Reviews

Takes a "gimmick" and runs with it. Backwards filmmaking may not be the filmmaking technique of the future but it works quite well for Memento. This film is truly engrossing from start to finish and it make you want to watch it again to find out what the hell just happened!

When one considers Hollywood stars whose careers have gone down the tubes, Eddie Murphy is one of the first names that pops to mind. Dr Dolittle 2 is a sequel to Dr Dolittle which is a film very loosely based on the Rex Harrison musical (only in the whole "talking to animals" aspect, there is nothing else that is in any way even remotely similar). Recently, Murphy made another "unfunny sequel to an unfunny remake" with Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps. Eddie Murphy simply isn't funny any more. It's a shame since I loved Beverly Hills Cop, Trading Places, and Coming to America. But since the 80s, Murphy has offered only bad B movie comedies that will go down with such stinkers as Police Academy 4. Don't waste your money on this one. 1/10

At some time, I'd like to remember a good action movie without having to remember its countless watered-down sequels. Unfortunately, I saw the second and third Jurassic Parks and was equally unimpressed with both. This one's a stinker. I can't even fathom why they made another one after how bad the Lost World was. Stay home. Good special effects hardly make up for a hollow plot. 2/10

This movie was not in the least bit good. It's way overdramatized. WAY overdramatized. It's so overdone that I found myself not caring in the least bit about what happened to all the cookie-cutter characters. If you want to see a great movie about the bomb, watch the timeless classic Dr. Strangelove, not this junk. 3/10

What happened? I loved the tv series. I liked the first movie. The twists and turns kept me guessing until the end, and I had to go back and watch it again to truly get every detail. This movie wasn't a sequel to Mission:Impossible, not a sequel to the movie or to the tv series. It was a Bond movie. They'd should've just gotten Pierce Brosnan to play Ethan, changed a couple of names, and there it is, another bad Bond spy flick. I was disgusted at the ridiculously overdone action sequences. The fight scene at the end is laughable. Many in the theater I was in left before the end. Perhaps the most disgusting part of this film is Ethan's love interest. This is what makes it most like a cheesy Bond flick. Ethan meets girl, and within 10 minutes they're all over each other. Her character was supposed to be an expert thief, but she ends up being the dumb damsel in distress. Her thief skills NEVER EVEN COME INTO PLAY AT ALL!! Even the cool gadgets and technology weren't interesting this time around. The exploding sunglasses at the beginning that were shown in slow motion as they blew up just seemed so cliche. This is the worst movie to come out since The Postman or Armageddon. Don't see this one. Save yourself some cash and go rent a movie. Anything is better than this disgusting work. I hope they lose a lot of money on this one. Maybe then they'll learn their lesson that they can't lure us in with expensive special effects and a really bad plot.

Okay, I like bizarre movies. I love surrealism on the screen (such as Brazil or Eraserhead), but this horrible excuse for a movie that I just watched was a piece of garbage. I read a whole lot of bad reviews from other IMDb users before I went to see this film, but I went anyway. Ewan McGregor has made good films in the past, and his movies tend to have a bit more depth. I figured, how bad can it be? I truly regret seeing this movie, and I feel dumber now that I have seen it. Don't believe people that tell you this movie is brilliant. It has a few interesting camera tricks, and it had potential, I thought, near the start. The missing daughter whom Ewan sees and speaks to is a really cool effect, but from there the movie crashes into a downward spiral that had people in the theater that I saw it in either laughing or booing. The ending is one of the dumbest that I have ever seen. I repeat- DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!!! DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SEE THIS MOVIE!! IF SOMEONE HOLDS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND TELLS YOU TO WATCH IT OR YOU'LL DIE, TELL HIM TO FIRE AWAY!!!!

Andrew Niccol truly has a flair for writing profound scripts that are ignored by the Academy Awards. Both this and his more recent film, The Truman Show, are packed with some very heavy themes and symbolism. And both movies are fascinating and full of emotion. This movie's premise happens to be one of my favorites- the flawed Utopian society. Much like Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, this movie tackles the problems associated with technology taking over our lives completely. Vincent's (Ethan Hawke) struggle against the system in this movie shows that the human spirit can triumph over anything. The most moving parts of the movie I found to be the races with Vincent's brother Anton. Vincent's line at the end of their final race sums up Vincent's persona perfectly, describing his reason for his constant struggle against the odds. Strong supporting performances by Jude Law and Uma Thurman make this movie in my opinion an instant classic. Truly an underappreciated piece of cinema. 10/10

I find it disturbing that anyone is closed-minded enough to be offended by this movie even before they have seen it. At the theater where I saw this movie, there were picketing protesters calling this film Anti-Catholic and Anti-God. This is religious satire folks. It is supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. Among the complaints against this movie, the main one was the character Bethany, a Catholic who works in an abortion clinic. That was inserted in the film for its absurdity. It depicts a woman who does not know any more where her faith is. She, like so many, attends church out of obligation. She doesn't really know what she believes any more, though. Hence, she feels no guilt in that her Catholic faith and her job conflict. The film was not in any way trying to make a statement about abortion. Some great works of literature are religious satire, and they are still read and studied at high schools and universities without this kind of c**p from ignorant protesters. What I find most ironic is that by protesting this film, many Catholics are proving the point that the movie makes. They are blindly following their church without weighing the facts themselves (i.e. see the movie before you complain about it).

Enough on the topic of ignorance, though. This is supposed to be a review.

I found Dogma to be outrageously funny and thought provoking. However, it was a bit slow, and I found the last scene depicting God as a ditzy young woman to be pretty stupid. Kevin Smith's script is brilliant, though. As is made evident by Chasing Amy and Clerks, Smith has a flair for combining slapstick comedy with raw philosophical discussion. Mallrats was strictly comedy, but it was quite good as well. The film's funniest moments include Matt Damon's overly dramatic executions of sinners. He has some great one-liners in these scenes, particularly the one in the conference room. Silent Bob and Jay steal the show, though. When they first appeared, the audience in the theater where I saw Dogma erupted in applause. You can't even look at them without laughing. Chris Rock was great as the thirteenth apostle, omitted from the bible because he was black. His comic talent was underused, though. Another character that I wish I had seen more of was Jason Lee as the demon Azrael. Lee stole the show in Mallrats, but his comic ability was missing in this movie. Overall, this film is an outstanding religious satire that raises some very important questions about faith. Do Christians follow God or do they just follow their church? I think that the response from the Catholic church to this movie shows that far too often it is the latter choice. However, Smith himself is Catholic. By making this movie, I believe he is presenting a challenge to his fellow Catholics to do more thinking on their own. I give this movie an 8/10 because of the poor ending. Were it not for that, it would get a 9 or even a 10. However, it's definitely worth seeing whatever your faith. You'll find yourself questioning the strength of your faith and laughing uncontrollably at the same time. 8/10

This is one of only two movies I have seen specifically about cloning, the other being Jurassic Park. It boasts two of the biggest names in Hollywood history, Gregory Peck and Laurence Olivier. The movie is a bit dry for the first hour or so, but from then on it is a chilling, edge-of-your-seat thriller. Even though it predated the recent sheep-cloning by twenty years, the process described in the movie is elaborate and, to my understanding, accurate. I'm no expert, but the articles I read about Dolly, the cloned sheep, describe the cloning process quite similarly. The movie is definitely worth watching. If anything, it'll get you thinking about the moral dilemmas involved the human cloning issue. I give this movie an 8 out of 10.

I am a big Stanley Kubrick fan. A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove are two of my all-time favorite movies. However, I had to force myself to watch Barry Lyndon. It was three hours of my life that I'll never get back. The cinematography was outstanding, but the story was overrated and the plot was dull. I can usually appreciate movies for what they are, but it's unfair to expect anyone to sit through this movie and get anything out of it other than wasted time. 4/10 (it's only that much because of the cinematography and because it's Kubrick)

I am writing this review at 3 AM, just having returned from the 12:01 showing on May 19. That's right, I got tickets. I didn't camp out, but I got tickets.

Was it magnificent? not really

Was it the best Star Wars yet? definitely not

Was it a meaningful movies packed with symbolism? of course not

Was the acting good? some of the worst I've seen

Did I enjoy it? every minute

It wasn't Shakespeare, but this movie served its purpose. It entertained me. The plot was intriguing even though I could predict the result of every single occurrence in the movie. I won't spoil it for anyone with details, but it doesn't take a genius to spot Lucas' weak attempts at plot twists even before they occur. The character development is miserable, and the insertion of the comic relief character Jar-Jar Binks was as irritating as the ewoks in Return of the Jedi. Yet, I couldn't stop watching and I couldn't help but enjoy this movie. For once, I will plead with critics to not read into this movie. I am willing to give Lucas some slack when it comes to quality in his writing. Critics should let this bad movie slide by because it's Star Wars, and unless you make it a point to pick it apart (something I like to do- see my review of Return of the Jedi), you will enjoy this movie.

Will I sit on the edge of my seat until Episode II? No, but even if it is bad, I'll still see it.

I couldn't give this movie a ten just because, let's face it, the acting is lousy. Most of the outbursts and whining of the main characters don't seem as realistic as they should. You get the impression that they're reading cue cards as they play the roles. However, the screenplay to this low-budget independent film is brilliant. It is one of the most unique plotlines that I have seen. It's original, which is one thing that makes this movie great. I tend to read into movies too much, but I see nihilism in this movie. The main characters' lives lack purpose and thus director Kevin Smith seems to be saying that life has little meaning. Also, the pessimism is interesting too. Dante keeps getting dumped on. His life seems to be crashing down, getting worse and worse, and yet he wasn't even supposed to be there. The movie also seems to show the incredible stupidity of people in general. I found Randall's comments about the idiots who rent movies to be highly humorous and cynical yet frighteningly true. The big-budget-bad-acting-no-purpose movies tend to become the popular ones that win awards (i.e. Titanic) while quality movies like Clerks go unheard of. I highly recommend this movie. 9 out of 10.

This movie is remarkably unique, funny, and (dare I say it) philosophical! Two of Shakespeare's minor characters are expanded into lead roles as they contemplate the meaning or meaninglessness of life in a nihilistic fashion. Watch for Oldman and Roth's "coffin" conservation. I think it proves my point. The "questions" match and the coin flipping incident are absolutely hilarious. Dreyfuss, whom I usually dislike, gives one of the best performances of his career, and he delivers quite a few memorable lines. If you've seen Hamlet, I highly recommend this movie. It's a whole new twist on Shakespeare. Be prepared to read into it a little, though. I give Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead a 9 out of 10.

I'll give Lawrence of Arabia one thing. It's one of the only three and a half hour movies that held my attention for the whole time (The Deer Hunter and The Godfather also held my interest). The cinematography is outstanding and the plot is much better than average. However, I cannot rank this movie among the top few (Citizen Kane, The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange). It's top 100 caliber, but it's not one of the greatest. The fact is, I've seen better. This is not a movie that made me think. The scenery was not a substitute for the lack of a great plot. Also, Lean was too obsessed with the majesty of the desert. I grew tired by the end of the film of the constant riding back and forth across it. I found myself saying, "Oh God! There they go again! Back across the desert with that infernal music playing!" The music and the landscape never changed, so why make the movie THAT LONG?! It could've been shorter and then the cinematography would've been considered even better because it might not have gotten so monotonous. I'd still give Lawrence an 8 out of 10.

One last thing- How did this completely British film make it into the AFI's 100 Greatest American movies??

I've watched quite a few movies over the years. The friendly neighborhood Blockbuster Video people could probably retire on the money they've made renting to just me. I've seen the entire AFI 100 and every critically acclaimed movies that I can find. Even so, I'd have to say that The Truman Show is one of the greatest movies ever to come out of Hollywood. It's a perfect film. The acting is great, the screenplay is phenomenal, and it is a very deep and symbolic movie. I've seen it seven times and I pick up something new every time I watch it. Even the title character's name, "Truman Burbank," is oxymoronic and symbolic. He is a "true man" who is the product of Hollywood. You can even spot a few allusions to the crucifixion when Christof tries to stop Truman from escaping by flipping his boat. The depiction of a Utopian society reminded me of Alduous Huxley's "Brave New World," a world were freedom did not truly exist even though the citizens thought it did. Why did they not do anything? It's just like Christof said in a memorable and disturbing quote: "We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented." This cynicism is thrown at you one last time in the final scene of the movie. Two security guards, upon realizing that the show is over, shrug and say, "Hmm, it's over. Let's see what else is on" while stuffing their faces with pizza. Likewise, viewers of this movie may see it and say, "Hmm, it's over" without giving it a second thought, not realizing the significance of the movie. Don't see this movie if you're not willing to think. Don't see this movie if you're looking for a superficial, slapstick, screwball comedy like most of Carrey's other pictures (You'll be disappointed if that's what you're looking for). See this movie if you are prepared to be challenged philosophically. Along with "A Clockwork Orange," this is one of two movies that I have given a ten out of ten.

I'm not quite sure why people are saying that this movie was horrible because of nudity. Likewise, I've noticed several people saying that this movie is great...because of nudity! Let's get past nudity, please. All of the reviews of this movie that I have read made that the central issue in judging this picture. I will address it once by saying to potential viewers that it's comparable to "Basic Instinct" in its good plot and large amounts of sex which I do not take into account when critiquing. The movie itself I found entertaining. The twists were well put together. It's almost on the same level as "The Usual Suspects" in that aspect. You'll need to watch the credits for it to make sense, though. Overall, there are many great movies that I would recommend before this one, but it's worth seeing if you've got two hours to spare. I give it an eight out of ten.

I looked forward to seeing Fargo as I heard many great things about it. As I usually am, though, I was disappointed. I just never really understood what was so special about this movie. The acting was good and very believable. The setting was believable as was the portrayal of the local people, but let's be honest, do acting and setting really make a movie great? The problem lies in the script, which just isn't very good. I found nothing at all unique about "Fargo." It's just extremely mediocre. I give it a five out of ten.

What a waste of money! I came in to this movie with high expectations as I do like the tv show. I was very disappointed. I grow weary of big gaping holes in the plots of movies. Does Hollywood think we won't see them? Example A: Mulder drags a half dead and naked Scully out of the alien ship into the freezing cold of the Antarctic Tundra. Mulder's transportation ran out of gas, and everyone else left, leaving them alone and freezing to watch the alien craft lift off. In the next scene, they're magically back in Washington. Would someone please enlighten me as to how they got back and recovered? In this aspect, X-Files the movie is no different from other bad sci-fi/action flicks like "Armageddon" or "Independence Day." Other than the large, gaping holes in the plot, X-Files was still a dumb movie. None of the so-called plot twists ever surprised me. I saw the movie with friends and was able to predict what would happen in everything from the car explosion to Scully's bee sting. Don't waste your time or money on this movie. I give it a 3/10.

I hated almost everything about this movie. It just sucked. Do they really expect us to believe that a crop-duster or the president would really be able to fly a state-of-the-art fighter plane?? This is just another case of good special effects, bad movie. I give it a 2/10.

If you're looking for a great way to get a headache, this is the movie for you. Remember that five minutes in the movie "Easy Rider" where they're tripping on acid? This is two hours of the same type of insanity. I'm not saying this was a bad movie, just bizarre, EXTREMELY bizarre, perhaps the MOST BIZARRE movie that I have ever seen! Yes, that even includes the movie "Brazil" (also directed by Gilliam). I liked parts of it, though. It has some very memorable quotes and superb, difficult acting by Johnny Depp. The movie is also packed with cameos (Cameron Diaz, Flea, Gary Busey, Christina Ricci, and others). However, the bottom line in judging this movie is, no matter how "artsy" and "symbolic" it is, was I truly entertained? I had to really force myself to sit through it. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is humorous and packed with symbolism, but it made my head spin and I found myself checking my watch every five or ten minutes. In this way, I would compare it to movies like "Trainspotting." And, just like "Trainspotting," I give it a five out of ten.

This is a movie that makes you really stop and think. It is true that it is a good movie in itself, but there is also a philosophical element in this movie. It's about choices and free will and existentialism. Does man have the right to take away another man's free will? If man ceases to have free will, does he cease to be a man? Then he is merely a clockwork orange, pleasing to the eye (orange), and yet perfect, a puppet of god or the devil that is as predictable as clockwork. This movie has the potential to change your way of thinking. "A Clockwork Orange" and perhaps "The Truman Show" are the greatest movies ever made if one judges on the basis of how deep the movie is. This is one of only two or three movies that I would give a ten out of ten.

I'll be the first to admit two things, firstly that I am very critical of movies and second that I am a cynical person. I owe the first attribute to the fact that I've seen a lot of movies. And one reason that I'm cynical is movies like Armageddon. I hated this movie more than even "Howard the Duck," "Surf Ninjas," or "Dracula: Dead and Loving It." Why hate this movie? First of all, in a summer that featured masterpieces like "The Truman Show" and "Saving Private Ryan" plus good movies like "There's Something About Mary," "54," and "Deep Impact," this piece of trash was the top-grossing movie. (By the way, "Deep Impact" was a surprisingly good movie.) Second of all, it's rehash. I'm getting extremely tired of these disaster movies. This is the third "...there's an asteroid/comet heading towards earth!" movie released in the last two years. Aside from movies like "Asteroid" and "Deep Impact," there have been similar theme movies as well. There was "Volcano," "Dante's Peak," and yes, I would even count "Titanic" as the same genre. Third, we come to the movie itself. For lack of a better word, "garbage" is the best description I can think of. It has a sappy Hollywood romance to appease the female viewers while at the same time, it has an equally stupid and unbelievable action part to keep the male viewers from being too bored. In this aspect, it is much like "Titanic," although at least "Titanic" made some semblance of an attempt at a realistic presentation of the action sequences. "Armageddon" was boring, unrealistic, and unoriginal while at the same time showing some of the most pathetic acting skills I've ever seen making it the absolute lowest of the low in my book. Hollywood knows just which buttons to push to create a movie that supposedly everyone will like while keeping the brain work to a minimum. It is a sad but true fact. On a scale of 1-10, this movie gets a 1, and it was lucky to earn that.

Every time I tell people how horrible I thought Return of the Jedi was they give me this puzzled look and say, "but it's Return of the Jedi! You can't hate Return of the Jedi!" However, this movie really bothers me every time I see it. The creativity of the first Star Wars made it a great movie, and the shocking twist in Empire made it quite possibly the greatest sequel ever. Yet this incredible scenario presented at the end of Empire was wasted in a movie full of rehash. First of all, could Lucas really come up with nothing better than a SECOND Death Star??! And just like the first one, the movie ended in an all out assault on it. Luke and Vader fought with light sabers (again!). Not to mention, in a desperate attempt to recapture the emotion created in the audience after Vader said his famous "I AM YOUR FATHER", Lucas made Leia turn out to be Luke's long-lost sister. Give me a break! A little competition between Han and Luke might show some semblance of conflict among the good guys. Just because it's sci-fi doesn't mean it can't be somewhat realistic in character presentation. Vader's unmasking was disappointing. Instead of Lon Chaney unmasked as the phantom, we got Uncle Fester with acne. Carrie Fischer can't act worth $#\&*! Although I could go on and on, I'll give just one final reason. Three words: Ewoks! Ewoks! Ewoks! I hate those furry little muppet wannabes. They were added for one reason and one reason only, so Lucas could line his pockets by making Ewok stuffed animals, talking Ewok toys, Ewok lunchboxes, and even an Ewok TV show! The bottom line is, this is the most OVERRATED movie in the history of Hollywood!!!