Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Royal Trash
27 January 2003
I thought this was supposed to be a comedy? The director, or writer, or whoever is to blame for this bland boring fiasco seams to trying to inject a new type of comedy into the vein of film....this new type of comedy seams to be a non-comedy where humor is so fiercely under-stated and dry that the only thing that keeps it from being a depressing drama is an occasional quirk. Apparently this was made by the same person who did Rushmore...I found the plot of that film as about as entertaining as the characters in this film. I think "cry-omedy" might be a better genre title for this snore fest. Look, I'm not looking for "laugh out loud" funny, or "knee slapping" funny...but how about "at least a little" funny. I hope this style of comedy doesn't represent the comedy of the future or we might as well kill ourselves now....wait I'm sure that might end up being the next story line for this director.

-Joe
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Death to Ebert
20 January 2003
I was blown away when Ebert hailed this movie as the worst of 2002, come on, there's at least one hundred more out there that deserve that title. (check out the independent film channel releases for plenty of nominees...or even "Signs") I thought Death to Smoochy was satirical, dark, insightful and twistedly funny. It reminded me of something that Terry Gillam might make. I loved the premise, and quickly linked Smoochy to Barney, (of which I had my own fantasys of wanting to mutilate, as I'm sure many have) and I think, if this was truly a bad movie the plot would have ended there. But the story was actually much more complex and imaginative than that. I loved Robin Williams (though he was pretty dark) and those goofy songs sung by Smoochy. The satire was brilliant. The movie was brillant. Ebert, it's movies like these that I treasure because they're different, they're not like all the other hack jobs out there...how many romantic comedys or even dramas have we seen that we haven't already seen in one form or another a hundred times over? (even in the past 10 years for that matter) How many thillers? How many detective stories? How many cookies have been cut from the same mold time and time again? One walk down the video store isle and even the art on the video boxes start looking the same. How many times are we going to see the older mentor and the young maverick working together? How many times are we going to see some buddy film formula? How many coming of age movies do we have to endure! How many Sensitive, chick type movies featuring a soundtrack that could have been made for a pathetic Get Well card-can a thinking man take!!!!Help!!!!! They're all looking the same!!!!!Thank God "Death to Smootchy" has the balls to bring us something different!!! Ebert reconsider, Let Smoochy Live!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't pick it up
20 January 2003
Crap! I would have expected this movie to have been made by a very amatuer film maker, turns out to be Francis Ford Coppola's nephew, Christopher. The apple fell far, far from the tree. The characters were unhinged and barely tollerable as was the plot. But even worse, the cardinal sin was broken.....the movie was so bad I began looking at things like the camera work, and style, completely forgetting about the storyline all together. There were so many goofy camera angles that I felt like I was in an anti-gravity room with an equilibrium problem. I thought the movie was trying to be a mixture of Pulp Fiction, a road trip film, Dumb and Dumber, and the Prophecy. I certainly would expect better from a Coppola!
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signs (2002)
Sign says "this is crap"
12 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER ALERT I was confused over the intent of the movie. It seemed like it was supposed to be some psychological sci-fi melodrama, it succeeded in boring the hell out of me with no pay off for the time I spent watching it. What level was this movie operating on? If it was supposed to psychological why was it so stupid? And if it wasn't supposed to be thought provoking.why was it so boring? My point is, if we are to believe that there really was a world wide alien invasion-why did the Mel Gibson family shelter themselves in their own world (house) with no contact to the outside world.this was probably the intent of the film. Personally I think if this really happened I would be holed up with my neighbors in a church or school and passing out the firearms like candy. Or when Mel found that alien in the pantry.he didn't call the authorities or tell anybody (in the outside world) he runs home and mumbles to his family he saw an alien in a pantry. So, because I could not suspend my disbelief enough to except this story and the behavior of its participants..I started thinking this movie may be an analogy for something else.and this suddenly made the movie more interesting. I spent a good amount of time contemplating (wrongly) that this movie was actually an analogy for Terrorism, and with that frame of mind it makes a lot of since. However, the movie was actually about aliens.silly aliens that couldn't escape from a pantry, (but yet could navigate a space ship?) Silly aliens that scratched at doors and windows, Silly aliens that snuck around outside little kids birthday parties and silly aliens that would melt with water. (ingenious how the little girl had a water phobia and there happened to be water glasses all over the place.even places she couldn't reach) Or if the movie was really an analogy for Mel's inner struggles, once again all hopes were dashed by those silly aliens. Were the aliens supposed to represent something else? I keep thinking if they had this would have been a much better film. In closing, I respect M. Night Shyamalan because he gets to do something he likes for a living and he even gets to act.but come on..if your trying to say something with the movie say it, or if your not `pick up the pace!'
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Loved it!
12 January 2003
This is a great film, at last something to sink your teeth into. It was a little long in places but that is the only criticism I have. I hail Speilberg for making this film, it is certainly superior to A.I. and it is certainly the most gritty of his films I've seen (I haven't watched Schindlers) And the bleaching technique is beautiful. I love movies that make you think and this one hits the spot.not to mention the incredible special effects. And even though I knew the plot, I was still surprised along the way. This is one movie I will own on DVD.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
wicked movie
16 July 2002
I thought this was an incredibly eerie movie. It's slower than normal horror movies. It carries it's own pace and unwinds slowly till your sucked in like a fly in a spiders web. People can say what they will about this film, but personally, being tired of all the slasher crap, I enjoyed its more mature psychological appeal. And I gotta tell you, as I watched this film around 2 AM in our darkened bedroom, it was really creepin' me out. If a film can creep me out, it gets an A plus. I wish they would make more horror films of this caliber, cause personally I don't care how many times Freddy returns to Elm Street, Jason comes back from hell, a bunch of little kids "Scream" or Michael Meyers gives Jamie Lee Curtis another reason to use her own natural wireless voicesteam, my taste is on movies like the Mothman prophecies, Donny Darko, Poltergeist, The Shining, the Sixth Sense, Vanilla Sky, The Others, and any other horror film that gives me cause to think and feel.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Love to see it again
16 July 2002
I would love to see this movie again, I saw it once as a kid, and have always wanted to see it again. I wonder how much my perception has changed since then. I fear that I might think it's horrible now, compared to my fond childhood memory of it. Why do I think so highly of this film? I don't even know. That may be a question in itself. All I know is, the film couldn't have been so bad that they wouldn't put it out on video or DVD, hell they've put everything else out. If anybody knows how I can see this film again please notify me. . It was very nice to read the other comments from other people who liked this film as well. Now, suddenly I don't feel so alone in the universe.

-Joe
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed