Reviews

Not a fan of most Science Fiction movies, I found this one very well done. I saw it for two basic reasons, it starred Charize Theron and it was done in 3D. As to Charlize, the film makers wasted her talent. The role she was given was completely unnecessary and had no affect on the movie. I suppose they hired her in order to place her name in the credits. As to the 3D, it was quite good. Not a movie that used the technology for the effects to scare, it gave tremendous depth and added much to a movie done in darker toned colors. As this prequel is to have a follow up, I'm afraid it will be one that I won't watch. I doubt if Scott will spend the money to use 3D again as he will probably draw his audience with the subject matter which he's used much too often. In this film, fortunately, he kept away from those creatures until the final scenes.

To attempt to explain this story, provides too much of the plot. This review only speaks to the audience it should reach and to the performance of the few actors, all good. Ashley Judd, however, is more that that (good). Ms. Judd makes us fully believe her character. She had the ability to make me understand how she could get involved in something so unbelievable. A concept that determines the type of audience. Very few people will find enjoyment here. Many will find it ridiculous, others will simply call it horrible. The few of us that remain will find it dark, sad, and psychotic. Drugs play a minor role in the road to insanity. Distrust, loneliness, and paranoia are the major drivers. There is some horror involved, most of it within the mind. I've watched the movie once, quite sometime ago. I swore to never view it again. But, thinking back, I doubt I'll keep that promise. There can be little doubt but I will watch it. I'm not sure I can reach the ending. For those that haven't seen it, I recommend it to very few. I guarantee that most will actually hate the film. A few will never forget it. Either way, it will make you feel "buggy".

Gave movie a generous 8. It may be unfair to rate it lower than others have done as I had read the book. If you've done the same, you may tend to rate the movie even lower than I did. It deserved an 8 for no other reason than it was exciting and provided fairly good acting. It differed so from the book, it was sad. The movie seemed to be in a rush to conclude the series and provided little in the background stories required to make it unforgettable. For moviegoers that did not know the story, I would expect some confusion. For those of us that read the book, I would expect plain disappointment. Unlike the conclusion to Lord of the Rings, this will not be an Oscar contender. I'm surprised that the stories author hasn't complained; my God they had two movie to do the ending properly and they missed entirely. As I read my review, I'm reconsidering the 8. Well, it was exciting, had good affects, and did bring the story to an end, although somewhat clumsily. Yet, I'm sure millions of younger fans will think it great so, the 8 stays.

This was not only the worst Christmas movie ever produced, it could possibly be the worst movie of any kind ever produced. The story is quite simple, it tells the tale of a couple that sneak away during the holiday season in order to not spend time with their respective families. Once you meet the families, you might understand the reason for their yearly exodus. The problem, however, the couple themselves have very little personality to win your heart. The jokes, if jokes they are, are stale, mean spirited, and most un-Christmas like. We would be embarrassed to have our names associated with a movie that will yearly remind movie goers that actors will do anything for a buck. There is no Christmas spirit here, please don't plan to show to a child. In fact, please don't plan to show to anybody. I would be glad to tell you that the ending had some saving grace but I cannot. I left the theater as the couple was being entertained by family number three. My wife, on the other hand, remained to the bitter end, not one to waste the money for a partially seen movie. According to her critique of the ending, she wishes she would have. Leaving when I did was one of the best gifts I received for this holiday. To be fair, I'll admit, there was one moment, one scene, when I laughed. Conceding that, there were two enjoyable moments in Four Christmases, that scene and the leaving early.

After reading the book, I just had to see the movie. The premise of such a great story starring my favorite actor thrilled me. The problem, except for Jack, the movie stunk. If I had to watch the little boy talk to his finger one more time, I would have lost my mind. Thank goodness Stephen King did this mini-series. It is as close to the book as it could possibly be. It's hard to admit that I could prefer any movie that replaced Jack with a middle of the road TV actor. It shocks even me. I'm afraid that Kubrick, having Nicholson for his star, tossed the script and spent his time elsewhere. Read the comments that support Kubricks version. They all talk about Jack's great acting job. They all admit that the true story line was changed. I believe it was changed to suit Jack's great "Here's Johnny" scene. It's about the only thing that version has to offer. Either read the book or watch the mini-series. Oterwise you're watching something entirely different. It may be called "The Shining" but it certainly wasn't written by King.

Saw this film while stationed at a remote site in the military. As I remember, it was one of the few movies, at the time, that really made me laugh. It so resembled the nuttiness of everyday military life. It displays attitudes of peoples from different cultures required to depend upon each other for survival. It shows that war, itself, is a national problem while the average soldier is really not so different from his enemy. If this were on DVD, I would purchase it, in a heartbeat. The truths brought forward in this story are as meaningful today as when I saw it in 1962. Best yet, every member of the military audience viewing it, laughed until they rolled. It didn't matter what their political orientation, the humor was there for all to see. If a fan of "King of Hearts", I recommend it.

It was astonishing to read the lead in review. The complaint laid forth by the critic that the director's view of the North Pole and Santa's workshop did not reflect his, too bad. Maybe the critic could do better but it's doubtful. As for the line that the Elven town looked like something out of a German city, so what? Didn't many of the concepts of Christmas begin in Germany? My family (two seniors, a twenty year old father, his 3, almost 4, year old son) loved it. The colors were brilliant. The number of elves dancing, singing, and rushing to create an entrance for Santa was outstanding. Santa, himself, proved to be exactly as he should. Intelligent, sturdy, and kind. His reindeer, just as impressive. Forgetting the North Pole and remarking on the rest of the movie, how well done! The artwork, just great. The excitement, our grandson was out of his chair and standing while holding onto the chair-back of the row in front of us. There were scenes that could have seemed somewhat scary for a youngster, he didn't find them so. He laughed several times out loud, had his eyes glued to the screen when something serious seemed to be happening, loved the entire movie. He wants the DVD for Christmas (he will have to wait a year). He also told us that he wants to see the movie once more before Christmas. Out of the mouth of a three year old, his favorite movie.

How can a critic want to re-design that? All because he didn't like the city at the North Pole.? I guess he was looking for buildings made from peppermint sticks. To each his own. As for the three adults, we too were amazed. We went for our grandson. We enjoyed it so much, we applauded (as did others in the theater). It will be easy to return for a second showing. And, the DVD, this family will be buying more than one. My summary states that this was the best Christmas story ever made (put on film, actually), we think it was more than that. It surpasses other great animated films. Once purchased in a DVD format, Toy Story will be relegated to the back shelf, even during the middle of summer.

If we were to see one movie this year, or suggest that other's not miss one, this is the film. Without a doubt, the movie was directed, created, envisioned, by Moore. His influence is felt throughout the film. But, be a liberal, a political moderate, or an extreme conservative, Moore brings many questionable events to light. He also had the courage to show the misery, the pain, the fear faced by our troops abroad. From the scene when our armies were rushing to Bagdad full of bravado, to the scenes where the many terribly wounded were questioning why, to the scene of draped coffins, all enlightening, sad, and if I may say so as a veteran, disgusting. The young soldier that faces prison instead of returning to the front, the discussion with the soldier, a one-time strong Republican, on his way home (full of morphine), to convince his neighbors to vote Democrat are worth the price of admission alone. The scenes of our President, his reaction when first hearing of the disaster of 9/11 are appalling. More than anything, this movie made us wish that our country, our world, return to the days (Greece, Troy, Rome) when our brave leaders led the charge. I would truly love to see how they match up to the poor soldiers that they've placed in harms way. We left in tears.

Yes, this can be compared to "Pulp Fiction". It has a slew of twists and veers from one set of characters to another at the drop of a hat. Unlike "Pulp", however, there are many sympathetic characters mixed into the cast. The film has humor (a hired gunman that spends much of the movie looking for Italian seasonings while cooking for his captives), some sadness (a once successful director down on his luck, ready for suicide, being ridiculed by a bit part actor), a very lush Charlize Theron, a movie mogul with "kidney stones", and an extremely competent killer that has a thing with his stop watch. Let's not forget the two police officers, one a compassionate young man looking to advance to criminal investigation, the other a red neck failure that decides its time to shoot a foursome at the golf course next to his home. How these characters are brought together through the planning of an Olympic star (well, almost a star)who is ready to have her ex knocked off for the will is amusing, well acted, and one of the best films I've seen in some time.

I'll admit it, I really liked "The Matrix". So, I made the mistake of purchasing "Reloaded" on DVD. After doing so, I thought that, as bad as "Reloaded" was, it was just a stepping stone to "Revolutions". So, I again spent good money with the belief that the final installment would return to the quality of the original story. What a mistake! If you didn't like the second installment of this series, you certainly won't like this conclusion.

Except for the special effects, and I'm not so sure just how special they were, this movie stinks. When it was over, I had no idea who was the winner, who the loser, of this waste of time movie. It seems that a computer program (Mr. Smith) gained self awareness, proceeding to wear dark glasses, and began to call his opposite, Neo (the balance, which I never understood) Mr. whatever. I had once thought that Neo was removed from his crib that the machine world used to collect our hymans electrical energy. But, apparently, Neo was more than this. He was the evil software's opposite, the balance. The concluding battle between these two forces were meant to show the moviegoer that there can be no winner when two equally opposing forces meet, just achieve "the balance" and you win. Whatever happened between the poor human citizens buried miles beneath the ground and the maching "God" that at one time controlled the world through the electrical charges of it's human collection, I'll never know. I do know that "the oracle" that we believed dead more tha once, sits under a blue sky on a beautiful spring like day, the machind "God" has made some sort of peace pack with Neo (not sure if it means that any of the enslaved humans are returned to life), Neo's girl fried gets to see the beauty of the earth and sky for 3 seconds before her exit and a small group of humans soon to become Morlocks are screaming happily at Neo's success in stopping their complete destruction. Never mind the machines that produce the environment and food supply. I know we see the Oracle on a park bench in New York but I have no understanding how the transformation from a world completely destroyed by machines provides her that wonderful moment. In fact, I don't have a clue as to the Oracles existence at the conclusion anyway, the last time I saw her, before the closing scenes, she was in the grasp of a smiling, crazily laughing Mr. Smith. About the best I can say about this movie is that it finally ended. I feel like a sap for putting money into the DVD's. If anyone, reading this, has a better understanding of the movie, please be kind enough to tell me. Or, was the enjoyment derived only from the special effects, and from the producers, from the cash they hauled in?

As with others that commented on this film, I first saw Rhinoceros because it starred Gene Wilder. At the time, in the mid 1970's, Wilder was near the peak of his popularity. The film was a complete surprise to me. Very bizarre, nothing that I expected. Years later, I remember that I was quite disappointed with the movie and wondered just what it was that Wilder was doing. Years later, however, I find that the memory of this film has never left me. The premise of the movie, that of all the towns-people turning into Rhino's, escaped me. Today, I relate this film, in some ways to the novel 1984. I see the resemblance of the Rhino to sheep and/or cattle. This Wilder film is not comical. It is, however, a strangely unsettling satire that is difficult to forget. I, for one, am looking to purchase a copy of this film on DVD. I'm sure that it's meaning will be more apparent to me today than it was when first viewed 40 years ago.

We held off watching this movie for quite some time. A real shame. The movie brings talented acting, intelligent in-sights, humor, and reality to the screen. It's difficult for us to read other reviews and find that some critics did not find enjoyment with this film. So often, we don't get our money's worth when watching even the more expensively made films. We can only say that this movie lifts the spirit and is one worth adding to a DVD collection. To see the growth achieved by both a selfish bachelor on the prowl for single mothers and a young school boy in need of a father's input was wonderful. The movie allows for character growth of not just the two main stars but also of those surrounding them. To accomplish this dramatic feat, with the continuously subtle humor of the film is an excellent achievement.

The Two Towers is the middle piece of Tolkien's masterful fantasy, The Lord of the Rings. Although written to entertain children, this story becomes PG-13 entertainment on the screen. This section of the author's tale is actually many stories in one. Following the first installment, The Fellowship, it continues to follow the surviving characters as they now move along different paths. Differing but related plots involve two seperated pair of Hobbits, one pair moving toward evil Mordor in an attempt to destroy the ring, the second, captured by the enemy, to eventually escape and take on the battle of one of the two towers. Other plots involve the transformation of Gandalf the gray wizard into a more powerful being, and the battles for two human cities. A new character, once known as Gollum is soon recognized as a relative of the Hobbits. Utterly destroyed by long possession of the ring this character truely bears the name Smeagol. He is a wonderfully digitized character. It was most difficult to believe that Smeagol was an animation. The story starts with the continuing battle of Gandalf and the creature in the caves of Moria. It continues, non stop with action and battle after action and battle. The war scenes are terrific. If not a fantasy, these scenes would rate with the battles of Private Ryan. As with the battle scenes, the entire movie is terrific, rating a strong 5. Hopefully, the academy can allow itself to give a Best Movie Oscar to a show made purely for entertainment. If ever a movie didn't disappoint after reading the book, this is it. A warning however, Two Towers is very graphic. It may have been written for children, but this director undoubtably made it for those of us that first read it years ago, and are now adults. It may give young tots nightmares.

This is a finely acted movie. We recommend it for that, if for nothing else. It is a very dramatic story, telling of the young girl, Astrid, forced to move from foster home to foster home after her mother is jailed for murder. We follow the maturing of Astrid (Lohman) and the consequences of her association with numerous foster parents. Astrid's mother, played by Michelle Pheiffer, controls the events in Astrid's life, even though jailed. As Astrid begins to realize the harm being done to those she lives with, she begins to see the power of her mother and the damage she brings to those that foster her. To finally overcome her mother, Astrid is forced into decisions that bring about her maturity and independence. We went to this movie after reading the book. Although we enjoyed the film we found many parts of the story disappointing. The actor that played Ray, Astrid's first male love did a fine job but was miscast. Parts of the story itself were either disjointed, skimmed over, or left out completely. An example of this came at the end when Astrid reviews the suitcases she carried, a different one for each foster home. There were more suitcases than story lines. The affair that brought about Pheiffer's arrest was a major part of the book, as it gave insight to the mother's personality. This was almost ignored in the moviemaking. All of the actresses, however, did a fine job. I can see academy award nominations for both Lohman and Pheiffer. Zellweger, playing the part of one of Astrid's foster mothers was also excellent. If you haven't read the book, like fine acting, a deeply dramatic story, and can handle the filming (it seemed to be filmed as though it was a documentary), we can recommend this story. If, however, you've read the book, be prepared for some disappointment. All said, it still deserves and 8.

It won't happen but Goldie Hawn deserves an academy award for this one. The movie itself. funny, dramatic, sad, is a wonderful tale. It definitely took our entire group back to the "what's happening" era. It also shows how many of us got caught up in the trappings of life we once thought were beneath us. It has been sugar coated, for sure, or the ending may have been much more difficult to take. The lessons, however, are there for us all. We admit that this movie is only for the under 65 crowd. Some of the language and much of the subject matter were more than a little "R" rated. But, for someone wondering what happened to the 60's generation, this movie is for you. And for someone that appreciates Goldie at her best, this is it. It's one of those movies that can catch you laughing while you try to hold back the tears. When it ended, the customers in our theater cheered.

Having believed that "The Lord of the Rings" should have won the oscar for best picture, I was surprised to find that "Moulin Rouge" was, actually, the better picture. Without reading any publicity about this movie, I had thought that it would be a typical musical centered on life at the Moulin Rouge in Paris. How wrong. This movie was more surrealistic than could be imagined. It played more as a colorful, crisply directed, film that would puts MTV musical videos to shame. Why this picture's director wasn't nominated for an award is beyond me. The story, a romance between a Bohemian writer and the theater's star attraction was poignant. Both stars play their rolls to perfection. Ms. Kidman was beautiful, more so than ever I realized. But, the true beauty of this production was in its rendering. A musical using both original songs and works by such writers as Elton John and Paul McCartney. It might not be for everyone. But for fans that enjoy the color and excitment of a beautifully crafted piece of work, this is it. An "art" film placed on the big screen. And, art it is.