Reviews

Does Spurlock have something against McDonalds? Was he forced to eat there, or only allowed a limited selection of their menu to choose from? What was his real motivation for making this movie? Whatever his reasons, it seems to have helped him get a toe into the realm of TV, and given him some dubious celebrity. And plenty of sheeple to follow him, and his misguided information. For a rebuttal of his movie, and another person's remake of it, watch http://www.fathead-movie.com/ But only if you're opened minded enough to! I gave this movie a 2, because it does cause some thinking to occur. And hopefully further research, other than the media.

I vaguely remember this show. Of course, I was only ten when it was on, and our TV watching was limited. But I remember William Daniels was in it, as this hapless superhero. And he would use some potion to give himself superpowers - which were temporary. I seem to remember an episode where his powers dissipated when he was in the middle of something, like flying, and he had to quickly take more.

I had mostly forgotten about this show until my favorite, St Elsewhere, came on. Then the familiarity of William Daniels voice brought it back.

It was a humorous show, like "It's about Time," and didn't lend itself to scary dreams like the shows Chiller or The Outer Limits did.

I anticipated a suspenseful thriller. Close.

The overall movie was good. But the actors seemed uninspired, just going through the motions. Personally, I think Denzel turned in a better cop portrayal in "Fallen." The interwoven, high contrast interrogation scenes from afterwords were distracting, and got old fast. Also it seemed like the movie was dragged out, as if you were not only supposed to know that the hostage situation was taking a long time, but you were also supposed to experience it.

With the exception of Denzel Washington and Chiwetel Ejiofor, all the big name actors seemed to only have cameos. I realize this wasn't so, but it seemed that way. And what was the purpose of Jodi Foster's character? I suspect that "Madeline White" could have been cut out of the script without affecting the story.

This was a great movie, especially if you are a father of daughters. It gives some insight into what they are exposed to when you're not around.

There is one reason I didn't give this a "9." It was the constant background shots of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings, and the lack of Bill Clinton's antics.

The movie is based in 1989. The Thomas Confirmation Hearings, where Anita Hill became a household name, didn't occur until 1991! She must have had one heck of a satellite receiver. So, if they were willing to warp time to use Hill to support the movie, why didn't they add Clinton's antic's too? Alleged sexual harassment is still sexual harassment.

This was a fun movie to watch, especially if you just want to be entertained.

The ONLY problem I saw in this fictional story was with reality. The reality is that the military personnel were Marines. Yet, "Sarge" (The Rock), seemed to be seriously confused about that. He kept yelling at his men about being "Soldiers", or needing "real Soldiers." Soldier this, soldier that. He might have made it out, and saved more lives, if he could have only figured out who he was, and who his men were. They WEREN'T SOLDIERS! They were MARINES! Once again, there IS a difference. Army boot camp is 9 weeks long. Marine boot camp is 12 weeks. Army personnel are called Soldiers, personnel in the Marine Corps are called Marines (NOT Soldiers). A recruit in Marine boot camp cannot be called Marines until they graduate from boot camp, proving that they have earned the right to bear the name of their organization. You're probably thinking, what about those that don't make through boot camp? Well, unless they left for reasons other than medical (like failing!), they cannot be called a Marine. In fact, recruits are called by a lot of things during boot camp, but it isn't until the actual graduation ceremony that they are actually welcomed as Marines.

As a veteran Marine, I think Tom Berenger carried off the attitude well. My biggest complaint with the movie is with the Marine Colonel monitoring the action. At one point, the CIA/NSA/whatever guy talks about aborting the mission. The colonel responds with "Not yet. Those are American Soldiers out there, we're not going abort." Any Marine, no less an Officer, would refer to another Marine as a soldier. The Marine Corps is the only branch that lends it's name to it's personnel, a privilege that's earned, and carries pride. The writers need to do better research. But, this is common fault among journalists, that they don't understand this difference.

After watching this twice, I can't help but compare Giovanni Ribisi's performance to that of a young John Lithgow. Going from quiet submissive, to controlling and creepy, I've only seen Mr. Lithgow carry this off well.

Well, maybe Kevin Bacon or Ray Liotta too. Check out John Lithgow in "Ricochet," with Denzel Washington.

Giovanni plays this part well, taking a disquieting turn towards abusive once he's established the fact that only two people are necessary, Dennis Quaid, and himself. everyone else then falls into line, becoming submissive to his sudden control.

This movie does a great job of showcasing the beauty of Oregon.

Unfortunately, it also shows - and makes fun of - some of the problems Oregon has. Yes, we have criminals growing pot in the forests - but they get caught eventually, and we do have misguided tree sitters. Oregon is a very accepting place. There's all types here, even some like the dullard pot growers.

Aside from that, this is an attempt at a buddy movie. Three guys that realize they're getting older, and using the recent death of a childhood friend, attempt to have one last adventure with each other. Everything goes wrong, but comes together in the end.

That's about it. It's humorous, and if you have some time to kill, it's worth the watch.

This was a fun movie. Ben Stiller reprises some of the character nuances from "Mystery Men." He uses facial expressions to convey the misery he endures during and after eating ethnic foods. And WHO would leave their bathroom void of extra toilet paper?

Hank Azaria does a great philandering frenchman, stealing Ben's new wife away from him. Of course, Ben is devastated that she would do this to him, yet he has no qualms about it when he meets Polly, even though he's still married.

When his wife does finally return, he let's her know that it won't work out, she had shown her true colors - so to speak. He then decides to run off with Polly, enjoying her company - in and out of bed.

So, while his wife realizes her mistake, returns to him, and tries to reconcile, he decides that what he really wants is to follow her lead.

This looked like a good movie at first. Something like "The Sting".... but not. It didn't take long to realize that the writers were hard up for real dialogue when every other word was "F**K". This is too bad, because it had the potential to be enjoyable. With notables such as Rachel Weisz, Ed Burns, and Dustin Hoffman, well it should have been great.

I can only imagine that this must have been a "tweener," something these actors did between real movies, but shouldn't have.

I can understand and tolerate a certain amount of bad language, such as movies like Mystic River, which came across well, and was in context. But the language in this movie, well, even after six years in the Marines I never heard "F**K" used so often in one sentence.

Macy and Bello are the only ones that carry this dark movie.

Although I've never spent any time in Vegas, or Reno, or Loughlin, except to get gas as I passed through, I certainly wouldn't want to visit any casino's with the way this movie painted them.

And who would continue working for someone that broke their knee, then went after their good-for-nothing son with an iron pipe? Or who would hand over $3000 to a son they hadn't seen in years, and had just scammed a restaurant?

And who was that playing Shelly? Not Alec Baldwin, because he left the country.......he said he would!

This movie shows the last three days of Christ. For those expecting a politically correct, Hollywood-ized version, forget it. If you aren't familiar with the Biblical account, then this will obviously be disturbing.

The truth is what it is. Christ was scourged, according to the Bible, it was so bad that he was unrecognizable (Isa 52:14). Mel Gibson doesn't take the torture this far, but the effect is still apparent. Romans DID scourge, and scourging was horrible. It tore the flesh, and exposed bones and organs.

That the Jewish community should take ANY offense at this movie, or feel that it is anti-semitic, just remember two things; christ was a jew, AND he pointed out that nothing could have been done to him without God's authority. So the Jewish community shouldn't try to take responsibility for this event, nor does anyone have a right to put this on them.

What amazed me was what happened during and after the movie. As soon as the movie started, it was quiet. No one made a sound, or got out of their seats during the movie, and after the movie, there was a sense of reverence in the theatre. No one jumped up and hurried out. No one talked. People slowly got out of their seats, then quietly and politely left the theatre.

It was amazing.

The only appalling event that I experienced was after the movie, when I found a flyer on my windshield, from the Aryan Nation. I was outraged!

Only knowing the premise of the movie - Jury fixing - I was surprised at the twists the movie went through.

At first, I groaned at the thought that this was going to be another "statement" movie, like "The life of David Gale" or Satirist Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." But, I was pleased to find the final plot twist, at the end, was really revenge against a jury analyst.

John Cusack and Rachel Weisz kept this movie moving along, with Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman adding a nice subplot. The jury was a small distraction, but watching the ease that they were disturbed after being selected was interesting.

Good movie.

Michael Moore is a Satirist, and his movies are satire. He's obviously creating biased entertainment, which is his right.

But it's our right to do the research, real research, and come to our own conclusions. Or, you can just sit back, and let the media, and movies, provide all your "intellect."

After watching the movie, I had to ask, "What was the point?"

It was very intense, and I kept asking myself, "what if I was in that situation?"

But, I never will be, and the question still begs to be answered: "What was the point?"

This was a good movie. Along the lines of Mr. Holland's Opus, this movie follows a teacher, and one of his classes, through the course of years.

It's sad to see the teacher used, towards the end of the movie. A faux contest rematch held by a previous student is used to entice him, and fellow classmates to attend. It turns out to be nothing more than a political opportunity for the organizer.

Worth seeing.

I didn't see this movie until years after it came out. I was moved by the transformation Mr. Holland made during his time teaching, and the final realization he made of what was really important to him.

I had teachers like this throughout school, and the fond memories of them came back while watching this movie. No matter how many times I watch it, I'm still touched by it.

If you like this one, I'd recommend seeing "The Emperor's club."

This isn't "The Princess Bride," it's just silly. But silly in a fun way. John Lovitz and Terri Garr give it some substance, but the best part by far is the scene with the "light grenade." I've known folks who would have fit in that scene, just fine.

When you've got some time to waste, and don't care how, this is the movie for you.

This was a good movie. The Navy provided a launching point for this movie, but the bulk was about a troubled young man, and his search for some kind of family roots.

This also redeems Denzel Washington for making "Training Day."

I thought I was watching a replay of my time in Boot Camp during the first part of this movie. Of course, I was a "Hollywood" Marine (San Diego Boot camp), but R. Lee Ermey definitely remembered his Drill Instructors. All the phrases, comments, and abuse come straight out of MC Boot Camp.

The movie description mentioned a "sadistic" Drill Instructor. I kept waiting for the "sadistic" part. This was very real to life.

The only problems were you NEVER use "I", you would never be able to smuggle food back to the barracks, and you would never be in possession of ammunition, all which Pyle did. Of course, then there wouldn't have been a story. Also, helmets weren't instituted during pugel stick training until the mid-70's, when a lawsuit was brought against the MC by parents of a boot who ended up in the hospital with possible brain damage from a pugel stick upside the head.

For the unintiated: The Navy has SAILORs, The Army has SOLDIERs, the Air Force has AIRMEN, and the Marine Corps has MARINEs. It is the ONLY branch that lends it's name to it's personnel. There are no Drill Sergeants in Boot training, but there are Drill Instructors. You never used the word "you" with a Drill Instructor, because they translate it to "ewe" which is a female sheep. Your poorly used "you" during Boot Camp would result in the Drill Instructor asking if you wanted to f*$@ him. Then punishment would follow.

A good book to read about some Corps history is "Flags of our Fathers", about the five Marines, and Navy Corpsman, who raised the flag on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima.