Reviews

This is an awful movie. Sandler is surrounded by top supporting talent with Wynona Ryder and John Turturro, but the director (or maybe Sandler himself) gave him(self) little or nothing to do. When you ask the audience to suspend their cognitive thought process and focus on fantasy - then let them have a fantasy. Or, at least some attempt at it. Unbelieveable plot line (although I've not benefited from viewing the original) about a hick from New Hampshire (not a great marketing technique here) who inherits $40 billion from never known grand uncle. Right! Sure...ok maybe.

Sandler is off to New York and meets up with Wynona Ryder, an entertainment news producer, and of course falls in love - until, of course he discovers her true ID. Turturro plays the disappearing butler who likes feet. Turturro hands in a fine performance and that is the only thing that makes the movie worth the rental price.

I could only rate this a 3/10 for Reese Witherspoon and Candace Bergen. The story of sweet home Alabama girl Reese and her desire to divorce her first husband in order to marry JFK, Jr. lookalike Patrick Dempsey is flawed from the first frame. However, Ms. Witherspoon is able to transcend the material and make the movie somewhat inviting. Candace Bergen as the Mayor of New York is totally unbelievable. Patrick Dempsey is given virtually nothing to do - and he has talent, but wasted in this picture. Josh Lucas - husband number one - lives in the requisite trailer and chugs beer at the local tavern. But, he is also a pilot and established wood designer. So, the premise that Reese is from the wicked south, uneducated and teen bride is baseless. The picture is totally predictable and a waste of time, except to watch Reese and Candace go at it during the wedding.

Ironically, this very heterosexual "masterpiece" is set in San Francisco and follows prettyboy Josh Hartnett doing his very best not to have sex for 40 days. From a medical viewpoint, it would have been interesting for the director and writer to have explored it with medical undertones.

I'm certain that sooner or later Mr. Hartnett will "breakout" and the world will experience his unique acting talent. Alas, 40 Days is not that vehicle. Hartnett can not hold this picture together at all. The supporting cast is terrible as well. Outside of a handful of comic scenes - the movie is a waste. And, a direct slap at the Catholic Church, which is not necessary.

A very interesting experience of a movie. Horrific and realistic story about a 15 year old boy coming of age in comfortable suburban settings. The major departure is the central character is falling love with another boy. On the fringes is a well-known, well-liked ex-marine who enjoys the company of the younger set (boys, of course). To watch this guy work his "trade" brings home the fact that child molesters wear many masks.

Everything is tastefully done - no raw sex scenes, thankfully. Lags in certain areas, but overcomes the dolldrums with it's breaking story line. But, you will not want to watch it twice.

3/10 only for Travolta's ability to carry this all too predictable fable. Everyone else was miscast - making Travolta look great. Vince Vaughn wanders the set searching for dialogue and making faces at his new wife and troubled step-son. The kid is supposed to be twelve but looks and acts sixteen. Anyway, Vince is the villian and is discovered murdering an old friend by his new stepson who runs to his real father - Travolta - for protection. Well, you can guess what all happens next.

This film is poorly cast, poorly edited, poorly written (although they have a decent premise) and most of all, badly directed. The individual actors do their best to overcome the above. Travolta is the only reason to waste your time on this bomb.

C'mon folks this is just a huge cover-up for four guys attempting to deal with their homosexuality, or bi-sexuality. One of the most impressionable scenes in the film has two of the college boys french kissing and then very willing to fondle each other supposedly because two girls demand such in exchange for normal sex. Pleeeassseeee!!!!

All of the main characters are baby-faced, bright-eyed studs. They are sure to bring in the teeny-bopers who croon to such boyish, photogenic charm. I managed to catch the first American Pie and found it mildly amusing - enough to rent part two. And, part two is very interesting, but it is a plain old screenwriters cover-up for his homosexual instincts and so be it. The producers should have been bold enough to explore the very real drama that lies underneath American Pie II and then we would have had a truly interesting experience.

Allison Hannigan as Michelle the "sex-master" hands in about the only interesting and thought provoking performance as the girl who teaches the star (Jason Biggs) Jim Levinson about sex and then, of course, falls in love with him.

Moments of real comedy do exist in the film and yes, I know it is a farce. But, farce or not it remains a curious exploration of human need repressed. Some may think that I'm making a mountain out of an ant farm or that this is how college guys deal with their summer. Or, perhaps my college summers - working the night shift prohibited me from experiencing what these fellows - who have a magnificent house on the lake - did with their time away from the ivy. I can not believe they were in constant need of sexual pleasure and NEVER getting it. All they can do is talk about it and fantasize about the babes on the beach. One of the dudes wants his friend's mother and spends the entire summer waiting for her - sorry, another dead giveaway of the screenwriter's actual intent.

Jason Biggs manages to smile through every scene and his character pretty much carries the entire film. He is a reasonable actor and I look forward to his future work. The other fellows are good given the material, which they never rise above.

If American Pie III is in the works maybe the screenwriter can push the envelope and have these guys pursue what they really want, which is each other, now that would be interesting.

7/10 because almost everything I've seen recently has been so poor – finally a movie (computer cartoon actually) that is overwhelmingly entertaining, visually spectacular, well written and directed. This film (cartoon) is a must see for the entire family.

The cartoon is blessed with the voices of Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz and Mike Myers and an especially devious John Lithgow. If they gave out Academy Awards for voice-overs, certainly Mr. Murphy and Mr. Myers would be in the running. Perhaps the Academy should consider a special award for this little masterpiece.

Whatever. The simple story of the outcast ogre and his hyperactive donkey out to rescue the trapped princess is wonderful. The action and interactions never cease making this a super movie-going or movie rental experience. The madness of Lord Farquat in trying to make a perfect paradise in which (the magic mirror tells him) only he can do if he marries a princess. The social comparisons are obvious but never overbearing. The quest of the ogre and the donkey is captivating. The rescue of the princess is an intense as can be and as surprising as well. The sequence is excellent.

I could go on and on. Go see it for yourself and see what I mean.

2/10 only for the offbeat performance by Ed Norton. Brando is good and DeNiro is better. The story has been told a million times.

The film having such great actors one would expect a brilliant film. Forget it. It was interesting and fun to watch but predictable. Except for Norton who gives an excellent performance as the younger con man.

1/10 - awful, worse, rotten. A genuine waste of time except for Miss Kidman who manages to shine through this mess.

To be honest, I only could take forty minutes of this rip-off-a-rama of a film. This is like MTV at its worst. The costumes and set design were magnificent and about the only thing worth while. Forget this loser.

2/10 for the best efforts of Sigorney Weaver and Gene Hackman in this waste of time comedy wanna-be. Ms. Weaver does her best to bolster a stupid story and a poor script. Hackman manages to walk through most of the film and still give it some credibility.

Typical sight gags can not save this poorly written and directed film about a mother and daughter whore team. Out to whoo rich men and then grab huge divorce settlements or death benefits is so 1960's. It would have been somewhat more comic if it were a father-son team (although less politically correct, I suppose - we have too many buddy films already).

Jenifier Love Hewitt is a pleasure to watch. Her skin tight outfits are almost worth the admission or rental fee. That's it. She has minimal acting or comic ability. "Walk-ons" by Anne Bancroft and Ray Liotta were another waste of talent.

3/10 - for the good screenplay, story, direction and another 3/10 for Kirsten Dunst. (total 6/10) Two high school students fall in love, nothing new to that, happens every ten seconds. One student latino, the other white. Guess who is the latino. Always the guy - I would really like to see this turned around.

Anyway - the gal is crazy, sort of, witnessed some tragic family situations and still dealing with them. The guy is from East L.A. and doing his best to break out of the "pack". So, he takes a two hour bus ride to PH (near the beach, far from downtown LA) so he can get the proper profile to get into Annapolis and become a Navy pilot. But, wait -- he meets a strange and quirky gal and is smitten. She knows nothing about responsibility and is carefree (including having sex in front of her congressman father). The "magic" works and they "fall in love" and then it gets complicated.

So the story line has been done a million times. This latest revision however has the casting of Kirsten Dunst and she is able to elevate the entire film. She is credible and a pleasure to watch, she is worth the entire movie. Jay Hernandez as Carlos only shines on screen with Ms. Dunst - again, she makes the film live and live well. His other scenes he seems completely out of place. Bruce Davison as the bewildered congressman spends a lot of time at home (shouldn't he be in DC?) wondering about his wayward daughter and dealing with his bitch-wife. His part is written honestly and is done justice by Mr. Davison.

The movie is intense and interesting, I rather enjoyed it. But, (always a but, huh?) the ending is too sugary and would have had a stronger impact if... well, just let's say the ending is not believable.

5/10 For the awesome bombing scenes and the detail to actual history. Ben Affleck hands in a reasonable performance as the dare-devil pilot who always manages to save the day (not Dec 7, 1941 unfortunutely). Superb FDR by Jon Voight - only wished more of his characterization made it into the film. Cuba Gooding, Jr and Alec Baldwin perfectly cast and also wished additional footage.

Josh Hartnett is too pretty to be a man and it takes from his character. He is not believable as the dare-devil pilot wanna be. This may not be his fault as the overall writing is fair to average and the inside plot of the triangle love affair is somewhat sit-com and poorly presented. Kate Beckinsale also works with poor dialogue and does her best as the woman caught between two men.

However, the overall film gets a special boost and is timely considering the other date that will live in infamy - September 11th. Pearl Harbor stimulates our patriotism in these troubled times and provides the needed justice we currently seek. I would rarely join a movie with current events but I urge everybody to experience this film with USA in their hearts and I think you will see what I mean.

Thank-God no sequel exists for this film.

3/10 for Geoffrey Rush and (always beautiful) Jamie Lee Curtis. Kudo's for filming in Panama.

However, since this is a very, very sophisticated spy "thriller" and I did not read the novel - I found most of it rather slow and boring. I hate it when the director demands that you think and then gives you nothing. Waste of time as far as I'm concerned. I had no sympathy for any of the characters even though watching Rush work is worth it - even though he had little to work with.

Pierce Brosnan was poorly directed and is not a great actor on his own. He is unbelievable as the english spy looking for his retirement allotment.

Poor direction totally.

2/10 only for Reese Witherspoon and her ability to carry this overblown valley-girl-is-smart sit-com. This is a made-for-TV movie if ever I saw one, and I've seen plenty.

Reese decides to follow her "totally" hollow boyfriend into Harvard Law after he dumps her because of his budding political career. She manages to get into Harvard (and she is right - it's not that hard) and is immediately laughed at by most of the students. She learns the rules of the game quickly and by movie's end you just know a spin-off is waiting.

In truth, I fell asleep for about five minutes during this cutting-edge masterpiece, so my review is of the movie I was able to comprehend. Sorry.

What could have made this feature better? It could have been a musical for starters. The producers could have thrown in some graphic sex and violence. And on and on.

Holland Taylor and Luke Wilson attempt to rise above the material. I'll be looking for this on tv next season.

The story certainly has merit. The acting abilities of Patrick Swayze are nowhere to be found. Ms. Griffith does her best to hold up the entire picture and story but with Mr. Swayze simply reading dialogue it is a difficult haul for all of us.

4/10 for attempt, story (and that I watched the whole thing) and Melanie's valiant battle upholding this interesting story. Also, kudo's to Joseph Gordon-Leavitt for keeping a straight face and underacting to perfection (although his time on screen is brief).

Since I am so critical, I offer a few suggestions: a. cut to the chase immediately and let the audience know exactly what's going on, the first ten or so minutes could have been used more effectively at the end of the film; b. get rid of Michael Pollard, his cameo makes no sense and is another waste of valuable screen time; c. the whole "trip across america" also is a waste - we only needed one or two scenes to get the idea. d. probably most important - get Swayze on the same bus as Pollard, Peter Jennings could have played this role with more emotion.

So, there!

Looked forward to the cast lineup in this flick. Not disappointed. But, they have nothing to work with. Poor direction left the film without any punch - comic or dramatic. Numerous, isolated schtick and slapstick type moments make the whole thing bearable. Julia is more of a supporting role here and as usual is worth the price of admission. John Cusak and Chris Walken turn in interesting performances.

4/10 for the performances and the attempt.

I think the film should have been reworked and intensified Kiki's character (Julia Roberts). Then, the ending would have made sense.

I just don't know. I was energized by all the hype for this film. I found it rather flat and somewhat predictable. And, I must admit, I fell asleep at least twice - thank God for DVD and I was able to replay it.

I understood to a point and agree that going "backwards" and challenging the audience is interesting and at least new to me. However, this would have been better as a comedy - in the vain of "Groundhog Day" than it is as a serious piece of film making.

Guy Pierce is excellent as the man looking for his wife's killer. His intensity was about the only reason I was able to get through the film. Good supporting cast as well.

Memento is not a "spectator" film. You must watch everything and suspect everything. Perhaps another time I will rewatch this endeavor and maybe understand it.

Good luck to others who are considering seeing this and make sure you are fully awake - watch everything.

3/10 for Guy Pierce and supporting cast.

2/10 for Kurt Russell's performance, which is about the only thing that keeps this film above water.

Living in Las Vegas I know there is no Last Chance Motel outside of town or in the town. That was the first bad omen and set the tone for me for the rest of the film. I know, I know - literary license - but, Las Vegas is an international city and the writers and directors could have been a bit more creative. As far as robbing the Rivera Hotel - they are almost bankrupt and probably don't have that much cash on hand and robbers would more likely go (and have) someplace else.

As far as the subplot with the mom and son - silly.

The whole film is devoted to blood and more blood. Sickening.

Would someone please help pay for Kevin Costner's acting lessons. Outside of "Dances with Wolves" Costner's abilities are nada, at least in front of the camera.

4/10 for the performances. Judi Dench and Lena Olin steal the show. Juliette Binoche is wonderful.

Somewhere deep in the screenplay is some form of message. Wealth versus poverty? Good versus evil? Chocolate versus jellybeans? I could not solve the mystery.

The film moves rapidly and that is a blessing. I was amazed that not one single automobile was in the film (I guess that's trivia?)

This is not a film I would sit through again. It certainly is not Best Picture material. However, it is fun and the acting and directing is first rate. The story of unwed mom and daughter running a small-town chocolate factory is welcome although they are not with the townspeople, at least not at first. Predictable with a slight twist.

The Johnny Depp character for the token screw scene makes little sense. Or, perhaps I do not care for Mr. Depp, sorry - I think his qualities are overrated and he is out of place in this soft and cuddly production.

See this film for the first-rate characterizations.

2/10 = One point for Brad Pitt, he was amazingly funny and another point for Julia, who would normally score much higher (I am one of the few that liked Mary O'Rielly), for her standard, superior performance.

The whole plot is contrite and certainly predictable. For the two biggest stars in Hollywood one would think the producers (and their agents) could find something more credible.

AND, to keep Brad and Julia apart for at least 75% of the movie leaves little to be desired. Although special kudos to James Gandolfini who is really the co-star to Ms. Roberts. The cinematography was excellent, too. In fact, if the Brad Pitt character was less prevalent and not on screen – the movie might have made sense. Of course where would that leave Mr. Pitt?

Unfortunately, a poor story and the overzealous dialogue burden the overall production. Only Ms. Roberts manages to bring this bomb floating up to sea level and onto the radar screen.

Of course, if you are a Julia Roberts fan, then this is a must see, but do not expect any fireworks between Pitt and Roberts - nothing exists.

Charlize Theron is the only reason to sit through this epic of sentimentality.

Charlize meets Keanu, the yuppie ad exec and insists that he give her a month - November - to change his lifestyle. All well and good. Story is interesting. But, it is so difficult to get around Keanu's inability to act. He always acts sincere. It is like watching a two hour audition tape. Fortunutely, he has Charlize to prop him up.

I harbor great hope that Keanu will drift into character and supporting roles where he can learn more of his craft. However, he is no longer the Hollywood pretty boy and needs to lose some weight. Reeves is not Brando.

While the story is sentimental - it is to the point and the ending was interesting and moving.

5/10 for story, art direction, supporting cast and Charlize Theron. I can only imagine a Matt Damon, or a Charlie Sheen might have done with Keanu's part.

Sylvester will never have to lose sleep worrying about winning another academy award.

This film was so bad that I watched every minute just to prove that it was that awful.

This biopic has much to be desired. I know something about Jackson Pollock so I was interested from that angle. The film is aimed at that audience only. If you are not interested in modern art this film will appear as a shoddy study of dysfunctional people.

The film is poorly directed, however - in a twist - the actors seem to have taken over and Marcia Gay Harden in particular is excellent. That may read like a contradiction especially since Ed Harris, who gives an excellent performance, is also the director. The lack of continuity is blatant. Several scenes simply do not make sense or enhance the picture. The characters never connect and maybe they never did in real life. (another contradiction?)

As stated the acting is very good and worth the rental price. The overall film gathers dust quickly and that is a shame because the intent is deserving. I wonder if Harris wanted more in the film and the studio cut him back - because that is what it seems like.

5/10 for the excellent performances.

Great story with infinite possibilities. But, alas - predictable and unsolved.

3/10 rating for story and intent. Some comic moments deserving credit as well, but overall production (so many goofs) and direction lacking.

The overall production is okay. Matt Damon is getting better with every film. Will Smith is okay. Charlize Theron has been better cast. Robert Redford should seek retirement or another film with Barbra Striesand.

However, the uncanny end with Jack Lemmon commenting on his life as Bagger Vance and walking into death is riviting - considering this is the last film he ever made (that I am aware of) and the last scene in the film is of his death - prophetic? Errie!