Reviews

This is far from your everyday movie, and only for those with a deep appreciation for the diversity of film-making, or fans of Hunter S. Thompson. This does not mean those mentioned will enjoy it, although definitely respect the attempt. I personally found it fascinating. To portray a permanently drug induced state to the big screen was done with creativity and subtle humour. You could expect nothing less from director Terry Gilliam who has played such a massive role in the brilliant and original Monty Python works.

Having never read any of Hunter S. Thompson's work, I get the impression that justice is done for the adaptation to the big screen. An absolutely quality cast must be credited for this, ensuring a natural performance is achieved. Las Vegas which features strongly throughout the movie seems to be so appropriate when dealing with this subject matter, they just seem to go hand in hand.

"The Truman Show" owes a lot to the direction of Peter Weir. Weir refuses to pump out the movies in a search for extra dollars. Instead he chooses wisely and directs brilliantly. Just by looking at a list of his movies will surprise and even amaze you. So as you would imagine "The Truman Show" is another success.

Truman Burbank has the perfect life, or so he thought until finally his life long suspicions about his world begin to unravel. Even though the idea for Truman is not totally original, it is thought provoking enough and allows the audience to wonder, what if? If you think this couldn't happen, just look back over the years at the stupidity of the human race and think again.

Jim Carrey once again nails his role, as do the entire cast. It is rare he fails to perform at a level that perfectly complements the movie and its genre. This is something he does not receive enough credit for. Acting for a comical role or a more dramatic role requires no less effort for the performance to be spot on.

Even though I am yet to see the original I find it highly unlikely this could be a better movie. The name Adam Sandler is possibly unfairly associated with movies involving the same old jokes and big punches and hits. Sandler isn't this one dimensional as movies like "Punch Drunk Love", and the romcom "The Wedding Singer" will attest. It bothers me that his comedy's are becoming fairly stagnant. This is fine if you are a huge Sandler fan, but if you are impartial to his work you will be losing interest quickly. Sandler needs to pop up with a few art-house serious roles, and evolve a little more with his own material.

The rest of the cast plod along with less than exciting performances. Perhaps my biggest problem was the way violence was deemed to be the resolution to all the problems. This may be the truth in the real world or it may be part of the movies humour, but I found it sickening.

I loved the table tennis table and ball.

When you consider that Mel Gibson, the chip himself, and Julia Roberts, another classically overrated Hollywood actor, star in this movie, you have to be very wary. They both regularly produce very average movies with very average performances. This was one reason why I was a little surprised by this movie. I quite enjoyed the idea as I think most people do of a conspiracy theory, no matter how far fetched it may be.

Mel is a very capable actor, just a bitter individual who lets his emotions take control of the truth. This was one of the few recent movies he's been associated with where he has remained fairly neutral. Julia Roberts was also performing at the higher end of her acting capabilities, and because of this was not a distraction of disappointment which is so commonly a feature of her performances.

It's nothing to get excited about, but easy viewing for a quiet night in.

Could there be a movie made in this world worse than this one? Of course there is but this is still a shocking movie. What chance does a remake of "Point Break" seriously have? Neither contained a script worth performing, let alone an idea with originality. They both produced ordinary performances from the cast of alleged actors. They also both contained action scenes that were so ridiculous you could only smile at the the disgraceful way money is handed out to pretenders, sorry producers to make this crap.

At least "Point Break" mixed the action scenes between sky diving and surfing rather than the mundane street racing over an over. Maybe they could have towed someone on roller skates behind the cars for extra adrenaline.

Daredevil achieved nothing as a movie. There was no enjoyment from watching, no interest in the acting, and certainly no belief in the story, whether it be comic super hero or not. For every new scene, and every second I watched, I simply hoped there would be a big turn around and something would spark some interest. This never eventuated and I found myself slipping deeper and deeper into a state of painful shock.

As for Ben Affleck, he was simply terrible. Nothing about his performance enhanced his profile as an employable actor. He ripped the shine out of his and all the other performances and spat on the leftovers.

Having never read, heard or seen anything to do with the "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", I was prepared for this film to be anything. There has been a lot of talk about the movie resembling the Monty Python sense of humour and comedy. Whilst there were obvious similarities, I don't believe it was quite strong enough nor contain frequent enough laughs to totally warrant this comparison.

What I did like was the not too serious attempt to bring an almost impossible galaxy to the big screen. The lighthearted approach allowed the viewer to relax into the characters and imagine the possibilities of such a life and existence. The casting was pretty good, with Martin Freeman, Stephen Fry, John Malkovich and Alan Rickman spot on. Perhaps only Zooey Deschanel appeared to struggle a little with the role.

The Interpreter is an extremely packaged political thriller that contains only a little punch. The main reason I gave it a go was Sean Penn who seems to rarely make mistakes selecting his work. Nicole Kidman can be a mixed bag, and Sydney Pollack a competent seasoned veteran director. All three performed well without setting the screen alight.

The use of the United Nations building was a big plus and definitely gave the movie more realism. It also gave the viewer more of an idea on what a massive organisation the UN is.

Even though "The Interpreter" was enjoyable the ending was definitely a disappointment. It wasn't that it was necessarily wrong, just that you knew what was coming. This was the "Hollywood Factor" showing through. Perhaps the reason it didn't turn into real Hollywood trash was the fact it was filmed and produced in New York.

Derek (Ben Stiller) and Hansel (Owen Wilson) are the worlds greatest two models. And nobody in the world could play them quite like Stiller and Wilson. Stiller was also a writer and the director of Zoolander and knows how to put together a movie.

While the movie often focuses on Derek and Hansel out modelling each other, I believe the real contest was off screen being played out on screen between the two. This being who could play the more sarcastic and larger than life model. Stiller may win this, but the sheer arrogance of Wilson's on screen demeanor tips the scale in his favour for me. When the two work together they are up there with the great duo's of comedy.

This is far from Stiller's best work however, moving along a little too slowly at times. Having said this it is still well worth a look and should give you plenty of laughs providing you appreciate the Stiller Wilson combo.

Congratulations Peter Jackson. Plenty of imagination is required to try and pull off a trilogy such as "Lord Of The Rings". Not to mention a country like New Zealand to film it in. It was just such a shame it was so boring.

Now I admit I struggled through "The Hobit", and never gave "Lord Of the Rings" a chance in the paperback department. So I applaud your effort of keeping me a little interested throughout the movie. One of the two things that bothered me was the ridiculous length of the movie. I have three words that could have saved this movie from becoming a joke. POST PRODUCTION EDITING. I was laughing in the end at what a farce the movie had become.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment was nothing to do with the movie but JRR Tolkien, who came up with surely the worst idea ever written on how a victory could be one. Writers block or just a cheap cheap sell out. You decide.

The Life Aquatic spends a lot of time setting up an adventure which ultimately gives closure but takes a long time coming. While we are waiting, a fantastic character comedy takes place. A slightly off beat and quirky script allows the audience a refreshing change from the usual Hollywood dribble. Writers Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach should be applauded.

The entire cast without any exceptions are absolutely brilliant. Bill Murray has to be one of the most underrated actors going around. This is not to say he is not recognised as a talent. More that he has an ability to be convincing in both a serious and comical role.

Perhaps the biggest highlight from the movie are the sounds of the scuba diving and battle sequence tracks, reminiscent of the early 80's video games.

This was almost the perfect movie. The acting was great, the direction was great, the script was brilliant, and the location shoots were perfect. Probably the most amazing thing about this movie was the screen stealing show stopping performance of Natalie Portman. She showed this brilliance in "Leon" aka "The Professional", and once again amazed with her talent. It contains different humour to your usual American movie and was a needed hit in the movie circles of 2004.

My only problem was a little part of the story that seemed out of place and not needed. This is not a spoiler, it is his friends wealth and invention. They just seemed unnecessary to me. This is a minor complaint and I eagerly anticipate Zach's next work. He could quite possibly end out being more famous behind the camera than in front of it.

Sometimes it takes a piece of raw brilliance, other times sheer agony to entice a lad out of retirement. "Stealing Harvard" provided enough motivation for this lad to return to IMDb.

It's just not fair that people should be allowed to pay to see a movie like this. Surely a new breed of censors must be introduced. Censors who can asterisk a movie that will almost be a certainty to disappoint. This way the innocent public can steer clear of trash like this and other such films like "What Dreams May Come". There was no enjoyment to be found from this movie. Just a stinging pain to the heart, reminding you of the ugly experience and lighter wallet you now possess.

I will say one thing. I saw this movie in a full house, and I heard only two people laugh through the movie. Two in about one hundred. Long, long odds.

I got through "Mission Impossible" fairly unscathed, which I believed to be quite a result. My hopes and expectations were low, and they were matched fairly accurately. What did stand out was Jean Reno, and the "Mission Impossible" theme song. Without these I would have been in some severe pain for the entire movie.

Everything else in the movie, such as the script, acting and special effects seemed pretty packaged. It was a successful marketing venture, with excellent financial support which ensured huge gross earnings. No more, no less. Who would have thought, however, a sequel could be made that was so much worse than what was already a bad movie.

Oh yeah, certainly don't bother seeing it, or the sequel.

What an awful display of everything. From the soft camera lenses to the pitiful acting. "The Young and the Restless" is a soap that delivers nothing but long, overdrawn, depressing and ultimately pathetic storylines, which move so slowly they would have to speed up to stop. This program is a true winner to the people of modern society with nothing to do in their lives. You see it's not that they love this show, it's just they have nothing better to do.

I plead with the people, try and get out of the trap of wasting your lives. There is hope for you yet. If you can convince yourself to do anything apart from watching this program then life will be better for not only you, but the human race itself. It's an evil program, promoting horrific ethics, and over indulgence on the sofa, when exercise beckons.

Think carefully, act wisely, and you will truly become a better person.

Whilst a little long, "Scarface" produced a movie well worth the old perusal. Al Pacino was his regular solid self, and Michelle Pfeiffer fairly ordinary which is to be expected. The degree of violence and swearing in the movie was an indication of the direction these kind of movies were taking as the eighties rolled into the nineties.

This is another movie you can't help but admire the wardrobe on. The sheer arrogance of the manner the leads wear their clothes allows them to pull off a look that is laughable, yet amazingly stylish. One must applaud such a show. On top of all this, a well directed and written script allows the audience into what is quite likely an accurate portrayal of the Miami underworld.

You have to wonder whether there's enough room on the big screen for two megastars such as Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt. The truth is you have Brad on the one hand who's cool and even fairly talented. Yet on the other hand there's Julia Roberts, lacking much talent and losing her appeal on the big screen at an accelerating rate. Well it seems to me the director has taken this into account and has left Julia out of most of the movie, and thankfully spared us slotting the two together in too many scenes.

With movies about Mexico the flavour of the month this movie does little to inspire you, and gives even less of an insight into Mexicans and their way of life. Big Brad will entertain the ladies though, and with a few blank expressions and appropriate comments, most of the audience seemed to go home happy.

This was just another Aussie soapy, although was way supreme to some of the trash that has survived. The acting was pretty ordinary, although there was something about "Echo Point" that set it apart. The mysterious story left viewers on the edge of their seats, and it was a tragedy when it finally received the axe.

Even though the acting was very convincing, it's very difficult to act as poorly as the "Baywatch" stars. Those in "Babe Watch" put in a remarkable effort.

The script, direction, acting, plot, and the realism of "Babe Watch" are all higher quality than "Baywatch". Yet the amazing thing is, they are trying to be worse. This shows you how difficult it is to make a program as awful as "Baywatch". The scene where mouth to mouth is performed on an unconscious girl with her mouth closed sums up the difference between "Babe Watch" and "Baywatch". In "Baywatch" you couldn't tell her mouth was closed because one of her breasts would have been blocking the cameras view.

A fantastic effort that narrowly missed out on being brilliant. I loved what this movie tried to do, although ultimately it became a little boring. I love real time movies, and I love long takes, in this case the whole movie. With a stronger plot and script for the actors to work with, this style could succeed. The one thing I noticed at the end of the movie was how draining it was trying to follow every conversation on each of the four screens.

This is a regulation teen/college student flick that supplies enough laughs to be successful. Tom Green was however the star of the movie. His scenes would generate a smile from the audience in anticipation of what was about to happen.

These American movies with lower budgets than most the Hollywood big budget trash seem to produce better results as well.

It wasn't bad, it wasn't good. It gave me a laugh as did "Snatch", but there were a few problems with the movie. Nothing seemed to flow or tie in quite right. As for being realistic, I don't think so. The underworld would surely never allow anyone to join so easily. I would have sat back and enjoyed it if there were enough laughs, however there were not so I ended out noticing the faults instead.

I find it strange so many people disliked this movie. Just because a critic dislikes a movie, doesn't mean you have to dislike it too! I'm not suggesting it was the greatest comedy of all time, but it certainly achieved its purpose.

There were easily enough laughs throughout the movie to keep me entertained, and Jim Carrey was his usual talented self. Renee Zellweger played her part well, allowing Carrey to steal most of the thunder. I'm not Carrey's biggest fan when he's being interviewed, but his acting is always impressive and appropriate.

I would definitely like to see Carrey pursue a few more dramatic roles.

I had to see this movie at all costs. It's rare that you get the perfect combination of an awful script, awful actors (except Wahlberg), and awful direction all in one movie. It didn't let me down. Despicable is a word that describes it fairly well. Another way to some up why this movie was so awful is George Clooney.

This is a movie Hollywood can be truly proud of. Big Budget, Absolutely No Substance.

These kind of movies can be funny, although this one failed dismally. There was one funny part in the whole movie which is an awful strike rate. It's not because I'm not into this type of movie at all that I hated it. It was the awful writing, nothing came together, it just didn't work.