Reviews

This is basically a movie chopped up into 15 pieces. I get that it was originally released on a (now-dead) platform that did this. But the format was awful.

I watched it on Roku Channel. They kept the 7 to 9 minute, 15-episode format. What they SHOULD have done was fix the thing. I'm guessing the reason they didn't was because then they would've had some awkward transitions and some places where they would've had to do something with titles popping up.

Still.

If they fix then, then worth watching. If they don't, probably still worth watching, but annoying.

Seldom do I watch a movie and think, wow, there's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back.

I believed the more positive reviews. Well, THAT was a mistake.

The sad thing is that it was better produced than I expected after reading the negative reviews, so I thought, hey, give it a chance. But decent production can't make up for sheer incoherence.

Wow. What a mess.

And what a regret. I could've spent the evening plucking my nose hairs instead.

Once you get past the fact you're watching a Japanese show, and have to read the subtitles -- which doesn't take long -- Erased becomes addictive.

It's a drama/mystery/science fiction series involving Satoru and those around him. I won't include any spoilers. As is the case with many shows, the less you know about it, probably the better.

Binge-watched the first six episodes.

How our government and our economy work have a profound impact on every American family. Over the past 40 years, we've gone from being a society in which our gains were broadly shared, to being one in which a few privileged elites get the lion's share of any progress we make.

We're producing twice as much wealth -- PER PERSON -- as we were in the mid 1970's. Sadly, much of this wealth has been hijacked and redirected to the wealthiest and most powerful among us. In this film, Robert Reich explains, pretty clearly, how and why this has happened.

If you don't understand exactly what's happened -- and what's CONTINUING to happen -- then you need to see this film.

Yes, it's a documentary. Documentaries aren't as exciting as the latest big box-office smash hit. But even if you need to watch it in pieces, watch it. Because our very future is at stake, and understanding where we are at is key to preserving or regaining it.

Others have rightly noted that Reich doesn't present a lot of solutions here. "Get involved" is a bit simplistic, but still, it's the first step. And a very necessary one.

One step forward that I would recommend would be to connect with an organization called "Represent Us" (you can find them on the web.)

In spite of the lack of "action steps," I give this a 10 out of 10 for the importance of raising people's awareness of how our system is rigged. We can't move forward if we don't know what the game is.

Okay, let's make one thing clear from the start: I didn't like this movie.

The Devil's Advocate is likely to pass the did-I-watch-this test. If you've seen hundreds and hundreds (maybe thousands) of movies, like I have, you'll probably know what the did-I-watch-this test is. There are movies out there you can run across a month or two later, and you don't even remember that you saw that one.

This one you'll probably remember. Why? Because it's different. Given the zillions of movies out there, different is an increasing rarity.

But ultimately, I just didn't find it entertaining.

The reason it fails as entertainment is: It's just too fatalistic, too depressing. After I watched this movie, I should've gone to bed, as it was late at night. Instead, I started another movie just to change the mood.

Yes, there are some well-done and interesting effects. Yes, the script shows a certain amount of skill. Yes, it has a couple of big names. But all of that drowns in the entire flavor, which is a film that, in the end, simply isn't fun.

There are films that can get away with being no fun, because they have some other artistry, some other redeeming value. They're films that make us think, that cause us to experience some sort of insight or thought that makes them worth watching.

That's not this movie. In the end, I give it 2 out of 10, and wish I had the time back that I wasted on it.

It took a second watching for me to appreciate this smart, underrated thriller.

In fact, going into it the second time, I knew I'd seen it a couple of years ago, but I couldn't remember any of the details. This is usually the mark of an mediocre movie. In this case, it was simply because I hadn't understood it well enough the first time around.

This is a movie you need to fully understand in order to appreciate. And unless you catch all of the dialogue (or at least as much of it as possible) you're not going to fully understand it. Rewind helps! The International must've been Clive Owen's attempt to get his career back on track after the God-awful (and I truly mean God-awful) Shoot 'Em Up in 2007. Miraculously, this movie has more or less restored my faith in Clive.

Clive Owen is an agent seeking justice against a criminal enterprise: The International Bank of Business & Credit, or IBBC. This, of course, is a veiled reference to the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), which went defunct in 1991 after being raided for money laundering and other financial crimes. It seems likely that the movie was partly inspired by this bank, which was referred to as "Bunch of Conmen and Crooks International." The BCCI was once the 7th largest private bank in the world; the IBBC is referred to in the movie as being the 5th largest private bank in the world.

As you might guess, Owen's investigation is not entirely straightforward. I make it a practice not to include spoilers in my reviews, so you'll have to watch the movie to find out more. Once again, the key is hearing all the dialogue and understanding the plot.

7 out of 10.

I'm sure some folks (particularly those who dine on a regular diet of horror films) won't find this movie to be terribly scary. Personally, it scared the shiznit out of me.

As others have noted, it's more of a psychological thriller than a gorefest. I prefer these kinds of movies.

Yes, it has some slow moments, but it builds up in terms of intensity.

For reference, I watched Silent Hill, and was just not as impressed with that movie as this one. That film was what I would call "over the top." The Ring is another horror movie that I consider scary as hell. (American version, I haven't seen the original Japanese.)

Overall verdict: This is a lower-budget, scary-as-hell, closer-to-life psychological horror movie that in my personal opinion is well underrated.

I have no idea why viewers at IMDb have given this movie an 8 out of 10.

Well, that's not quite true. I do have an idea why. But it's not a good reason.

There's a tendency in our society to rate things really highly that are different. Well, "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is certainly that. Different.

That's about the best I can say for it.

When you combine "different" - which in this case means:

* stop-motion animation

* deliberately dull color schemes

* a mostly-incoherent plot

* and quirky attempts at humor

with many of the major characters speaking in extremely familiar voices (such as those of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray and Willem Dafoe), you have a recipe for a runaway success. By "runaway success," I mean that this movie somehow managed to recoup its $40 million budget.

Yes, the only thing more astonishing than the fact that this plodding, (in my opinion) artless film cost $40 million to make is that it grossed more than it cost.

I normally try not to give away the plot in my reviews, but there's not much worry about that with this movie. It's a looong 87 minutes.

At one point I had to go and retrieve my 7-year-old son (who LOVES movies), because he had wandered away for lack of interest. It looked like something worth watching was actually about to happen. I regret that I did not allow him to go on his own way.

To give them credit, they certainly tried to be "original." Their approach was to go a bit further than most such films in incorporating themes more relevant to adults and older teens, such as marital conflict, teenage identity crisis, flipping real estate, the sexual reputation of Mr. Fox's wife, and so forth. The result is an awkward mix of soap opera and animated action that isn't quite suitable either for children or for adults. (Interestingly, two of the three reviews immediately before mine, both from people who LOVED the film, said almost the same thing!)

The good points of this film include some good voice acting by familiar voices, and some decent music.

My 12-year-old son, by the way, concurs with my assessment of this movie. His review: "The animation is pretty bad, and there wasn't really a plot. All they did was run around in sewer pipes and get shot at all the time. Definitely a one-time-view only."

Both of us (independently) also drew comparisons to the infamous Superbabies 2: Baby Geniuses. In fact, my son stated that he would rather watch the latter, as "it actually has a plot line."

If you appreciate a movie that's different really just for the sake of being different, then you'll probably love this film. Otherwise, I'd give it a miss. Honestly, I was kind of sorry I rented it. I had in mind to rent a good family movie, and since this one was PG-rated, animated, and given a vote of 8.0 out of 10 by IMDb viewers, I thought it would be a good choice. But it really isn't a good family film, for the reasons stated above.

Also, even though the film substitutes "cuss" for all profanity, I must admit squirming a bit when Mr. Fox sighed, "This is gonna be a total clustercuss for everybody." I could just see one of my kids asking me, "Dad, what's a clustercuss?"

In short: This movie was highly-rated for the exact same reason Barack Obama was elected President: It's different from what we're used to. Unfortunately, in both instances, we can see that different doesn't always mean worthwhile.

Oh, and I see the first person to rate my review rated it as "not useful," probably because he or she loves this film (or Barack Obama, or both). The review is what it is: an honest assessment of this movie by someone who has seen hundreds of films (if not thousands) and has reviewed 50 of them (!) here on IMDb. It tells you specifically why neither I nor any of my family liked "Fantastic Mr. Fox."

I recognize that mine is (obviously) a minority opinion, but I don't really see how that makes for an "unhelpful" review. What it should tell you instead (especially when you go through additional reviews and see other 4-and-5 star ones besides mine) is that while lots of people love "Fantastic Mr. Fox," it certainly is NOT for everyone. There are actually a fair number of us who simply don't agree.

Back in the mid-1990s, we had a friend named Jeff, who started talking to us rather oddly. He would make a comment in normal conversation, and then he would add, "So am I right? Am I right or am I right or am I right?!"

And then he'd laugh as if he'd said something quite funny. And we'd just stare at him.

Eventually Jeff loaned us a copy of Groundhog Day, and we discovered where he'd gotten that line from. But the first time we watched it, we thought the movie was kind of... strange.

There aren't many movies that I watch more than once. I've seen hundreds of movies by now, and this one now holds the record for number of viewings. I do have to let some time go by before I see it again, but this is one of those rare movies that only seems to get better and better upon rewatching.

Over the past 5 or 6 years I've put a lot of effort into bettering my own life. Today I was at the gym and caught the last 25 minutes of Groundhog Day while exercising. I was astonished at how some of the ideas in this movie parallel some of the ideas and understandings I've come to embrace about life and success.

If you haven't seen Groundhog Day, see it. If you have, then see it again. I put it (along with Forrest Gump and Titanic) in my personal Top 10 Movies of All Time.

Even with a bit of off-the-wall silliness, the plot and effects are creative, Bruce Willis is entertaining, Chris Tucker as Ru-by Rhod! is a sight not to be missed, and Milla Jovovich puts the sizzle into one of the most alluring roles I've seen in any movie. Ever.

Maïwenn Le Besco, Gary Oldman and Ian Holm also deliver solid supporting performances.

I won't say much about the plot. It's passable, but that's not really where the fun is. It's in the characters, the acting and the action, from Korben Dallas to Leeloo to Ruby Rhod.

Get yourself a "Mooltipass," because The Fifth Element is considerable fun.

At some point watching this movie, I thought, "This looks like a low-budget, not a big-budget, production." I was thinking... I don't know... maybe $100,000? $200,000? Imagine my surprise when I learned that practically every major role including writing, directing, producing, music composition, and acting one of the lead characters was accomplished by a guy named Shane Carruth on a budget of around $7,000.

To produce a film that looks and comes across as professionally as this one on a budget of $7,000 is really pretty astonishing. I'm not sure it's ever been done before... or since. Of course, you also have to consider the value of Carruth's time. If he'd been paid any reasonable amount, the cost of the film would have gone way up. Still... pretty astonishing.

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way, a few comments on the film itself. It's true that Carruth has woven what turns out to be a rather bewildering tale. Some folks (such as, admittedly, myself) won't decide to go back through for a second or third viewing to try and piece it all together. But even though I declined a second viewing, I was tempted; and I had no doubt that watching it a second and third time would have given me a lot more understanding of exactly what happened.

There's also more to this movie than just unraveling the whole timeline and sequences of cause and effect. There are things to think about. And the best movies give you things to think about.

I recommend this movie most to those who like time-travel tales and to those who like unraveling complicated stories. In any event, it's a fine first effort on meager resources, and I'm looking forward to Carruth's next film.

Or even 2 or 3 hours before bedtime, for that matter. The night after watching Snakes on a Plane, I dreamed of snakes slithering across the floor, chasing me. In that sense I suppose it accomplished its purpose.

Oh, and anyone who considers Snakes On A Plane "the most awful and ridiculous movie ever made" (one reviewer's words) obviously has NOT seen Shoot 'Em Up.

Still, there's enough here to make me regret picking this up from the video store.

SoaP is mostly a thinly-plotted excuse for obviously-cgi, implausible nonstop reptile horror violence with some sex thrown in just for good measure. You get the feeling that they would've put 3 or 4 more sex scenes in to further titillate the audience if they could have - they just couldn't work out any way to do it without it being even more blindingly obvious they were skating on some very thin plot.

This movie is a blunt instrument. If you like being awkwardly bludgeoned with blunt instruments, go for it. Personally, I prefer tales that have a bit more finesse.

A lot more finesse, actually.

To be fair, they obviously put a lot of thought into trying to come up with just about everything that could possibly go badly if you were to release a huge box of (implausibly aggressive) deadly snakes on an airplane. Unfortunately, that just wasn't that hugely winning a concept to start with. Some concepts just aren't. Maybe we should make an entire movie about zits on a nose. No? Snakes on a plane does beat zits on a nose, but not by *that* much.

The concept's bad, the execution's bad, and the script's not that great either. The main thing this movie has going for it is Samuel Jackson, whose career will hopefully recover. Jackson's presence lifts this tale from a "3" to the heights of "4 out of 10."

This one reminds me of a film I saw once on TV as a kid, which involved a rocket flying through the vacuum of space... on fire.

Well, the producers of this film conveniently ignored more laws of physics (and plausibility) than you can imagine. Did you know, for example, that you can shoot somebody without even having to have the cartridges in a gun? (No, this doesn't work in real life.)

Or that you can scoop a newborn baby up off the street from a speeding car without harming it? Or that if you shoot dozens of rounds of ammunition while holding a baby, the baby won't cry? Or that a single bullet can blow a hole in a person so huge you can see right through his body? Wow.

I picked this movie partly because I like Clive Owen. Well, I *did*, at least. After this mess, I'm not so sure. I can't imagine what Clive Owen was thinking when he signed onto this project. He musta been drunk, or had huge gambling debts. That's all I can come up with.

Oh, and I agree with the previous reviewer who was bewildered as to how IMDb viewers could have voted this a 7.1. What the hey??!?

I really wanted to like this movie, but the way they did it just kept getting in the way. I was expecting a stylish thriller. Instead, I got one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. And don't tell me it was supposed to be a comedy, because with the exception of maybe one or two lines, it wasn't funny either.

Just, unfortunately... stupid.

I've seen most of the top-voted 30 or 40 movies here at IMDb, and Forrest Gump probably wins my vote for the single best movie ever made.

This is not a conclusion I came to the first time I saw this film, or the second. The more you understand about this movie, the more you like it. And in terms of understanding it, my wife and I both were still gaining new understanding the 5th or 6th time we watched it. (For example: Why does Jenny behave exactly as she does throughout the movie? It'll take a lot of thinking to =fully= understand her.)

Just the fact that we've seen it at least half a dozen times says a lot. There are few movies that I ever even give a second viewing.

Like many of the truly good movies, there are people out there who see it once and consider it to be a waste of time. Such people are usually just looking for the most "action," gore and sex they can find, and haven't a clue about films that actually involve thought, ideas, and life.

Did I mention the script is absolutely brilliant? There are a lot of =truly= funny moments. And the music rocks. But those are only specific aspects of a movie that has just about everything else right about it as well.

See it, enjoy it, think about it, see it again. Think about it some more. Forrest Gump is one of the greatest movies -- if not THE greatest -- ever made.

Very interesting to find another reviewer who had the exact same reaction to this movie as I did: It was a heck of a lot better when I was 10 or 11 years old.

Seeing it more than 30 years later, it's still okay, but it only mildly held my interest. What seemed hugely funny back then was only mildly amusing.

Also, things that were astonishing to me as a 10-year-old came across as just silly. For example, in one scene Trinity is walking along and fires his revolver behind him and kills two men without even looking. In fact, he doesn't even bother to look and see if they're dead, because he knows he hit the mark. Um, yeah, right.

In addition, a lot of the dialogue sounds quite wooden. Sorry, but 35 years later, it hasn't really aged that well.

Although it's been a long time since I've seen that one as well, probably a better Terrence Hill film than this one would be My Name Is Nobody.

Nicholas Cage and Jennifer Biel star in this Philip-K-Dick-inspired thriller about a man who can see a small distance into the future.

If you could see even two minutes ahead of the present, what abilities would that give you? What could you avoid? What could you change? Like most of the PKD-short-story inspired movies, the writers and director have taken great liberty (as they've often had to) in order to bring the core ideas of a 10 or 15-page story to the big screen.

When I saw the trailer and especially when I saw it was PKD-related, I was immediately interested, as Philip Dick was an author who saw far into the future. Many of his stories from as far back as the 1950s are only now being brought to the masses.

Honestly I was almost put off of going to see NEXT by the early negative reviews posted here. Not every film based on this author has been well done. The prime example: I'd still like to tar and feather the director who so brutally butchered "Total Recall." But in this case, don't believe a word from the nay-sayers. Yes, I'll grant you, this movie is =different=. That's okay. You have to appreciate it for what it is, and what it is, is good.

When I saw that the voters at large were reviewing this movie around a "6" I decided to go anyway as that seemed considerably better than the reviews I was reading. I was pleasantly surprised. Personally, I give it an "8." One or two of the early reviewers complained about plot holes. No, in fact not. Any apparent plot hole(s) that I saw collapse when you look at them just a little bit closer.

It's well known that ordinary people can do extraordinary things -- like lift a car -- when the life of someone they love is at stake. That being the case, why shouldn't Chris be able to see into the future better when the stakes are higher? Let's look at another possible plot hole. If you could see two minutes into the future, why make your living as a magician? Why not just wait for a $100 million dollar lottery jackpot, place one small bet two minutes before the drawing, and be set up for life? Sorry, doesn't work that way. The lotteries cut off sales one to two hours before the numbers are drawn.

Likewise, horse race betting closes several minutes before the race begins, outside of Chris Johnson's time window. Dog races might afford an opportunity, but these are more obscure and Johnson might not be aware of any such opportunity. Anyway, being able to combine magic with the occasional bet gives him decent cover.

And men, if you're still skeptical, well, consider this: the sight of Jennifer Biel wrapped in a bed sheet is already pretty much worth the cost of admission. :-)

If you look at it as, a regular guy had a couple thousand bucks and wanted to produce his own TV-movie-type science-fiction thriller, then it's not a total waste.

In fact, I'll agree with others that it all began with a decent premise. But it quickly went downhill from there.

Don't waste your time with this one. The acting is below average, the script is below average, the plot is below average, the directing and execution are below average, even the sound quality is below average. Like others, I was fooled by the cover...

Incidentally, virtually nothing happens during the entire first half of the movie. Yes, folks, it's that bad.

I want to be sympathetic, but honestly I'm stretching to give it a 3 out of 10. It's one of the most unwatchable movies I've ever seen. Sorry.

The animation is fine, the music is fine, but all in all this movie is simply a confused mess with no coherent plot.

You could've almost assembled the plot (such as it was) by drawing random elements out of a hat. In fact, I almost wonder if that's how it was all put together.

The one thing that I find really interesting is that you can take something which barely makes any sense at all and have it hailed as genius. I suppose that's because it's different from most other films. Well, it certainly is that.

Oh, and be sure to throw in a bit of an anti-war theme. It doesn't matter whether the war planes are ours or theirs, we're all morally equivalent here. No matter what our reasons for defending ourselves might be, we're automatically as evil as those who attack us.

Someone else commented that this film was "art." Well, it depends what kind of art. There is currently a movement that has begun to recognize that all of the feathers glued onto steel girders painted blue (and similar works of the 20th century) were just... feathers glued onto steel girders painted blue.

Just because something is different doesn't make it brilliant.

To be fair, Howl's Moving Castle wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen. Some kids will like it. For the animation and music, I give it about a 5 out of 10.

(And by the way, I don't know how people can find this comment not to be helpful. It's my honest opinion of the movie, and in my personal opinion it's an accurate view. The movie is simply rather incoherent. If you like incoherence in your movies, fine. I don't. On the other hand, my young teenage daughter liked it because "it had a strange plot line." My preteen daughter thought it was "fantastic." But I found it incoherent, and my wife thought it was just plain awful.)

Very, very odd...

A lot of people didn't like this movie. A lot of people thought it was a dud, or that it wasn't funny.

Maybe I'm just weird, or maybe I simply don't rent that many comedies (which is actually true), but I thought this was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time.

I wasn't the only one, either. My kids laughed and laughed and laughed. My wife laughed and laughed and laughed. And afterward, most of the conversation between my wife and myself was about how funny this movie was.

Maybe you have to be a family-type person to really appreciate this movie.

Is it a perfect movie? No. Is it a super-award-winner? No. And like I say, maybe we're strange. But we thought this film was hilarious.