Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Operator (I) (2015)
1/10
Just bad, awful, and frustratingly poorly written
18 October 2015
I actually thought the actors were okay, for the most part, but there were quite a few instances where the reactions to certain circumstances seemed way off base. There were so many, that I finally quit counting..or caring.

I don't think I've ever given any other movie a 1-star rating, but this movie deserves it. There is no redeeming value to it whatsoever. It's sad to think that people spent time and money making this. I've seen better home movies.

All sorts of fallacies in "action movie logic" and interactions written that just wouldn't happen in any world, real or imagined, completely destroyed any hope of this movie being worth anything more than a glob of gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. Just terrible and awful, and I couldn't even laugh at it enough to make it entertaining in the least.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Cute, funny, live-action rendition of a modern cartoon classic!
16 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a kids' movie, to say the least, but since I'm a kid at heart, I enjoyed every minute of it. I wonder what people expect from a cartoon-turned live-action movie anyway...well, judging from all the negative reviews, I'd say a lot. And might I also say: get a grip! It's a cartoon...turned into a live-action movie. It's supposed to be silly, goofy, and over-the-top. It's based on a car-toon. It's not rocket surgery.

I have loved the Fairly Oddparents since they started coming on Nickelodeon many, many years ago. I like Drake Bell, and I love Daniella Monet...a lot. She's always been a really cute, pleasant actress to watch, and now that's she's an adult, she has turned into a stellar beauty with lots of acting potential. I even watch a guilty pleasure (Victorious) with her in it, and the entire cast of that show is just a fun bunch to watch.

This movie has all the "classic" characters, with Vicky being the only exception that I didn't really care for. It's a tried-again standard plot of the cartoon series, so nothing new there, and the ending is a little forced and over-the-top (even for this movie), but I still watched the entire thing, beginning to end, never got bored, and even chuckled a few times. It was fun, and Mr Crocker actually stole the show. I was actually hoping he'd be the main bad guy, but nothing doing. I guess the writers/directors/producers didn't want to go that far down Timmy Turner Lane at this point in the series.

Daniella Monet is an absolute beauty, and I hope she doesn't do anything silly like resorting to plastic surgery to fix her (a tad childish) cheeks. She'll grow out of them if she can just wait. And those boots she wore: red vinyl go-go boots, very reminiscent of the ones Mary Horowitz wears in the movie All About Steve. I wonder if maybe the wardrobe/costume designers were related somehow...

Enjoy it for what it is: good, clean fun. If you liked the cartoon series, I don't see any reason why this won't entertain you as well for a little over an hour. It's a worthy addition to the franchise, I'm sad to see it go. I think everyone did a good job with it and look forward to watching it again in the near future.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It's all about the boots (and some plot here and there)...
16 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is an entertaining movie. There really are people out there in this world that aren't exactly like you. Get over it.

Sandra Bullock portrays her neurotic, quirkily-dressed character to a T. She is funny, irritating, socially-crippled, yet I am still in love with her, no matter what type of character she plays. I hated Steve in this movie and think he should have been a little nicer to Mary. This movie isn't going to win any awards, but it's full of interesting characters and is a real hum-deelio of a lesson in social/behavioral disorders and how they can affect (destroy/help/make things difficult in) life.

The red vinyl go-go boots she wears in the movie were some cheap (tacky) ones they found at a local store and like a lot of things in show business, they stuck and became an "icon" associated with a film. I happen to love boots like those and thought they were almost entertaining enough to be considered a character in the movie. Okay, I know that's stretching it, but you gotta admit: everyone remembers the boots! Bought my wife some other colors (pink, silver, black) because she hates red.

Just about all of the characters in the movie (with the exception of Steve) were good and entertaining as hell. Always love Katy Mixon and DJ Qualls, and Mr. Jeong as well, in everything they do. This movie is loaded with quirky characters, and I think it was a good solid performance by all, albeit a goofy one. Yeah, I thought the ending stank a little, but it was a whole heckuva lot better than some other movies I've forced myself to watch all the way through.

I give it a 6 out of 10 rating because it's just so stupid and the ending sequence in the well was just difficult to sit through (no one's that dense, right?), but the rest of it was sheer enjoyment. I laughed and I would watch it again: two things that go a long way to making a movie enjoyable for me.

People just need to lighten up, enjoy the ride, and not expect so much out of their entertainment. Let it entertain you; don't freakin' boo-hoo about it because it's inane or trivial. Sometimes we need diversions in life. Everything doesn't have to be top-notch Oscar-worthy material all the time. Relax.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Arthur (I) (2011)
Arthur was a surprisingly good movie -- thoroughly enjoyed it.
16 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I had no preconceived notions about this movie, other than I like Russel Brand as an actor, absolutely love Helen Mirren in anything she's done, and like Jennifer Garner for the most part.

This movie surprised me. I loved the original, although I haven't seen it in several years, but saw it back in about 1987 or so and loved it then too. This "remake" is more of a reworking, I think. Russel Brand adds his own style and class to it, and it's that much better for it. I immediately felt connected with his character, Helen Mirren's character (Hobson) as the stuffy English nanny who is gruff on the outside but loves Arthur deeply on the inside even if she doesn't always show it. Greta Gerwig, who plays Arthur's love interest, is absolutely charming in a quirky, goofy, sweet kind of way, and I absolutely adored her in this role. The chemistry between her and Arthur is believable and interesting to watch. Loved every minute of it.

Jennifer Garner is one of those actresses that I really like in some roles, and don't really care for in others. She's not really supposed to be likable in this movie, but I found myself strangely attracted to her. I think she pulled off the psychotic-power/money hungry bitch-demon from hell role quite well, actually, and thought she and her character added a much-needed dimension to the movie. As for Nick Nolte's character (her father), I could have done without him. I like Nick, but thought this role was unneeded and a little disturbing, and I felt like it would have been a better movie without him. Sorry, Nick.

Overall, the comedy in this movie works wonders. I laughed at most of the jokes, and I was thoroughly entertained by the three main characters' interactions and their blossoming relationships. Every minute was believable and enjoyable. I even liked the chauffeur's character, played by Luis Guzman, and like him in pretty much everything he does. He's just funny and entertaining to watch on screen.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. I was surprisingly mesmerized by the whole thing, and I will definitely watch it again, probably several times. It's really, really sad at one point, and I can't remember the last time I cried watching a movie. I just don't do that, and this one has a particularly poignant and touching scene that left me watery-eyed.

Just a good, funny, entertaining movie all around with lovable characters and good story. I don't require much else from my movies, so I give it 9 out of 10 stars and loved it. Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy the movie as well.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A lot better than I expected; a very enjoyable movie!
4 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have watched only a handful of the original series. I really had no expectations going into watching this movie, and I realize that probably helped a lot.

It starts off at a fast pace, and I was prepared for that, since I hadn't seen enough of the series to know what was going to be happening. I would just have to sit back and enjoy it. And, enjoy it I did. On Blu-ray and with surround sound this movie looked and sounded fantastic. It had amazing effects and gorgeous locales. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen, and I wanted more when it ended.

I thought the story and the characters worked just fine. I didn't have any trouble following the story, it was paced just right, and there were plenty of touching moments to give a little unexpected depth. And, it felt like it could stand alone, and not like a chopped off piece of a movie where you felt left wanting in the middle of a plot.

Now, I definitely want to watch the animated series. Granted, I might wind up liking the series more, but that's okay. I felt like M. Night Shyamalan did a fantastic job. And I'm not a big Shyamalan fan since he started going downhill with the shudderingly bad "The Happening".

I only give it an 8 out of 10 because it did feel a little rushed. It needed more backstory and balance (Earth didn't really get its due in this one.)
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stardust (2007)
10/10
Wow, out of nowhere comes a falling star that's a hit!
20 December 2007
10 out of 10 and MORE!!

Everything from the strangely-effeminate Robert DeNiro to the all-of-a-sudden re-hottiness factor of Michelle Pfeiffer (looking great for 49!). Not since Ladyhawke has she looked this appealing.

I knew absolutely nothing about this movie when I watched it, and I was amazed. Great characters, wonderful effects and visuals, along with a very interesting story of a boy who falls in love with a girl, who wants him to prove his love and devotion to her by performing some seemingly impossible task. Oh, so you've heard this one before? Well, not quite like this one is told, at least I don't think so. There's enough danger and darkness in it to keep it from being a Hollywood fairytale. It plays more like a Grimm's fairytale, with humor and a very pleasant love story intertwined in it.

I laughed, I felt sad, I was amazed and entertained. I wanted it to end a certain way, and it did. I can't ask much more from a movie, especially one I've never even heard of, and I enjoyed every minute of it. I will be buying this one on DVD, with or without Special Features. It's a hit, with lots of stuff I'm sure I missed the first time through because the kids can't stop talking during it, and I'm looking forward to watching it again and again. Great casting with funny, beautiful people and awesome locations. What a treat!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bug (2006)
4/10
Eh, I don't know what to say or think, but.....
7 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I give it a 4 out of 10 rating. (I originally wanted to go with a 2, but that's about the point where I would stop watching a movie if it was that bad.) So, I watched the whole darn thing. But I have mixed emotions about it.

First of all, you've got Harry Connick, Jr in it and he's pretty much great in everything. Then you've got Ashley Judd in it, and no matter how wound up/strung out/down on her luck she is, she still looks amazing; her acting, albeit over-the-top at several points, is the best part of the movie (and admittedly some nudity). Then you've got weird-dude/creepy-guy extraordinaire Michael Shannon. That's about all for the characters, except for an occasional luscious Lynn Collins (where has she been all my life?) in girl-girl kissing action with Ashley Judd...*tingle*

***SPOILERS!!!*** Yeah, I wish I had known ahead of time it wasn't about "real" bugs, although I knew from pretty early on (say 5 minutes after I saw the Peter Evans character, played by Michael Shannon, that he was "THE BUG" the movie title referred to; didn't take long). Anyway, I think I would have enjoyed this movie a whole lot more if I had known it was about cranked-out drug users instead. Some of the ridiculously insane crazy-rants the two main characters went on would have made a whole lot more sense. The director tricked me into watching (wasting!) about an hour and forty minutes' worth of suck-time that left me wondering where the heck the freakin' bugs were!! Even enjoying it a "whole lot more" would only have pushed my rating up to maybe a 5.5. And all those stars come from getting to see Ashley's awesome body for a little while.

Hate to say it, but this movie had no real re-watch or lasting value of any kind for me. It was just plain too-weird, and not in a good way at all. Even if I had watched it knowing it for what it really was, about the only improvement would be that I could laugh (more) at the characters and maybe sympathize with them (a little). As it was, I wanted them to kill themselves by the end, and I probably would have wanted to join them if I had paid more than $3 to see it!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw (2004)
6/10
Decent outing for new-comers Whannell and Wan, but....
23 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I only give it a 6/10 for reasons that I can't go into too much detail because of spoilers. Spoilers that I won't post and ruin what is potentially a good movie for other people who might think the movie is great.

I can say I took off points for it being un-resolved at the end. Sorry, but I think a movie should be made for the intent of making one movie for one story and then finishing it off. I don't like movies that are obviously made for a sequel (Saw 2 is already in "pre-production"...) Also, several comments were made during the movie that were never followed up on, while just about every other small detail was tied back to a previous occurrence. I kept seeing things and saying "What the...?" and then later on they would get explained, but a lot of stuff wasn't, and I felt the writer/director should have taken the same care with the other stuff too. And, more points taken off because some of the "jump"-in-your-seat sequences weren't really all that "jumpy". They could have been done a lot better. Even some ambient sounds/music used at the right places would have been much better, but some of the scary moments just left me "ho-hum".

All in all, it was a good movie, but I don't think I'll be watching it again. Maybe these guys will grow into something spectacular one day and not turn this franchise into another "Jeepers Creepers" fiasco.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Angel (1990)
8/10
Fun, stupid, hilarious 80's Sci-Fi at its best.
7 September 2004
You've got to like 80's Sci-Fi to really appreciate movies like this. I rank it right up there with Terminator, Hawk The Slayer, The Guyver, Highlander, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for good, hilarious sci-fi fun.

No, I don't think the mainstream public would like a movie like this, but if you like B-rated horror movies & sci-fi, then you should find this one to your liking too. Beastmaster, Krull, and many other movies from that era come to mind when I see this one.

Wonder if it's available on DVD yet....nope. Darn. Maybe one day.

8 out of 10 stars.
38 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doom 3 (2004 Video Game)
DOOM 3 Gives It, and I just keep taking it...
7 August 2004
Wow, what a game. I'm amazed. The detail is astounding, the intensity and terrifying moments are awesome, and the story is compelling. I won't comment on plot elements or anything, but the whole story background blends very well with the action. I haven't had this much fun since playing System Shock way back in about 1994.

The previous installments of Doom weren't really all that scary to me. With really only Alone In The Dark actually being scary. And although the Thief games had some intense, "scary" moments, DOOM 3 takes 'scary' to a whole new level. This game is definitely not for kids because of the extreme violence and gore, and the visuals and sounds are unnerving to say the least. But it's fun for us die-hard violent type gamers.

It does run a little slow and "chunky" in some places on my system though, even with ALL the graphics settings turned all the way down: P4 1.5GHz, 256Mb Ram, ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128Mb. Especially when a dozen enemies jump me at once and I'm flailing away with the machine gun, but at least the game is still playable and gorgeous.

Just a note on the details in this game: everything looks fantastic. Railings, piping, jagged pieces of metal flooring, everything looks so realistic. Even the flashlight effect is creepy as hell as you make your way through a dark room or passageway and something jumps out at you. The light casts extremely realistic shadows as it passes over objects like railings and terrain, and I keep jumping at shadows constantly. DOOM 3 reminds me of Half-Life, only a lot more detailed and 10 times more frightening. I have to take a break occasionally after particularly intense moments in the game just to get settled in again. The sounds and the intense combat in this game give me the shivers.

I don't consider myself a very good FPS player, but it's playable even for me on the easiest (Recruit) setting and it didn't take long for me to get the hang of the weapons system and combat. Finally, a FPS I can play right out of the box!

What fun!!
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The first '10' rating I've given, (I think)
23 April 2004
This is one of the best movies I've seen. I liked it. I'm not going to bore you with this, that, nor the other. Just watch it and see if you like it. From the comical interactions between the characters, to the violent action scenes, this movie rocks and doesn't stop. Kudos to Quentin Tarantino for making a great movie that we have to go see the second part now. Brilliant.

The story's excellent, the action is fantastic, and the actors/characters are to die for - hehe. Quentin Tarantino has blended two things every growing boy likes: beautiful, sexy, powerful women & swords. The man is a genius, and it only took him four movies to do it.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Band of Brothers is nothing short of amazing.
1 April 2004
There are plenty of people who have reviewed this series more thoroughly than I ever could, but I would like to say that this series is by far the best war "movie" I have ever seen. It's really unfair to compare it with other war *movies* because this is a series, and thus lends itself to character development like no other movie ever has. You will laugh and cry right along with the characters, as well as the real-life "heroes" whose commentary opens each segment. I don't see how a movie could ever get more realistic about WWII than this one, although it focuses strictly on the last 1 to 2 years of the European campaign, and basically ignores the Pacific theatre. This is a 10-hour "movie"; one that covered every aspect of WWII from start to finish would probably be about 30 hours long!!

This series is gripping from the beginning as these paratroopers go through rigorous training, all the way to the end of the war and follows up with reunions and updates to the current day (2001) of where the "heroes" are now. Of course, as is said in the series many times, these guys never considered themselves heroes; the real heroes were the guys next to them, or the ones who died in combat doing their jobs.

Watch it. Even if you hate it, you will maybe at least have some idea of the hell these guys went through to rid the world of a great evil. Especially the episode "Why We Fight". It explains it all.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Secondhand tripe: 4/10
14 March 2004
I had such high hopes for this movie, and then it turns out to be one lame joke after another with some pretty lame acting thrown in for good measure. Although there were a couple of pretty funny moments in the movie, for the most part Caine and Duvall seemed to be forcing the majority of the "comedy". There were numerous times where the two old guys would deliver some lines and everyone would pause like they were giving the audience time to laugh. That's not the way to do comedy, it should flow. Therefore, because I wasn't laughing, I found myself frequently waiting for things to start up again.

Too sappy and too syrupy sweet, it's a cute movie, but that's about all. Definitely not a renter or a buyer, wait for it to come out on cable.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Gritty, violent, action-packed and "realistic" (**contains a couple of SPOILERS**)
22 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen several negative comments about this movie and felt I had to add some of my own (positive comments, that is). Several folks have said this is a propaganda flick or that the characters weren't all that memorable. I beg to differ: not only do I definitely NOT want to be put anywhere near a situation like these guys had to endure, but I also don't think Ridley Scott intended to make any kind of statement about this being "the right thing to do" or any political statement whatsoever. He set out (and succeeded in my opinion) to show the general populace how brutal armed conflict is and the high price the men of the armed services have to pay for the whims of the 'suits' in Washington.

Getting off my soapbox now, this is an amazing movie. I think "gritty" is the perfect word to describe this movie. It's tense from early on and never lets up. From the fine performances put in by a wide range of actors, to the intense firefights on the dirty urban landscape of rundown Mogadishu, this movie is a potent reminder that "War IS Hell". Although there were many moving and memorable lines and characters, my favorite ones came from Eric Bana playing the character of "Hoot". He says, "You wanna know what I think? I don't think it really matters at all what I think; once that first bullet goes flying by your head, politics goes right out the window." And when he comments on why he does it, "It ain't about being a hero; nobody sets out to be a hero. You do it because of the guy next to you." (I paraphrase some, but the general idea is there.)

***A FEW SPOILERS AHEAD***

So, it may not have been the "just" or even the "right" thing to do, but these guys did it and went through hell to get there. I think it deserves a looksee from anyone who wants a little insight into the kind of stuff that goes on for the sake of "freedom". Watch it for what it is: a gripping story about a bunch of guys doing their jobs and trying to stay alive long enough to get out and continue on with the rest of their lives. Anyone who thinks this film is "propaganda" needs to watch the faces of the actors in this movie, especially near the end. The anguish and loss these guys went through are summed up in the end when they're all standing around panting and crying in exhaustion and frustration and hugging each other as they look at all their injured or dead comrades lying in a row against the wall when they get back to base. They aren't high-fivin' each other or laughing raucously about how many skinnies they killed; they're shaking and puking from the exertion and tension they've been through.....Some are even gearing up to go back into the battle zone because there are still guys left out there...the guys who **were** next to them, but aren't anymore. Watch the documentary/behind-the-scenes extra on the DVD: the real Rangers and Delta Force guys slipped a note under the actors' door in the barracks and told them to tell their story. And they did.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Freeway (1996)
9/10
I was lucky to find this one! Thanks IMDB.
22 February 2004
I remembered Kiefer Sutherland played a psychotic killer....and IMDB lead me right to this one. I had seen bits and pieces of this movie on cable and couldn't believe how good it was, but back in those days we didn't have "channel info". This movie is wickedly funny, and Reese Witherspoon plays the most hilarious, bad-girl, tough trailer trash role I've ever seen and plays it fantastically. The slutty makeup and outfits she wears as well as the endless stream of profanity she swears are definitely a lot different than her "modern day" good girl roles she seems stuck in now. This movie is funnier than you can possibly imagine, as things keep happening that just blow you away or shock the pants off you and no main character is what they seem to be at first. Definitely unpredictable, this dark comedy is a rare lost gem I was glad to find again.
109 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Late 18th Century....The Age of Reason....Wednesday.
22 February 2004
It's hard to get all these qualities into one film, but if anyone can do it, Terry Gilliam can. As far as comedy/fantasy/epics go, "The Princess Bride" and "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" have not been topped yet. This movie has some of the most gorgeous sets I've seen in a movie; probably because a lot of them were painted! Terry Gilliam knew what he was doing when he wanted to create a fantastic storybook movie. The transitions from live to surreal is breathtaking, and Gilliam tops it all off with hilarious Monty Pythonesque dialogue from a cast of great actors. Every actor in this movie gives a memorable performance, and I highly recommend it for Python fans, or anyone who likes funny fantasies. Truly a gorgeous classic. (Heck, watch it for a semi-nude Uma Thurman and a priceless, and uncredited!, Robin Williams performance.) You won't be disappointed.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This movie would stink on ice...
14 February 2004
Never have I had such great expectations for a cast like this and have it fall so flat that I for once agree with all the low votes. This movie was bad...uninspiring, boring, pitiful. I really like Lucy Liu and Antonio Banderas, a lot. But this movie takes the cake for being awful, and boringly awful at that. Every scene is so disjointed, there's almost no plot movement or logical reason for the movie at all. Some people get shot, some stuff gets blown up, Antonio and Liu fight, then they don't fight. That's it, nothing worth watching. Thank goodness they both have careers they can actually be proud of; this movie won't help or hurt them any I don't think.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shanghai Noon (2000)
9/10
Funny, funny, funny, and even more enjoyable than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!
14 February 2004
I like Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson, and pairing them up for this movie was a great idea. Jackie is excellent and funny, with enough new moves to make it different from his other movies. Owen Wilson plays the smart-alecky know-it-all cowboy, but he's really just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous. He's not exceptionally good or bad at anything really (except for shooting!!), and it's actually a nice, workable change from movies that have heroes that never miss or get shot 500 times and keep going. The comedy moves right along, with several semi-intellectual comical scenes that make me appreciate comedy that's more than just silly, slapstick goofiness for the sake of a laugh (although, fortunately, there's plenty of that,too). All in all, these guys are as funny together as Jackie was with Chris Tucker in the Rush Hour "series". Although, now that both "series" have gone to a number Two (sequels), I think it's time to quit while they're ahead.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Ugh, why such a good rating?
14 February 2004
I went out and rented this because it got such good reviews, but I couldn't get through it. After about 45 minutes, I just gave up and switched it off. I don't care if this movie gets wonderfully fantastic after that point in the movie, but I cannot give a movie like this a chance if I can't get through the first half of it before getting bored out of my head. Waste of money, two thumbs down.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Oh, yes, this movie is way underrated.
14 February 2004
This is Tom Selleck at his best, and I've followed him throughout his career. He's seriously funny, and an excellent actor, but Alan Rickman as the antagonist almost steals the show. Rickman is the best bad guy in all of movie history. I like him whether he's playing good or bad, he always plays them at his best. Snape in Harry Potter, Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Gruber in Die Hard, Metatron in Dogma, doesn't matter, he's the best. Sorry, back to Quigley. This is a classic Western in my opinion. Great story, nice locales, and all around decent acting. Although the Crazy Cora character started getting on my nerves about two-thirds of the way through the movie, it turned out allright. If you like a Western-themed movie, with great acting and a fair amount of comedy thrown in, then this is the movie for you. It is one of my favorites.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caddyshack II (1988)
8/10
Good thing I don't throw in with ratings!!
14 February 2004
Amazing, one of my favorite movies way down at the bottom. Guess I can take some pride in not liking what "the general populace" tends to go for. Jackie Mason is hilarious in this movie, and so's Randy Quaid. I can never get enough of his "strong-arm" tactics, just like in Moving. He was also notable in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Love that guy.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Pretty good (for a prequel)
13 February 2004
First, I absolutely cannot stand prequels. Hate 'em with a passion. But I rented this one because I liked the first movie so much, and I actually liked this one just as much. Those guys really put in a serious effort to be enough like the original Harry & Lloyd (Carrey and Bridges), but not so much like them that it went over like a movie full of impressions. Face it: we don't watch a movie called "Dumb and Dumber(er)" for the intellectual conversation; it's silly, stupid comedy and it works very well. Don't knock these guys or this movie until you've seen it, then make a decision.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed