Reviews

Unfortunately, the same person ("Ash") wrote, directed and produced this, thereby circumventing the checks and balances that otherwise might lead to a watchable movie.

This movie is really bad in every category. The acting consists mostly of waving a gun and shouting profanities. The camera work is jerky hand held style.

The plot? Two kids rob bank, have standoff with Burt Reynolds, want MTV interview. The End. But how many banks are open before school hours, say eight AM?

Also, I'm pretty sure Mischa's skimpy outfit (tank top/mini skirt) is not up to school regulations, but for some people, the few panty shots might be the highlight of the film.

Nothing to recommend.

I was loaned the director's cut tape of this movie, so at least I wasted no money, only my time.

Many notable actors. Many politically incorrect jokes. Lots of screaming and yelling. Some dancing. Some explosions. Nothing funny. Really bad.

"Duel", "Jaws", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Jurassic Park" and "Schindler's List" were good (some would add "E.T.", "Close Encounters" and "Saving Private Ryan"), so I guess SS should be forgiven for this one. "I pardon you".

Schindler's List (I affectionately call it "Swindler's List" sometimes) has great acting in a great semi-fact-based story. Liam Neeson's acting was "Oskar" nominated, but Ralph Fiennes was super as Goeth, and Kingsley was excellent as well.

Some great cinematography too - the candle smoke cutting to the train smoke, for one (somewhat like TE Lawrence blowing out the match then cut to desert sunrise, or "2001" bone to spaceship cut) and any of dozens of other haunting images.

Schindlers's List has some excellent dialog. Some examples are when Schindler talks to Goethe about "power", or Stern talking about the list being "absolute good", or Schindler crying because he could have saved more people by giving away his Nazi pin or other personal items.

Sentimental? Maybe. Many Spielberg movies are too sappy for me, but this was not. Gloss over low-lights of Schindler himself? Probably. Doesn't really matter, though.

Not many "better" movies out there.

What was this trash? Why was it made? I like Bill Murray, generally, although most his movies are bad. I liked Richard Dreyfuss in "Tin Men" and "Jaws". However, during this "comedy" I laughed not once. I smiled not once. I tried to sell it cheap. Twice. I could not. Need I say more?

Robert Walker's performance as Bruno Anthony is marvelous and makes the movie worth watching - but that is the only thing positive about this mess of movie.

Some details are just plain forced - such as anything to do with the ornate cigarette lighter that the tennis star originally has with him (even though he "doesn't smoke much".) This lighter plays a pivotal role throughout the movie.

Much of the dialog is bad, particulary the various police detectives and the police chief - and most people have English accents (it takes place in America).

The announcer at the tennis game is so bad he is funny, as is the exaggerated way the crowd watches the game - although I appreciate the effect.

Finally, although I could forgive some of the silliness, the final scene at the amusement park was so ludicrous as to make this movie an unintentional laugher.

Nice thing about the DVD is it has both the US version and UK version. Not a lot of difference, although the absolute final scene that is in the American version makes it a bit better.

Sorry, Hitch, although there were minor moments and a few great shots, to have this movie as #85 or whatever in IMDB's top movies is unrealist.

3/10

I have vague memories of seeing "Blowup" as a teenager and thinking it was kinda neat and creepy, so I bought the DVD when it came out.

I must say that 30 years later it is hilariously bad. Oh, the actual blowing up of the photographs is still neat and creepy, for sure, but the rest is just laughable.

The nameless photographer is such a jerk (I'm being delicate) that no one would want to work with him. There are other photographers with talent - why do business with a total jerk that yells at you to try to get you to smile?

Also the funny thing is, even when he is supposedly taking these great photos in his jerky way, he is so close to his subject that 90% of the pix would be out of focus, compounded by not using flash, so he must shoot wide open even with Tri-X film, thereby adding to his out-of-focus problem. Further, he handles his Hasselblad clumsily, and during a shoot with several models at various distances from the camera, again he does not use flash - again, laughable photographic technique. Enough about photo non-technique.

Another scene has the photographer entering a nightclub where Jimmy Page and the Yardbirds are playing - and the entire audience is motionless - as in zombies - except one couple who dance (badly). Huh?

There is an over-rated scene which may be the first non-porno film to show a glimpse of female pubic hair. It is not erotic, however, and in fact, could be mistaken for Daniel Boone's coon-skin cap. Don't get the movie for this.

Besides the dead cat, there is much pot-smoking - also, I suppose, a "film first". Big, big doobies that look like cigarettes...

Other than the movie itself, there is a commentary by an "Antonioni film" buff. Even he has a hard time explaining some of it. However, some people like head-scratching movies. If you do, here you go.

Ho-hum. I guess this movie is lauded because it was co-written by an actual 13 year old, based on her life, in 6 days. Great - except she says she had little to do with the subsequent rewrites.

The movie was produced as an "independent" by a first-time director, so not much money was available, and it was hurriedly shot in less than 30 days. This means that there were seldom more than one or two takes per scene, tending not to produce the best result.

I found both lead girls fairly convincing as 15-year olds, but much less so as the 13 year olds they portrayed. They and their friends just seemed too old.

As someone else astutely posted, the movie "Christiane F." is a much better look at problems of underaged girls. However, it is in German with English subtitles, or in poorly dubbed English. I suggest the book (if you can find it) which was much better (aren't they all?) and had more detail. After "Christiane F.", "Thirteen" seems negligible.

I give it 2/10 only for the effort, not the result.

Lots of hype about the movie...too bad I could not find justification for it.

I like Scarlett Johansson. I like Bill Murray. I understand this was not a comedy. I understand there was not going to be any sex.

I guess I was thinking it was going to be something more like "My Dinner with Andrea" than a rambling bore of a film. Unfortunately, whatever happened in the first hour of the movie was negligible, and hardly set up the ending. I did like the last 10 or 15 minutes, though.

There was too much "I'm bored in Japan" looking out the window, or "I can't sleep" (which you do, just at the opposite time as everyone else), or "look at these pretty buildings". It was too much filler, and not much substance. And, yes, the language barrier/miscommunication routine was somewhat overblown, and ultimately tiresome.

Fool me once ("The Virgin Suicides") shame on you - fool me twice ("Lost in Translation") shame on me. I hope there is not a sequel, which is a definite possibility.

I like the vague ending as is. However, I would have ended it with Bob saying "screw it" (or perhaps nothing at all), and taking the next elevator up after Charlotte. Roll credits.

If you are not a fan of Bill or Scarlett, I would pass on this movie.

3/10

Movie with a big reputation and critical acclaim (mostly). Ho hum. Just a barely average movie.

The positives first. Um, lets see here... 1. The music was pretty decent (Yes, King Crimson) 2. Christina looks nice, but only has two looks in this movie - "pout" and "gaze". 3. A few funny moments. 4. Somewhat interesting camerawork. Except for the boring parts.

Negatives... 1. Hopelessly unbelievable story. Christina's character "Leyla" (but going by Billy's imaginary only-previous-girlfriend's name "Wendy") had many chances early on to escape her loony kidnapper, but chose not to. We have no character development for her, so we don't know if she is emotionally unstable, rebellious against her family, etc. Actually, the fact that she ends up liking the unlikable grimy ex-con loser points to fact that she has no taste, or sense.

2. I can not emphasis enough how much of a loser the character of Billy is. He would not have survived 5 years in prison without getting his teeth knocked out and his nose broken because he was such a messed up ass. He needs some serious psychoanalysis ("Hold me a minute" - she does - "Don't touch me!" Give me a break. His fashion sense has to be seen to unbelieved. Although Billy seems to see the light at the end, I doubt he will make any lasting recovery. Bottom line - "Does not play well with others."

These 2 large negatives pretty much balance out the 4 positives. It is a professionally-made movie, and the participants seem to be trying, however.

Supporting cast of Mickey Roarke as a bookie, Jan-Michael Vincent as a washed-up alcoholic bowling-alley owner, and Ben Gazzara and Angelica Huston as his parents are decent.

Recommended for fans of Christina Ricci, or maybe residents of Buffalo. DVD has no extras. Scores generous 5 of 10.

Better than your average shoot 'em up, this Arnold movie has several things going for it - two of which are Jamie Lee Curtis. Other highlights are Tom Arnold's good performance as the comedy sidekick, Tia Carrere as one of several bad guys, Bill Paxton as a womanizing used-car dealer, an interesting chase, generic middle-easterners with nuclear bombs, Eliza Dushku as the wild teenage daughter, Harrier jets in downtown Miami, and your various explosions.

What's not to like?

Directed by James Cameron, who also directed a little-known film, Titanic. DVD only has a trailer - oh well.

Salvador is an early Oliver Stone film, which required overcoming many production hurdles, lying and cheating to complete filming, and committing fraud for additional money (all admitted by Stone in the commentary.)

It was underrated during its brief theatrical release, although James Woods earned and deserved his Best Actor nomination as a press photographer who goes to El Salvador, accompanied by Jim Belushi, to make some money photographing the political mess and killings there, including the murder of nuns and a priest. ("Romero" is a movie about the priest).

Based on "real events" and "real people" like all Stone movies, some license has been taken, also as in all Stone movies.

Political viewpoints aside, the movie pulls no punches in showing the atrocities of war. If you are squeamish about seeing dead bodies, burning bodies and bloody bodies, then you will have to look away on occasion. As in real life, there is some sex and swearing.

The DVD extras, including Stone's commentary, deleted scenes, and cast interviews and clips, are very interesting as well.

I finally broke down and bought this after a co-worker talked favorably about the Silent Bob series. I've read the mostly-favorable comments about Kevin Smith movies, so...

Why was I so bored? I don't know. I've worked retail. I like black and white movies - no problem there. I can appreciate having no budget. I can appreciate "dialogue-based" movies - I like to think. I can make allowances for "first films" - congrats on getting any movie made.

I found this movie nearly unwatchable. I will listen to the commentary and the DVD extras, then sell it (with the other dud movies I buy) to a co-worker - cheap.

I'm not going to rate it - who cares. I will say however, that at Amazon (the owner of IMDB and where I buy all my DVD's) a high percentage of all movies have a 4 or 5 star rating, which is statistically impossible. The nature of "average" means there should be as many 1 and 2 star movies out there, and most as a 3 star show. Here at IMDB, people call 7 average.

The other poster pretty much outlined the plot, so I will not repeat it here.

Heather McComb is the only actor I knew in this movie and is the main reason I watched it. Because of a previous role as a 14 year old 4 years earlier, it was a bit of a stretch to believe the now 18-19 year old actress as, again, a 14 year old character, Christiane. However, she did convey some juvenile personality and was very good overall.

The male lead actor, Michael Wyle, was pretty good too, and had many quirks and mannerisms that (I guess) are consistent with his coke head character, Ernest. I wondered throughout the movie how he could afford all his drugs with his crappy job.

The movie is clearly influenced by Taxi Driver, and in fact, I was going to call this review "Taxi Driver Without the Taxi". There is a narration that sounds very similar to Travis Bickle's voice and his comments, and the older male develops a relationship with an underage prostitute, eventually gunning down all the perps. It is not a straight ripoff or homage, but you easily make the connection.

There is also some influence by the book/movie "Christiane F." (about young druggy/prostitutes in Berlin) and the director reveals his one-time near obsession with the book in the commentary. (Great book by the way, but very depressing even though it has an eventual happy-ish ending).

Surprisingly, there is no nudity or sex, although some of the scenes are inside an adult bookstore. The whole subplot of the "special" porn movie that Ernest eventually arranges to see in order to locate the perps is overdone and a bit of a let down (it's 5 minutes long we are told, and costs $1000 to see it once, and $5000 to buy). The bad guy is "sure" this is what Ernest wants to see, although the subject matter is never discussed. If I was paying that kind of money, I would want to have an idea what it was about. I won't spoil it for you, but I found the 30 seconds we are shown to be not erotic. Like I say, this major subplot is very weak.

Not being religious myself, there were a few religious overtones and symbols that were not crystal clear to me.

I rate the movie at 3 stars, a little better than average, but this is also a DVD review, and here is the bad news.

The "behind the scenes featurette" is worthless. It is just rough VCR quality footage of people milling around. No narration, no introduction of the unknown people we are seeing, and worst of all, the sound is very bad.

Although there is a commentary, there is no movie sound at all, so you don't know what the characters are saying, and therefore in many cases, we don't know exactly what the 3 commentators are talking or laughing about. Normally, we could just pop the subtitles on while listening to the commentary but there are no subtitles available on the DVD.

Bottom line - Great movie for fans of Heather or Michael, decent movie on its own, and a pricey DVD for such badly done extras.

This really is as bad as people have commented. I thought anything would be at least watchable with Dominique and Thora in it, but I was wrong. Absolute, jaw-dropping, unbelievably bad performances from everyone involved, in wildly distracting outfits and makeup. And I like the actresses - in other movies. I liked Lolita, American Beauty, Ghost World. What happened?

Thankfully, it has been a little while since I saw it and it is starting to fade from my memory.

The plot, which was hard to determine, was plain silly. Since when does a tile bathroom go up in flames from a Bic lighter? Oh yeah, at the end of this crap.

I wanted to see this movie for Danica McKellar ever since I saw a photo of her character. She has done a bunch of small stuff recently, but none of it's on DVD.

Anyway, she only had about 2 minutes screen time (counting the bonus stuff), but it was worth it. "Winnie" she is not, here.

Her character appears on a Jerry Springer show equivalent as a gum-smacking, stretch-pant wearing, sexually starved wife of a black man who thinks he's the son of God. He then proceeds to french kiss Maureen McCormick's character, who is wearing a plastic bird on her head.

Alley Mills was a welcome addition as the alcoholic, smoking mother. Again, not "Norma Arnold" at all. She had a good sized role and was great.

The movie is definitely "out there". I'm not one for goofiness or silliness, but this made me laugh a bit, regardless.

Worth renting at least - and buying of you are a fan of Kim Little, Wil Weaton, or even Alley Mills. Lots of other TV people in supporting roles.

It is hard to find any fault in this movie. Filmed in black-and-white, is uses great depth of field so everything, including the Kansas landscape and people in the deep background, is in focus. Many scenes are in one shot, and go for minutes without a cut.

Tatum O'Neal earned her best supporting actress Oscar as a "mature" youngster who ends up on an adventurous road trip to a relative's house, driven by a cheap con-man played by Tatum's father, Ryan O'Neal.

A few other notable actors make an appearance - namely Randy Quaid (briefly) and John Hillerman (several key scenes). Madeline Kahn was nominated for best supporting actress as well.

The DVD has a great picture quality, some nice behind-the-scenes stuff, and a commentary by director Peter Bogdanovich.

It's rated PG for some (funny) language.

It's not my favorite all-time movie, but could be in my top-10.

An easy 9+ of 10. I don't even give my favorites 10 stars.

I like a few of the actors from other movies, and had heard Eberts's positive review (especially about Robert Downey Jr, & Mike Tyson's part) so I decided to watch Black and White.

This movie now sits in the bottom of the barrel of bad movies I've seen, next to Armageddon, Lost and Delirious, and a few others.

I've never seen Brooke Shields look worse - dreadlocks and a nose-ring...I understand it is not a movie about her or her looks, but still, her dialogue ("Let us share your life!" or whatever - I'm trying to forget the movie) was just weak. Also, for some reason, that tiny camera she carried did not convince me of her documentarian prowess...

Robert Downey Jr was kind of interesting as Brooke's gay husband, and his brief scene with Mike Tyson was kind of funny, but that did not make up for the rest of the movie.

Claudia Shiffer was pretty good, although her character sucked, as did all the others.

I had no interest in the characters or the lifestyle that was portrayed.

The commentary by James Toback was just as hard to listen to as the movie was to watch. He seemed to be on tranquilizers, mumbled frequently, and thinks himself great.

1 star, only for Robert Downey Jr & Mike Tyson. Can you decipher my vernacular?

The non-existent plot has been described elsewhere, so I won't recount it here.

I watched the DVD because I like most of Brittany Murphy's characters and I liked Mena from American Beauty (only role of hers I've seen.)

Brittany was about as expected, and I guess did the best acting in the movie. She had little material to work with, however. No one did.

Unfortunately, seeing Mena dressed in sweats and fuzzy slippers, with grungy teeth and circles under her eyes was kinda non-romantic :-) I could have done without the image of her grunting on the toilet.

Someone has to cook up the drugs, which explains Mickey Roarke as "the Cook". However, I really disliked his "acting" and rough growly voice, although in real life I suppose that would be caused by the chemical fumes. Neat to see he has false front teeth, probably a souvenir of his wrestling days. Thought his "pussy speech" at the porno shop was gratuitous, as was most of the movie in general.

John Leguizamo - I knew the name, but not the face before this - must be applauded for his role, the low-light of which is when he frantically masturbates into a sock. Later, when arrested, that is still all he is wearing.

The other characters? Forgettable.

Some people will want to see the naked woman spread-eagled on the bed, or the X-rated animation of fisting, anal sex and golden showers - (not my cup of tea). Yeah, it's all there to see, but I suggest renting a porn movie instead as it will likely be more rewarding.

The DVD has an uninspired commentary, but has a few items of note: 1) The movie supposedly has over 5,000 cuts, beating the record by about twice (so says the director) 2) The director was proud that although the original edit was over 3 hours, it lost nothing when getting trimmed to an hour and 41 minutes. As the song goes, "nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'...

You might rent it as a curiosity, but that's about it. Rates 2/10 for some effort, though futile.

Trials and tribulations of Jodie Foster and her 3 twenty-something year old high school friends...

Jodie gives a fair performance, but the others were substantially less than average.

Sally Kellerman as Jodie's mom was pretty good. Laura Dern ("Jurassic Park") was interesting in her small scenes. Randy Quaid as one girl's boyfriend was mediocre (see "The Last Detail" for his excellent role in a good movie.)

Due to music and cultural references, plus the clothes and hair styles, the movie is pretty dated, but that is not a contributing factor to its badness. False dialogue and some typical cliches are factors, however.

The partying scenes are also unconvincing, as everyone smokes joints like cigarettes, drinks a lot, and never appears intoxicated.

Director Adrian Lyne has made some good movies ("Jacob's Ladder", "Lolita"). Unfortunately, this is not one of them.

Scott Baio escapes bullies on his skateboard. Need I say more?

I give it a 2.

Watched this "movie" in a theater while I was on vacation driving around the state - just because "it was there".

The whole audience laughed at the silliness of it, especially the implant-in-the-brain.

Somewhere I read that the story was originally called just "The Friend", and it got reworked into this bottom of the barrel movie.

I guess the exploding head is worth something, but not for me. This is a "why did they bother?" movie.

My God, where to start?

The premise of the movie was weak at best, and probably looked better on paper, anyway.

The movie is too silly to be drama, but not funny enough to be a comedy. I tried to view it as a satire, but in doing that, I was only overwhelmed by the over-the-top stereotypes. This would normally put it in the burlesque genre, but again, it did not fit, because it tried to be serious at times.

The girls were fairly neutral, but the guys were as close to imitating Richard Simmons as you can get without bursting into flames.

If this was pro-gay - then it failed miserably. Gays do not need this type of buffonic support.

There were a few interesting casting choices such as Richard Moll - with hair, and Dante Basco who I know from a few Wonder Years eps. RuPaul, as an ex-gay, worked for one or two scenes, but was generally weak.

The little costumes the guys wore, the self-spanking antics of the son of the reform school director...

Oh God, I have to stop now, I'm getting nauseous.

This is as bad as Lost and Delirious, but in a different way. At least they don't run around quoting Shakespeare.

Watch it last night, having seen it once years ago. This is a great movie about relationships, and dying, but in a comical way.

I really liked Henry Fonda ("good...GOD!") the best, and the movie really focussed on him. Katharine Hepburn was good, too (duh, they both got Oscars), but I found Jane Fonda was a downer. I understand real-life flowing into the characters and all that, but a) she was depressed, or depressing, take your pick b) she was on display during her bikini scenes (you could tell she was posing) and c) can hair get any bigger? (well, it was the 80's).

If you like guns and car chases, this is not the movie for you. If you like thoughtful dialogue, some swearing by young and old, and some interesting things to think about, then you probably will like it.