconsistent with the previous movies. 2) You don't care if this movie is inconsistent within itself. 3) You don't care that you never really get a good look at an alien, a predator, or a predalien. 4) You don't care.

Just make sure you don't care when you see this movie. I saw it with two friends, leaving the wives at home. After, we discussed everything that was silly and wrong with this movie, and finally I said, ""Okay. Let me throw this at you. What could they have done worse? Can you think of one way to change this movie and actually make it worse?" None of us could come up with one.

"John From Cincinatti" is one of the most intelligent, creative and challenging shows on television. It has more in common with "Twin Peaks" than anything else that has ever been on television. The writing and directing on this show is top notch. It has found that special place where they are taking an incredibly strange, somewhat unbelievable situation and are managing to make it feel like the most realistic show on television. Seriously, these characters are "out there" for certain but there is something about them that is more real than any other program on television.

The other great thing about this show is the cast. Every single cast member, except for perhaps a few of the younger cast members, is doing amazing things on the show. They are all standouts. All excellent. In spite of that, I have to add the Rebecca de Mornay is deserving of an Emmy for her performance on this show. Everyone else is superb, but she is lightning.

Watch this show. It's an IQ test. If you don't like it, you're probably not very bright.

I saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival last week.

It would take me a very long time to name everything that is great in this movie. Honestly, every aspect of it is done with intelligence, care and humor. It is without a doubt one of the better films that is going to be released in 2007.

You will not see a movie that is casted better. The performances are pitch perfect, and there is not a moment that feels false. All the actors, from the ones with just a few scenes to the leads, are fantastic. The script is excellent, moving from the hilarious to the serious with the kind of humanity that makes it all fit together. The director performs a brilliant, restrained job of bringing this movie together in a way that makes himself invisible. Seamless.

I think that this film will appeal to everyone from age 12 and up. Grandparents, parents, kids... everyone will get it. The themes and characters are that human, and the humor is real and personal.

See it.

See it.

There are so very few movies that are this good, and this will probably be a small release. It deserves to be seen by all.

See it twice.

You know how you go to a movie and the way it opens makes you feel like you're in for a great time? The premise seems great and the lead actor is wonderful, yet for reasons beyond your control the movie gets continually less interesting as it goes along? And you keep rooting for it and rooting for it, because you can feel the good movie in there waiting to break out? But the good movie in there never breaks out, and when you leave the theater and start talking to people who watched it with you it becomes quickly apparent that everyone agrees that it was "almost good"?

That is "Numb." It is almost a good movie. Matthew Perry is great and charming and believable in a very challenging role, and yet I cannot recommend this movie. I saw it at the Tribeca Film Festival with a bunch of strangers who I had gotten to know from picking the same movies all week, and we all agreed.

If "Numb" makes it to cable, I would recommend it as a very interesting study in a film that you watch and keep thinking, "This should be better. This should totally be better. Why isn't this better?" I will not go into why this movie isn't better, because the writer/director seemed like a sincere and nice person. Nothing is more annoying than internet jerks who insult people anonymously. I applaud him for giving us this personal story from his life. I just wish that he had been able to take this movie to the next level so that I could tell my friends, "You've got to look for 'Numb' when it comes out. Matthew Perry is great and the movie is an intriguing, personal story." I cannot recommend this movie. I wish that I could.

My wife and I chose to see Normal Adolescent Behavior at the Tribeca Film Festival because it sounded right up our alley. With our extended family including over 15 high school and college aged kids, we hate the the way that Hollywood portrays teens and were eager to see a film that was closer to the truth. I always root for the small filmmaker, as they always seem to make films that are more honest and real than Hollywood.

What we saw was a film that managed to take teen sex and make it dull. And fake. In fact, it takes teen group sex and makes it dull. How? Unfortunaltely in order to explain that I would have to insult the writer/director and I do not believe in anonymously insulting people on the internet. She seemed rather proud of herself at the Q&A after the film, so at least someone is happy with this movie. (My wife pointed out that none of the questions lead with the usual, "First of all, thank you for your great work.." intro that all Q&A questioners start with. I missed that detail.)

Suffice to say that the characters in this movie behave predictably and boringly. The plot itself is more thin than you can imagine. The characters are either saying something too immature for their age or too mature. Honestly, the emotional levels in this film feel like a bad episode of Melrose Place. (Note, I chose a TV show with characters in their late 20's. That's on purpose, because these kids vascillate between acting like they're 9 or acting like they're 27.) Oddly, the television show the OC (which I couldn't sit through but my wife watched for fun) had characters who are more believable high school students than these kids in Normal Adolescent Behavior. And those characters were awful.

I will add that technically it feels more like an amateur video than a movie. It is shot like a TV episode, with the camera always too close to the the actors. There are rarely establishing shots and there are many shots out of focus. The sound mix is also odd. Scenes inside a high school are quiet as a church with no ambiance at all, which adds to the lack of realism.

I would say more, but I've already been more critical than I wanted to be. Honestly, this was one of the worst films that I ever managed to sit all the way through.

I expect all of the kids I know to reject this film outright. If you thought my comments were negative, wait until this movie gets released. It just occurred to me that kids loved Napoleon Dynamite because, in spite of the ridiculousness of it, that film managed to portray that time in life honestly. Normal Adolescent Behavior will probably get a two word review from most. The first word is an animal with horns that loves cows and the second word is what that animal leaves behind a few hours after a good meal.

"The Grand" is funny in parts, but overall there are three unfunny minutes for every funny minute. The movie starts fairly strong, and I was honestly hoping that it would keep up the humor, but it did not. Which is a shame.

Interestingly, what does not work in this film is the poker. At a Q&A after the movie (at the Tribeca Film Festival), the director made a point of immediately stating that the poker was real. They dealt the cards and the actors played in character and the results were up to fate. Very interesting idea. Unfortunately, that did not carry to the movie. There was almost no excitement or tension to the poker tournament, perhaps because it is impossible to build tension in the results of a game when that game is severely edited. I hate to say it, but this film is less exciting and less entertaining than an episode Bravo's "Celebrity Poker." Even though the poker tournament itself is boring, this movie still could have been laugh out loud funny. Unfortunately, it isn't. I hold no grudge against the filmmaker for taking a direct copy of the Christopher Guest play book and running with it. I only wish he'd been more successful so that I could have laughed more than infrequently.

Hopefully this movie's failure will not discourage others from using this formula. I would love to have more comedies in this style. It is not like Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy are the only two people alive who can come up with a concept for a mockumentary. Actually, it's my opinion that "The Grand" has a better premise than several Guest/Levy creations. It should be very funny and entertaining. Unfortunately, it is not.

As a film, "The Killing of John Lennon" is extremely well done. It is expertly crafted. Well directed. Well acted. Well edited. Well shot. But that is a technical appraisal. I have a difficult time respecting this film because its emotional impact relies on one and only one factor, John Lennon's murder. If you do not care about John Lennon, the film has no impact. This is why this talented filmmaker chose his subject. Had he made a nearly identical fictional film that featured the murder of someone who the audience does not literally love, he'd have a film that very few would feel the need to watch. He'd also have a film that I could respect.

Instead, he has a film that Beatles and Lennon fans will watch, even if it in spite of themselves. And if Sean Lennon or Yoko Ono said, "You're raping John's corpse," well, I don't see how the filmmaker or the company that might buy and release this film could deny that in fact their money is soaked with John's blood.

The director himself was both arrogant and evasive at the Q&A after the movie. Someone in the audience asked, "Do you think Chapman would be happy after seeing this film?" Instead of answering, the director said, "I don't think he will ever get out of prison, and if he does someone will shoot him immediately." I assume that he avoided a real answer because the real answer is, "Yes. He'd be ecstatic. The fact that there's not one but two films about him will completely affirm whatever parts of his psychotic mind still cling to his desire to be someone. I've made Chapman very happy, that is for certain, even he never sees this movie." I did want to ask why he titled the film with "Killing" and not "Murder." He seemed the sort to enjoy a discussion on semantics.

I support this director's right to do the wrong thing, and only wish he'd have either chosen to not exercise it or would have made some effort, even if it were a disclaimer at the end of the film to express an acknowledgment of the exploitation and perhaps make amends for it. I am not saying that the filmmaker has to donate some or all of his profits from this film to a charity that supports the families of murder victims, but I am saying that he should. The Lennon family certainly doesn't need the profits, if there are any, from this film. And the filmmaker should not want the profits, because it is not his skills that will draw an audience but John's name and the world's affection for him.

I give this film a 4 because technically it earns a 7 and thematically earns a 1, which averages to 4.

At its best, it is mildly clever. Not funny or entertaining, but clever. At its worst, it is pretentious and canned. A lot of the dialog feels like dialog. People wouldn't talk this way, ever, except if they are a character on a TV show that is killing itself to be cool.

Random characters are thrown in to say things that people would never say, so that the characters can chime in with a witty retort. When comedy has to be forced in the first episode, well, you have to ask yourself where it is going to go from there.

There are some good actors involved, though some seem out of their league. (I wouldn't name them, that's rude.)

It's funny. At the Aspen Comedy festival, I heard the creator of "The Winner" say that everyone seems to think that single-camera shows are automatically cool. I love "The Office" and loved "Arrested Development", and like "My Name is Earl." This show does not compare.

Basically, I'll be surprised if this one comes back.

What really sucks about being a moviegoer is that you constantly go to the movies to be disappointed. Whether it is a big-budget sequel or the latest Hollywood flick with an A-list cast, you always seem to walk out of the theater only mildly entertained. It's as if being "just okay" is the best that they can do.

"Crank" is just the opposite. It sounds like a dumb little thrill ride, but it is really a great thrill ride. It has just the right mix of humor, sex and intelligence to be a perfect crowd pleaser. It even manages to take what you know is an awful far-fetched plot and make it seem perfectly acceptable.

See "Crank." It certainly is one of the better action/thrillers of the year.

This is a film that is good the first time that you see it and gets better with each further viewing.

The style that Danny Boyle captures is fantastic. It remains hip and edgy to this day, and he manages to create visual representations of the characters inner experiences in ways that are completely original.

The acting is superb, with a cast that has not a single weak member.

The story is tight and compelling. It caries you away into a world that you have probably never seen.

Above all, this is a modern masterpiece because it is intelligent as well as entertaining. Far too films are even close to this good.

I think that this was the best movie I have seen in years. The rare American film that does not insult your intelligence. In fact, besides "Pi" this is the only movie that I can think of that stimulated me intellectually.

If you have not seen it, rush out and buy it / rent it / look for it on cable. I wouldn't want to spoil anything about it by saying anything about the plot, characters or theme. This movie challenges the audiences to be as smart as the filmmaker, and rewards the audience with a story that is completely original and thoroughly enjoyable.

Just see it.