Reviews

I was so surprised to find this movie because I was a big Dead Like Me fan from the start and was looking forward to seeing a wrap-up of it. Unfortunately, I was mostly disappointed. First off, there are some changes to some of the characters personalities. Of course, Daisy, comes to mind. They had to have another actress play her because Laura Harris either couldn't or wouldn't. People complain that Sarah Wynter is poor at depicting Daisy but I'm not so sure it's all her. When the original Daisy would open her mouth, something interesting came out. Not so with this movie. Daisy's lines in general are just boring. Along with that, there are a few changes in the way the original characters act as if whoever wrote the movie didn't participate in the series and didn't have a good grasp as to what it was all about. I thought perhaps they had different writers but the ones who worked on this also worked on the series. I don't want to give spoilers so I'll just say that some things that happen, esp. the ending with their "replacement" character for Rube, seem completely out of character for all of them. It just comes off as stupid and ridiculous. Another thing is, if they couldn't get Mandy Patinkin, they shouldn't have even bothered with this. He's too important for the composition of the characters to go without and the Henry Ian Cusick part was mostly annoying and pointless. I also wasn't too crazy at how George's mother's change in demeanor from sardonic, cynical and sarcastic to upbeat and recovered from her daughter's death was kind of jarring even though it made sense being after a five year period. There's also a edgy quirky darkness that the original had that is sadly missing here. The best most interesting part of the movie is what happens between George and her sister, which I don't want to say to, again, spoil anything but it is the part that makes this movie worth watching.

I'm already developing a sort of love/hate relationship with this show. The love part is with Jennifer Love Hewitt, especially with the way she is so good at creating warm, likable and lovable characters. That's a big plus for me because I just finished watching the first (and probably the last) season of Ringer only to never attain that feeling of empathy or connection with the characters. Riley is very easy to like and feel a connection with. I also like and care about the other characters on the show, her coworkers and her mother (played by Cybill Sheperd). I also like the premise of the show which is about a single mother trying figure out how to provide on her own and going into prostitution as a means to do that which has to be a common issue for some single mothers.

The problems I'm having with the show have to do with the plot lines and characters needing more depth and complexity. There's simply not enough internal and external conflict happening with Riley over the choices she's making. She fairly easily segues into performing sexual favors after being hired as an LMT (Licensed Massage Therapist) without the pesky conscience. What I would expect to see is a woman who might start this in need of money to raise her kids but would have a mixture of good and bad in choosing it. She might go through periods of self-searching and guilt or disgust while sometimes actually enjoying it. She might develop issues of self-esteem while at the same time feeling a sense of power and confidence in her sexuality and in her life in general. But her experience so far is one-noted and difficult to believe. It just all comes off as so easy for her.

Another problem is the glorifying of the prostitution. It's made to look (exclusively) like a glamorous profession, easy to do, fabulous clothes and men who are all successful and good looking. Seriously, the "johns" so far are guys who could easily get it for free. They need to show more average, bald, old, fat, insecure or ugly men and Riley having to deal with performing sexually on guys who it wouldn't always be so personally gratifying for her to perform for. There are other issues that also need to be brought in (and maybe will be) such as the threat of STDs, the john who is abusive or dangerous, the angry wife. They did a little thing of a wife painting "WHORE" on Riley's car but it was turned into a big nothing. I would like to see a situation where some wife or girlfriend writes "WHORE" on Riley's car and comes after her but Riley has no defense or justification or is not vindicated in some way but has to deal with the real repercussions of being a hooker and damaging marriages and relationships. They're whitewashing what Riley is doing for a living and they made it look like the wife was the one to blame for the husband going to a "brothel".

Finally, there's this unexpected issue with the show. LMTs are up-in-arms about this show because they feel that it is depicting their profession in a negative light. They feel it enforces the misconceptions and stereotypes that it's common that LMTs perform sexually for clients as part of their job. A perception that they've combated for many years. They are afraid that they will lose the respect they have fought for and that it will cause an increase in clients coming in expecting, or possibly demanding, sexual favors in a hostile manner. They are concerned that LMTs who work alone may actually have their safety compromised by a client who won't take no for an answer. At the very least, the show will dredge up a loss of respect, snickers and jokes about the profession that LMTs have been able to assuage through decades of public education. I think they're right. The reason is because this show isn't depicting this scenario as a tacky "massage parlor" that is an obvious front to prostitution (something that I think the original movie came closer to) but as a legitimate massage therapy facility where the LMTs are performing sexually for clients. When real LMTs have posted their concerns on the CL Facebook page and on various message boards, they are met with disdain and ridicule by (already) fans of the show and treated like a nuisance that is raining on everybody's parade but they do have legitimate concerns that should be acknowledged. I don't think the show should be canceled or pulled like some LMTs suggest but they could have depicted the premise in a different manner (like the movie) or possibly attach a disclaimer about this issue during airing of episodes (as another LMT suggested). People pretty much know the difference between reality and fantasy, that real LMTs aren't hookers, right? But the reality is that there are plenty of people who watch TV and think that they are being well "educated" about something and will act on it.

This show has a lot of potential to go into areas about the premise with intelligence, sensitivity and depth. I hope it does so.

I was truly looking forward to a Sarah Michelle Gellar vehicle because I was a big Buffy fan but I've been having problems "getting into" this show. Actually, I wish she would consider doing some made-for-TV movies. I read that she has difficulty choosing projects because she seeks out characters that are unique or eccentric in some way which is smart but there are some made-for-TV movies and characters that are unique and interesting and I gotta assume she's been offered some of them. I don't understand why she hasn't done more of that since Buffy.

Basically, Ringer is about twin sisters (both played by Gellar), one (Bridget) who is being pursued by some underworld drug dealer who wants her dead and the other (Siobhan) who is in an unhappy marriage with a wealthy man. Siobhan fakes her death on a boat with Bridget and Bridget decides to assume Siobhan's life in order to hide from Bodaway (the drug dealer).

What ensues is a hodgepodge of deceits, betrayals, lies and twists that various characters participate in. It seems like almost every single character on the show is deceitful and self absorbed in one way or another. This is one of the main things that bothers me about the show. True, there are many more successful shows out there with similar characterization of lies and deceit (Lost comes to mind) but those shows are successful because the characters while being this way are also lovable or warm in some way that the audience can empathize and care about what happens to them. There's just something cold and calculating about all the characters on this show which makes it difficult to connect with them. Bridget is the only character that is marginally likable and even though I have been watching every episode for this season, I still haven't felt that connection with the characters yet.

Another problem I have with the show is the constant twists and turns. Not that I don't like twists and turns but it's feeling more and more like the twists are the only thing the writers are trying to use to keep you watching. It's just that they have thrown so many in that the show has become inundated with them until it has become too predictable and distracting from what should be the heart of the story lines--the people (whom I cannot find anything to truly care about with any of them). I do intend to watch to the end of the season (just to see how it all finally plays out) and hope that it doesn't get bumped before the last few eps air but even if it were to run into another season (which with the ratings it's not looking so good) I wouldn't be back to see it.

Okay, so it isn't "Alive!" (one of my favorites) or "The Donnor Party". Nobody gets eaten. It isn't nearly as intense as all that but sometimes I need a break from intensity. I caught this movie when I was, conveniently, in the mood for something laid back. Basically, it's the story of a family whose plane crashes in the mountains in the snow. Most of the movie focuses on the ongoing internal conflicts the family has while the mother (played very well by Patty Duke) struggles to get everyone to cooperate in order to survive. The storyline is very simple and so is the dialogue but I found it to be a relaxing entertaining movie. There seems to be lots of criticism in the other reviews. I don't think it warrants **that** much negativity.

The thing about this movie, after having seen it in my 20's, is in it's construction. It is brilliantly acted with an amazing cast. The construction and presentation are flawless. The problems with it are in the details. When I first saw this movie, like many others, I bought everything presented hook, like and sinker. I didn't really research the subject, read anything or watch documentaries on the assassination. For years I walked around bubble-headed believing the theories in the movie. Well, I now put that down to being young and stupid. I just want to say that if you are interested in the assassination, don't stop with researching the information by simply watching JFK.

After seeing documentaries and doing a little reading, I discovered that this movie contains outright lies. Even conspiracy theories should be based on available facts. This movie bases theories on theories. For instance, the "magic bullet theory" is an idea that is based on recreating the shooting of JFK and Connelly but it is based on positioning the two incorrectly in the vehicle. When recreating the shooting by positioning them correctly, there is not a "magic" zigzagging bullet. It went straight through the both of them. The movie claims that Oswald couldn't have acquired the shots that killed Kennedy, but in seeing documentaries that recreate the shots and the injuries sustained, it has been proved that he could very easily have succeeded even with the cumbersome weapon he chose. The movie not only makes up information, it even makes up people who didn't exist to tell it. The woman lawyer who is shown working on Jim Garrison's staff did not exist and was created to give Garrison the image of being progressive in hiring a female lawyer when his entire staff was actually male. If you are going to present conspiracy theories, at least stick to the way events actually happened. In watching a documentary about Lyndon Johnson, I discovered that there is no way he was involved. After the shooting, he was just as discombobulated, grieving and upset about it as everyone else and was desperately trying very hard to handle the situation in a way that the broken American public could feel secure. He may have screwed up in various ways as president (Vietnam comes to mind) but did not kill Kennedy. It's ridiculous.

Another thing I came to realize is that even if there is a possibility of a conspiracy, the chance that all of these people and factions that the movie claims is responsible are working in tandem is as far fetched as it can get. I went from believing every line of this movie, to simply believing that maybe one of these factions were involved and finally (after doing much more research on the subject) came to believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. I can see that I'm not the only one that has made this mistake as there are many people writing reviews and talking on the board as if this is the "bible" of conspiracy theories and somehow proves those theories when on closer inspection it is a house of cards. "The problem that I and most historians would have with Oliver Stone, is not his talent--he's a wonderful filmmaker--but that he's used this to put certain myths into the American bloodstream that abide to this day." Michael Beschloss, ABC News Consultant. Yes this movie is brilliantly put together but it is inundated with lies.

Whatever you believe, please do not use this movie as the only yardstick in determining the truth for yourself.

A college campus becomes infested with zombies due to an experiment gone awry and professional zombie killers descend on the campus to take care of the problem. It's basically a teenage boy movie. There's the generous use of the "f" word, the countless bad sex jokes and many naked boobs. Oh yea, there's also zombies. Much poor dialogue, silly scenarios, boring plot line. As far as the zombie genre goes, it's certainly no "The Walking Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" (it makes lame attempts at humor).

I'm pretty tolerant of various bad movies but this is one of the few where I really wish I could have the 1 1/2 hours of my life back. You really needant bother with this one.

I caught this last night on TCM at about 3am. Maybe they were a little embarrassed to show it in the daytime. What we have here is many shots of bunnies running in slow motion--many shots which appear to be setting the camera on the ground in the hopes that at that angle it will appear as if the bunnies are the same size as the buildings behind them. Some shots appear to be where they created model structures bunny-sized and had the rabbits running and jumping--or I should say frolicking--around them. Then there's scenes of the attacks by bunnies on humans which are mostly showing segments of furry puppets with lots of obviously fake blood. I give them an A for effort in trying out different methods for special effects but had much difficulty seeing them as anything other than ordinary-sized rabbits anyway.

Another problem I had with the movie is that bunnies are just not intimidating. They don't even eat meat so the "suspension of disbelief" thing just doesn't work at all. Even huge mutant bunnies would probably be looking for great big carrots to eat.

Stuart Whitman, Janet Leigh, Rory Calhoun and DeForest Kelley? I can't believe they got these guys to do this movie. They must have needed the job or else misjudged the potential success of the film. I mean, they were making many ordinary-animals-attacking-a-small-town movies in the 70's with success. Some were more effective than others. I think this was something started by "The Birds". At least, birds have claws and pointy beaks and are already meat-eaters. What do rabbits have? Buck teeth and noses that wiggle? Bunnies are just too cute for me to take seriously. Oh well, I guess every actor has the right to make at least one or two bad films in their career.

If you are really interested, try "Kingdom of the Spiders" (1977) which is about swarms of tarantulas attacking a southwestern town with William Shatner (who is always fun to watch) or "The Swarm" (1978) about killer bees which are far more interesting movies of that genre. They still have that 70's corniness but are much easier to swallow conceptually as long as you accept them for what they are.

The only person I could think of who might be frightened of this movie is Anya (I'm a Buffy fan). This movie was good mostly to watch for the laughs. I mean, c'mon! Killer bunnies?! (rolls eyes)

I found this movie in a dollar bin which was actually on sale 10 for a buck and figured 'what the hell'. I usually don't like to buy those because the movies are mostly crap and the picture and sound quality is also mostly crap. But I was always a Jeannie fan so. . . While the plot is a little slow and a bit (much less than I thought it would be) dated, Barbara Eden doesn't fail to make it somewhat interesting. It's about a wealthy woman who is trying to recover from a dark incident in her past which has resulted in a precarious emotional state. Then there's the storyline of rich women being bumped off in various parts of the world. Stuart Whitman plays a mysterious character and Robert Vaughn plays her cold, distant, workaholic husband. The ending is a surprise ending and I'm probably the only viewer who didn't see it coming.

Someone on here made a disparaging comment about Stuart Whitman's pot belly and it made me think. I've been watching quite a few 70's movies and TV shows lately and have noticed how actors in those days and prior didn't seem to try to be so physically perfect the way they do now. They had pot bellies, balding heads, crooked stained teeth and (omg!) wrinkles--wrinkles when they were actually old and **should** have winkles! No botox, no "Hair Club For Men", no teeth bleaching. People were **real**. That reviewer was offended by SW's belly. I found it comforting.

Not a bad little 70's made-for-TV flick. A bit better than the usual dollar bin crap. Oh, and in the middle of the movie, Barbara Eden suddenly breaks into this cool and sexy dance for absolutely no reason. . .hence my review heading.

I can remember when the Amy Fisher/Joey Buttafuoco saga happened and it being in the news and all but, at the time, I was only mildly interested and mostly thought the whole situation (not including Mary Jo) was asinine.

Recently, for some reason, I've been very interested and have seen all three movie versions to try and suss out what happened and why it happened. I think a lot of people (other than being drawn in by the sordidness of it all) just wanted to know, especially at the time that it happened, how something so bizarre could occur.

The other two movie versions, The Amy Fisher Story with Drew Barrymore and Casualties of Love: The Long Island Lolita Story with Alyssa Milano are pretty good and well acted but feel kinda like the "tabloid" version in the way all parties involved are treated. In the AM version, Joey is depicted as a harmless victim and Amy like a psycho sex-pot (and kinda manic). The best thing about that movie is that it's the one where you get a very good viewpoint from what may have been Mary Jo's perspective and what she suffered. The DB version, depicts Amy as (exclusively) cold-hearted, cold-blooded, abusive to her parents, slut, etc. The problem with the way she is portrayed in those movies is that they feel like caricatures of a real person. I'm not saying that Amy doesn't have some of those aspects to her personality (she probably does), I just don't believe those one-dimensional interpretations of her.

This movie, Lethal Lolita, which was a made-for-TV version also, feels the most realistic in it's interpretation of all parties involved. There isn't much of Mary Jo, but Amy, Joey, her friends and her parents all ring true in the way they are portrayed. The events and details unfold in a believable and much more understandable way. One of the problems I have with the other two movies is that they gloss over the issue of child molestation of Amy at the hands of her father. That is something that goes a long way in explaining some of Amy's "issues" and does a disservice to her by not making more of that point. This movie doesn't push that point heavily but does give it more importance. One of the things I liked about this version is that it gets more into the details of the party's personal motivations. Much of what is happening is subtle emotionally but more truthfully explains what happened, how it happened and why in a more objective, realistic and intelligent manner. I'd say if you're really that interested in the whole thing, watch all three. They are all fun to watch but I feel this one is the most believable.

I think some people who don't like this version don't because it doesn't paint the people involved as all black or all white. They are mostly shown as being amazingly screwed-up, emotionally unstable, overly self-involved (narcissistic) with incredibly bad judgment. You do see Joey's manipulation of Amy more clearly though which isn't an excuse for her but at least gives a fairer telling of her story than the other two. If you don't care for a version with subtle complexities that you have to pay attention to to catch, you'll probably like the other versions better.

One more note, another reviewer mentioned that they paid $90 for their tape. I know some dealers in Amazon were charging outlandish prices for this flick--some aren't. It's not worth $90. Personally, I don't think any movie is worth $90.

I wouldn't say this is one of my favorite movies but it was well worth renting. I initially expected the monster to be something different than what it turned out to be but still had a great time watching it. The things I liked the most about the movie were in the way it was filmed. Many people complain profusely about the camera moving and bouncing around, but hey, you were told about that before seeing it, so I don't know why you rented it if that bothers you. If that would bother you, don't rent it. If you didn't like the way "The Blair Witch" was filmed or you get motion-sickness from it, you probably won't like this movie.

The best thing about the camera bouncing around, to me, is that practically everyone has operated a video camera at one time or another and the home-video feel of the movie immediately connects you to the actors in a way that a professional handling wouldn't. You feel like you are one of these people going through this experience in a way that the Godzilla movies can't invite you to participate (although I do love all the Godzilla movies, Japanese and American). I was genuinely "on the edge of my seat" and I haven't felt that way watching a horror movie in quite a while. Actually, the only "critical" thing I could say about the movie is that the detached Statue of Liberty's head just doesn't look big enough to me.

Basically this a movie that took the name of "The Black Dahlia" to deceive people into thinking they would see a movie about the murder of Elizabeth Short (in order to sell it) only to find it's a movie about two guys and their private lives involving stories (fictionalized) that have incredibly little to do with the Black Dahlia murder. After the murder, a whole slew of people contacted the police department either claiming to be the killer or knowing who it was. Does the movie show this? No. After the murder, someone sent letters to the police department taunting them. Does the movie show this? No. Does the movie get into the top prime suspects of the case? No. The Black Dahlia murder is presented in sparse snippets of background information (like a background set) with a ludicrous scenario at the end to explain who killed her. The truth is, no one knows for sure who killed her which is how the movie should have ended because it would reflect the truth.

The only parts of the movie that were interesting to me are the clips of screen tests (created by Josh Friedman) which are fabricated but at least they attempt to give Elizabeth Short some presence. Also, the one scene that shows the discovery of Elizabeth Short's body is not only the best scene in the film but probably one of the best scenes I've ever seen played out in a film. Though Brian DePalma may be an excellent director and some of the movie is well executed, I (like many people on the message board) felt hugely disappointed getting a story that purports to be one thing and turns out to be something that felt pointless to watch. It's not the only movie with "Black Dahlia" in the title and in checking those movies out, I'm finding similar scenarios. Why are movie makers using this woman in the titles of their movies that have nothing to do with her? What's the deal with Hollywood? Why won't they tell this woman's story instead of using her to sell other crap (as if the real story isn't fascinating enough)?

On the bonus features of the DVD James Ellroy talks about his life and why he is fascinated with and creates crime stories. I haven't read any of his books but have heard comments on the message board from others and it sounds like he is a talented writer but when he says he wanted to "honor Elizabeth Short" I was like "Huh?". How is depicting this woman as being a big whore sleeping with everyone (truth is Elizabeth Short had a genital defect that interfered with her ability to have sex) and a woman who made porn movies (never happened) "Honoring" her? It's lying about her, trashing her reputation much in the same way newspapers did in the day of her death sixty years ago.

Another problem I had with it was the tangled mess of plots, sub-plots and sub-sub-sub-plots that made little sense, didn't connect up and only served to confuse. According to accounts of poster's comments on the message board, in leaving the theater, they overheard many audience members mumbling "What happened?" and asking each other to explain what was going on only to be met with similar confusion from their friends. I gave it two stars simply because I could find no fault with the actors in the same way many people who didn't like the movie did. They did the best they could with what they had to work with and employed the appropriate acting techniques in conveying the film noir style which, imo, is something that many audience members mistakenly misinterpreted as bad acting.

I rented it thinking I was going to get a lot of info about Elizabeth Short--what kind of person she was, testimonies of people who knew her or met her, her family, what her activities were before her death, etc. I wanted to see the cops going through the evidence trying to find out who did it (Something similar to a CSI of the 40's kind of thing or perhaps in the way "The Zodiac" was done). I wanted to see what the cops of that department went through (based on the actual history of the case) in trying to solve it. I wanted a realistic historically accurate treating of this horrible senseless murder, something that would show who Elizabeth Short was and why after all these years people still care about what happened to her. Instead of what would have been a fascinating truth, I got a boring lie which didn't need to in any way be connected to Elizabeth Short's story to be told. What I'd like to ask the people who made this movie is, why did you throw away the compelling true story over the fictionalized and uninspiring one? To people interested in Elizabeth Short and her murder, you are better off checking out some of the available documentaries on either CourtTV or A&E, reading books about the case or sites devoted to her .

***SPOILER ALERT****

"Girl, Interrupted" is about a young woman who was hospitalized in the 1960's after a suicide attempt. The main character is well-played by Winona Ryder and features an excellent cast, including Angelina Jolie, Whoopi Goldburg and Brittany Murphy. They give some powerful performances.I found the movie to be funny, charming and entertaining in depicting the relationships of these women in a psychiatric ward. Basically, the story revolves around the young woman's journey back to "sanity" after her initial diagnosis of BPD--Borderline Personality Disorder. The best part about this movie is the emphasis on love and friendship that develop between the patients and staff.

That being said, the movie should come with a warning that much of the story is a gross deviation from the true story, the book by the same name "Girl, Interrupted", written by the subject of it, Susanna Kaysen which is an account of her hospitalization experience. I've seen many user comments from people who haven't read the book referring to it as the "true story" not knowing that many scenes and events never occurred. There are various changes made in certain characters, some big, some small but the most major change is the character, Lisa Rowe, a sociopath (played by Anjelina Jolie). In the movie, she is enigmatic, somewhat cruel, sinister at times and indirectly causes the death of another patient through her cruelty. Eventually, she becomes homicidal and stalks Susanna through the tunnels underneath the hospital with a hypodermic needle loaded with who-knows-what. The thing is, the real-life Lisa never did any of those things which are significant alterations of a character and subsequently the storyline (not to mention slanderous). It bothers me because it reinforces Hollywood stereotypes of mental illness--some things being distorted in order to sensationalize--the butcher-knife wielding mental patient is always more interesting than the real thing to movie-makers. Actually, some of the things that the real Lisa did were more interesting to me, like toilet-papering the TV room and stealing all the light bulbs from the ward (when asked how, she said "I have a long skinny arm.")

Ultimately, it doesn't reflect the true story by Ms. Kaysen whose book is an endearing, honest, meaningful and insightful look at the real experience of mental illness. I would say that as a **fictional** story for entertainment value, it's a good movie and worth watching but if you want the **truth**, I highly recommend you check out the book from your local library.