Reviews

I don't doubt that this film appeals to a Christian audience, but even for a Christian film, it's idealistic and naive.

However, it makes for great riff-fodder. This film has taught us a number of things:

1) A guy only needs to say "Prove you love me" to get a Christian chick in the sack 2) Dating is the gateway to all evil...until you graduate. 3) Why have your own social activities, when you can benefit from the social network of your father's workplace? 4) You can't forget to pray with your father before you have sex on your wedding night...you just can't. 5) Always ask for the promotion BEFORE you ask if you can drive your boss's daughter to a remote area out of nowhere, right after she's hit the big 1-8

I found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.

The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.

The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.

I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even "Extreme Heist" was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video.

You know what, this movie is not a "Miracle on 34th Street" or a "It's A Wonderful Life" or a "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer". It reaches its apex through a winding road of logic that makes very little sense. I actually liked where this film was going at the beginning- a delightful commentary on the commercial obsession that is Christmas, and I felt a little jilted when it fell back into the feel-good Christmas movie at the end. HOWEVER, after I thought about it for awhile, it started to make a little more sense.

Let's face it, Christmas is an insane holiday. It gives people a lot of grief, stress, and sometimes depression. In many ways, the amount of money that we spend on it is downright ridiculous. We don't NEED the to spend that much, but we do because we love this holiday so much. We put ourselves through hell for the perfect Christmas, a holiday who's many rituals mostly don't even have any roots in Christianity.

This is a bizarre, crazy film about a bizarre crazy holiday- a bunch of neighbours get wrapped up in the trivialities while trying to express why they love Christmas so much. Are they psycho neighbours that 'turn on a dime' and suddenly become forgiving saints? No, they're just people. Christmas makes people insane, and insistent on tradition, but it also makes them forgiving and generous. And as much as this is not the most well made movie in existence (far from it), I admire the fact that it shows both sides of the coin- an amusing little glint of originality.

It's a fun film. I've seen films WAY worse than this one.

I caught this film on television recently, and it has completely convinced me to watch more Bollywood flicks.

It's a fun film, and its a musical with a modern edge (I adore the dance club number). While Hollywood is still doing musicals stuck in earlier eras (clearly just trying to emulate the musicals of the 40s and 50s), Bollywood has apparently picked up the torch and carried on.

This film is sensitive, endearing, and doesn't have to be an accomplishment of modern cinema to be so. It is reviving an genre that I thought was lost forever (the classic musical) for me. It is worthy of Fred Estere.

In this soft-core hentai (VERY soft core, but still very sexual), computer geek Akira has been saving up for years to buy himself a computer. After missing a sale, a mysterious stranger sells him a computer, which he takes home, and finds to be in the form of a teenage girl. This human cyborg personal computer repeatedly requires 'molecular input' from Akira, via her 'rear' or 'front' drive.

Without knowing how long this series is, I have watched the first couple of episodes, and I'm impressed with the amount of plot this series has shown so far. Mimi's powers are almost magical in nature, and the show plays with various analogies between digital devices and sex. It actually reminds me more of "Video Girl Ai" or even "Ah! My Goddess", and I suppose, would sort of fall into that small genre.

It's a bit on the dated side now, and a bit cheesy, but so far, I like it.

I viewed this at the Toronto International Film festival and I was pleasantly surprised- simple, direct, and yet still very engaging.

It highlights the simplicity of childhood and the difficulty of early adolescence; as well as just simple, human joys. A film like this need not be complex, technically, I mean hey, it worked with "Clerks" didn't it?

I enjoyed this film tremendously because it was so realistic- it reminded me a lot of how I and other kids acted when we were younger (perhaps the pizza guy is excluded from this realism).

I would recommend this film to just about anyone, and I can't wait to see if it's ever released to video.

I tried to like this movie. I really did. But as much as it had a lot of potential, it was ultimately disappointing.

I appreciated the attempt at an image-heavy (as opposed to dialogue-heavy) film, but I just didn't get it. From what I understand from reading other info about it, there's a comic book to go with it. I think this film should have been given more stand-alone value.

The acting was terrible, and the pace was far too slow, even for a film of this nature. I understood a lot of what was going on, but there was too little information about the mysterious character himself, and too much useless flashback of the other guy. How did his sister die? It's obvious she dies, but never clearly explained.

I like indie films, but sometimes making one too ambiguous just completely leaves the audience out of the loop, no matter how beautiful it looks. And it's really hard to enjoy a movie that way.

This movie was more or less true to form, but it should not be grouped with the first two, which are Tim Burton's. Tim Curry was interesting as Golmez, but I don't think he was an appropriate choice. Morticia was way off. I noticed that Wednesday and Uncle Fester are the same actors as in the new TV series...was this meant to start it off, I wonder? I LIKED Uncle Fester because he is true the original show.

I didn't like the fact that Morticia & Gomez's sado-masochistic tendencies are a bit much in this film...Morticia practically has an orgasm every time something dangerous happens.

But Lurch, ah Lurch...the same actor in all three movies. The only guy who could do it.

Other than that, the gags are cute, and the cheese makes it feel a bit more like the original show, as does the newer TV show. It's not terrible, but if you're a huge fan of the first two movies, and have watched them frequently, this movie might take some getting used to.

This movie uses the same plot devices and cinematography as the first one, but it has a lot of long, pointless sequences that make it drag on. The first one had a lot of action/reaction on the part of the dog, in part because the dog was more aware of what was going on. In this one, Benji is part of an intricate plot that not even the audience understands until the end. Obviously Benji acts in ways natural to a dog in a strange place, but he doesn't get much chance for heroics until the very end. All in all, I still like this film, but I just don't like it as much as the original.

The thing with this film is it had good points and it had bad points. Some of the good points are that there were aspects to this film that were far more realistic than James Cameron's. For instance, the young rogue that sneaks onto the ship does so not by winning a suspensful hand of poker, but by stealing the tickets when his drinking buddy has passed out for the evening. This is also the same young rogue who steals a jacket to get into the first-class dining room and then procedes to pick-pocket some of the passengers, starting with John Jacob Astor. The crooked crew member (played by Tim Curry) was a nice touch. And the rape scene was a gritty touch of realism, though painful to watch. And yes folks, stuff like that does, and did happen in real life. This film DID focus on real people that were on the ship, though not neccessarily the same ones as James Cameron. That is neither a good or bad thing, that is what you call a creative decision. For instance, we get a casual glimpse into JJ Astor's Young wife's life through Catherine Zeta-Jones' character, who is in a similar situation. They are friends and have a conversation about it. This makes it feel much more natural than Rose's hurried pointing around the room under the thin guise of gossip.

The thing with the Allisons' maid was interesting- the maid did, in fact, take the baby and get in a life boat, without the mother's consent, causing the parents and their little girl to roam the ship looking for them until it went down. Whether the maid was actually crazy was anybody's guess, but it was an interesting choice of plot in this film. Though just a touch too ridiculous. Captin Smith, though he had a famous actor behind him, was a little off character I thought. He had too much initiative. I'm not using James Cameron's portrayal as a basis for comparison, but Captain Smith, though he had years of sea-faring behind him, had had very little experience with intense situations of that sort and was actually very unprepared for the disaster. He didn't think anything could possibly happen on that voyage. I like Molly Brown better, I don't know why. And I really like the last shot of the first part (cause this was a TV flick)- when the people are kicking the ice around on deck, the camera focuses to the forground where someone has placed a champagne glass on the railing. It slowly slides down the now slight incline and smashes to pieces on the deck. When I saw that, I felt it was worth watching. Overall, this film, was, well, a TV film. Meaning it wasn't that great. But it wasn't that bad either.

By far, this was the best season. The animation was far superior than the rest of the series, and the story and emotion are far more intense. It contains the usual-type Sailor Moon plot, but makes light of itself often (Sailor Iron-Mouse is absolutely hilarious) and this deals with issues that the girls run into in highschool. Makes for a good watch, especially for seasoned Sailor Moon fans that want to find out what will happen.

Obviously, if you've never enjoyed Shoujo before, you may not enjoy this one. Sailor Moon is, after all, one of the animes that pioneered the genre.

I love this movie because it is truly romantic- it shows that love does not just happen in an instant, or at first glance, but is something that you have to commit to and work at. It's not just 'boys meets girl, stuff happens, they get married and live happily ever after' - Annie and Chris have to deal with real adversity and issues, which are shown through numerous flashbacks throughout the film. (ie- Chris being embarrassed to dance, teaching his daughter about death)

You're not supposed to watch this film for the visual effects. They're great, but they're not the point. If you have a short attention span, and are expecting action thrown at you every five seconds, then go watch something else, and don't complain that this film is boring.

This film was very simple and very human. If you want inspiration that REAL love exists (and not that stupid teen movie crap), then I highly recommend it.