Reviews

15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Big Night (1996)
3/10
Uh, oh. It's one of *those* movies
8 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
About 45 minutes into this movie, you start to realize this is one of *those* movies. It's one of those movies that never really gets started, then you realize, it's not going to tell you the story you want. Then you realize, it's not going to tell you any story whatsoever. You care about the characters; you want them to succeed, you'd even be willing to see them fail but in the end you're left with questions about what it all means. What happens now? It's all very unsatisfying. Sort of like smelling the food but never getting to eat it.

Why did they open a restaurant across from another, wildly successful Italian restaurant?
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of only two movies I ever walked out of
6 April 2005
I don't have much to say about this movie. It was just boring. I was confused about Linda Hunt playing a guy. She was obviously a woman. So you're sitting through the movie thinking: why is this woman playing a man? It starts to madden you until that's all you can think of. I remember thinking that this was going to be some great action flick from the exciting trailer they showed on TV. They must have known what a klinker they had if they tried to sell this as an action movie. It was a plodding toothache of a film. Anyway,I got tired of this movie and walked out. It wasn't one of the worst movies ever but it was in the bottom 10 percent. Zzzzzzzz.....
6 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Phooey
7 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I wanted to like this movie but it was a soul-less anti-movie. Ridiculous story : When a Nazi scientist named "Totenkopf" wants to blow up the world, it's because he thinks society is too sick to live and he certainly doesn't create a rocket ark to blast into space and save all the animals.

Ridiculous hardware and physics: If you're going to have a movie with flying robots and ray guns, fine. Just don't make us believe a fighter plane chased by same can navigate city streets at 200 MPH. Do you know what happens when same fighter goes into a vertical dive at 1000 feet and smacks into the water? Submersible or not, it's going to kill anyone on board.

Then there's the unlikable, one-dimensional characters and if you wonder why you should care what happens to them, the movie really starts to lose any interest you had.

Just an unlikely, unconvincing waste of an afternoon. Do yourself a favor and watch Indiana Jones instead.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Battleground (1949)
A Gem
18 September 2003
There's not much I can add to all the comments I've already seen. Clearly, no one disliked the movie who bothered to comment. The cast, the direction, the battles--all top notch.

I think the only thing I can add to the praise is how this movie gets better the more war movies you see. As a kid, I didn't think too much about this this one. In fact, I'd easily have voted the "Battle of The Bulge" as a favorite and this one much further down. Now, using what (I hope) is a more critical eye. "Battle of the Bulge" is a stinker I hope never to sit through again and "Battleground" sits at or near the top.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
If you can't sketch the entire plot from the trailer...
3 January 2003
An utter waste of time notable only for the amazing resemblance of Leelee to Helen Hunt. It reminded me of "The River" (Kevin Bacon movie) in that you KNEW the bad guys were bad, you just had to sit through ninety minutes of stinko movie before they actually decided to advance the plot to what you already saw in the preview. If you're laid up in bed with a broken remote control and this movie comes on, choke yourself unconscious.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WHEN was this film set?
26 December 2002
This one I like but I was troubled trying to figure what era it was trying for. It definitely did not feel like 1958 at any point in the movie other than in the beatnick bar or when the hula hoop hit the stores. Maybe they were trying to make "the Hud" feel a little older and out of touch but the film felt very 1940s and the extreme art deco touches felt like the 1930's. I just felt like no one cared about the details--just make it look old. Contrast this against the minute attention to detail in 'O- Brother' and you'll see where I'm coming from. Jennifer Jason Leigh does a good 'Philadelphia-Story'-Katherine Hepburn imitation but it gets on one's nerves just the same. The other thing that bugged probably me and no one else was the giant clock that was obviously electric (see the smooth sweep hand?) had giant, weight-driven, mechanical works.

That said, I love all the rest of the film! See it on New Year's Eve.

BEST SCENE: The Hula Hoop kid!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A tiresome disappointment
23 October 2002
I wanted to like this movie. I read the book in junior high and I was quite surprised when I found out they were making a film. I figured it would just be a knockoff of "Saving Private Ryan". I wish it had been.

All this movie is a one disconnected scene after another. The movie alights on one unimportant character after another without laying down much if any story line. The almost constant mental voiceovers, far from helping you understand what's going on (a la "Blade Runner") only annoys the viewer. First, you don't know who's voice you're hearing. Second, it's a bunch of drug-induced, cryptic, fragmented deep-thoughts that you struggle to make fit in with what's on the screen.

Big stars come and go. The guy who's the main character (you tell yourself) gets killed. You see all these scenes of various "Man-on-the-Canal" scenes. Then it ends. If it weren't for the battle scenes, this would be a total loss. As it is, I wouldn't watch it again if the remote were broken and I were down with malaria.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Patriot (2000)
not terrible
7 June 2002
A visually appealing movie and the acting is ok. I guess the directing is even better than average. It's the cockamamie, predictable story that makes me wonder if I'd ever sit through this one twice. If there was one scene in this movie you didn't see coming after seeing the one before it, you haven't seen many movies. Better than a Saturday night at your in-laws but not better than a really good plate of scrambled eggs.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
a great movie to rent with the guys
7 June 2002
Sure it may not be a classic but it's one full of classic lines. One of the few movies my friends and I quote from all the time and this is fifteen years later (Maybe it was on Cinemax one too many times!) Michael Keaton is actually the worst actor in this movie--he can't seem to figure out how to play it-- but he's surrounded by a fantastic cast who know exactly how to play this spoof. Looking for a movie to cheer you up? This is it but rent it with friends--it'll make it even better.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Maybe just for fans or maybe not
24 May 2002
I have to admit, I've been on both sides of the fence of Beavis and Butthead. When I first saw them, I went on record as being one of their biggest detractors. I don't know why I caught myself watching them one day and became a big fan in spite of myself. It can happen to you!

The movie threatens to be everything a B & B fan ever dreamed for their 1st (& only --*sigh*) movie. The opening scenes are absolutely inspired and the movie rolled strongly on through the first hour to my delight. After the desert scene, I think no one had any good ideas and they just went with what they had. There wasn't a real strong for the last third of the movie (except Chelsea Clinton knocking Butthead thru a window!).

The only reason I didn't rate it higher was the whole bit with Anderson. I got no joy from seeing the Andersons tortured through the whole film and I wonder about anyone who did. Robert Stack was a big plus but there's only so many body cavity jokes you can deliver.

If you see this movie in the right frame of mind and maybe with the right friends, you can appreciate the genuine humor without worrying that you're losing brain cells.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Matrix (1999)
4/10
Couldn't get past the ridiculous plot
17 May 2002
There's science fiction and then there's dumb. Anyone who took any physics or biology or knows anything about computers can't be taken in by this hokey plot. Very seldom is a plot so stupid that it detracts from special effects this good. This was one of those times. Even "Twister" seemed plausible compared to this pointless endeavor. Next time you want to waste the time of a bunch of very creative and talented special effects people, you might try a GOOD science fiction story.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Rent it tonight
17 May 2002
Intelligent script and super casting. I never get tired of this movie. An irresistible slice of American History with a side of whodunnit. The mystery should have you guessing until the end. Do yourself a favor and rent it next time you're in the video store.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Amateur filmmaking gone awry
17 May 2002
This was notable for being the one and only film Mystery Science Theater 3000 could not make enjoyable. It looks like the kinds of movies we used to make with our friends back in junior high except we knew enough not to send ours to Hollywood. Let me be clear: This movie is bad because it has no plot and doesn't care. "Nothing But Trouble" is the worst film ever made because it's TRYING to be good and leaves you traumatized for life.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The biggest waste of a cast I've ever seen.
27 March 2002
Absolutely the worst movie I ever sat through. I'd have to be in a full body cast to ever watch a minute from this film again. HOW it got to be so offensive, stupid and unfunny with a cast like it has is the only notable thing about the movie. .... Plus, maybe because killed the career of the Digital Underground. OH, it's bad!

EDIT I don't have any desire to water down my statements, in fact, if possible I would reaffirm them. I only get to say that one movie is the worst movie ever made and I still give my vote to this one. I still have sick and uncomfortable memories of this movie after 14 years! I sincerely wonder about the sanity of the people who like this movie. Not the people who just say they like it to be different but those who MEANT it when they said this was classic comedy. This film is so excruciatingly, unfathomably bad that it changes you forever and for the worse. As an American, I apologize to the rest of the world that this movie was made.

A final remark to those who own a copy of this "film": Get help.
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tank (1984)
7/10
Worth a look.
26 March 2002
If you can ignore the dopey ending, the movie has some very nice surprises best of which is the incredible performance of GD Spradlin as the sheriff. This may be a lightweight movie but he does not throw away his role. He's genuinely scary and believable as the tyrannical sheriff. Jenilee Harrison is also at her most sexy in 1984. She was a mouthwatering beauty back then! The film rolls along pretty blandly but the scenes with C. Thomas Howell getting framed are pretty well done and plausible. If you can get over the guy owning his own Sherman tank, the decision to use it makes at least some sense by that point in the movie.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed