Reviews

Batman has always been a fascinating character. A billionaire who voluntarily goes around in the night and saves people from crime and corruption in a major city while dressed up as a giant bat. Sadly this first Batman movie doesn't really look all that deep in to the Batman character. Batman isn't even the star of the movie, that honor goes to the Joker. The Joker is almost the main character with Batman just there to stop him. The story is relatively weak. The Joker is created from a mobster being dropped in to a batch of chemicals. He takes over the crime organization and starts to kill people with chemicals found in hygiene products. Batman then tries to stop him while trying to start a relationship with Vicki Vale.

The biggest weakness is Michael Keaton who really doesn't give much of a performance. His work as Batman is not all that memorable. Even worse is his stiff and boring performance as Bruce Wayne. As the third and fourth movie proves, Michael Keaton can be easily replaced with another actor and change very little. Jack Nicholson is good as the Joker, who really should have came back in later movies. Robert Wuhl also does a nice job on what is essentially a throw away character. Kim Bassinger is the least successful. Her main job is to look good and provide a love interest for Bruce Wayne/ Batman. She does nothing with the character that's even remotely interesting.

Luckily the movie avoids the bright colors and silliness of the 60's TV series. It has a dark look even during the day time sequences. The city has a moody, Gothic feel that survived for all four of the 90's Batman movies. Also of mention should be look of the bat cave and bat suit. Unlike later on in the movie series, the Bat Cave looks somewhat logical (no smoke machines or laser lights). It looks dark and mysterious. The bat suit makes sense. You honestly think some rich guy's gonna go out there with latex like he's Superman or something? Not only does the bat suit look good but it's functional.

Overall it was a good enough attempt at Batman. It's a good popcorn movie that's not all that engaging or demanding. It has a few good action sequences. A few good one liners. A few interesting ideas. Sadly though, Batman was an under developed character with no depth or personality.

Finally a great Batman movie. I'm just gonna throw all objectivity out the window right now and say that I absolutely love this movie. It's a lot like Superman I in the sense that even though it's not realistic, it feels like this movie could have really happened.

I never thought much of the other four Batman movies. The first two were too villain centric and Michael Keaton's portrayal of Batman was stiff and boring. There was no sense of depth to Batman, he was just Batman because he was supposed to be. He was given second billing to Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito. Then the third and fourth movies were all camp and stupidity. They insulted not only fans but any person with an active pulse.

Then came this movie. This one completely ignored all the previous Batman movies and started over again. Good move. Batman is given the main stage and we the audience find out about what motivates a billionaire play boy to dress up as a giant bat and fight crime. Batman has three villains to deal with in this movie and none of them over shadow him. Liam Neeson and Tom Wilkinson both do good jobs at chewing up the scenery without looking silly. However the best job is done by Cillian Murphy. His Scarecrow is scary and sadistic. I hope Heath Ledger does the same thing for the Joker in the next movie.

I highly recommend this movie to, well everyone. I really enjoyed it and hope that they make at least two sequels that are as good as this movie. I can't wait until 2008 to see The Dark Knight. For the first time I think Batman is headed in the right direction when it comes to the movies.

As someone who is very libertarian about gun control, I thought I would hate this film. I'm not sure entirely what I think of it. At times I enjoyed it and at other times, I thought Moore was dead wrong. At times, Moore goes a bit off the point. For example, he starts talking about Africanized Bees. Why? From the looks of it, to make the movie longer, I guess. Sorry, but Africanzied Bees have nothing to do with gun control.

I think the most important message is that the news media is probably one of the organizations that deserves the most blame. We're told that there's all kinds of dangerous people in our own neighborhoods ready to kill other people. Kids aren't safe in schools. Airplanes are full of terrorist. Sex offenders are probably living next door and ready to kidnap your children. People who listen to what the media and government tells them are probably scared out of their minds. The fact is that despite the high murder rate in the US, we are a very safe group of people. We can never be 100% safe, but most of us will never be the victims of violent crimes. I only know one murder victim in my entire life and she wasn't killed by a gun (she was run over with a car).

I found the interview with the Lockheed Martin guy interesting and the subsequent footage of US foreign policy at work very informative. The US has been a violent aggressor for over 100 years, dating back to such idiocy as the World War I and the Spanish-American War. I think there's a point to be made that such a cavalier attitude towards other people around the world and their governments may lead to children and American citizens picking up that attitude here at home.

Also there was this huge segment towards the end where he got on his soap box about the welfare to work program. He went around blaming Dick Clark for this girls' death because his restaurant employed the woman whose Son shot the girl at school. But there was no blame on the uncle who left the gun laying around for a six year old to pick up. I believe that Moore should have gone after this guy and asked him why he let his gun fall in to the hands of a six year old. But I suppose blaming the evil capitalist makes for better movie making than blaming an extremely irresponsible uncle...

There are two things I found completely inexcusable for any "documentary" filmmaker. One is that stupid cartoon during the movie which tried to link up the KKK and the NRA. The NRA was started in upstate New York by former Union soldiers after the Civil War, two of the first NRA presidents were Union General Burnside and General Grant. During Grant's presidential administration, he worked vigorously to destroy the KKK under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This idea that the KKK and the NRA are one in the same is an insult to anyone with a hint of historical knowledge. But don't let history get in the way of a funny cartoon, right?

Next up is the way Moore cut footage of Charlton Heston during the Denver NRA speech. I saw the entire speech, unedited and it was no way near as vitriolic and hateful as Moore presented in his movie. I can understand not having enough time to put the entire speech in to the movie, but at least try to be honest. Don't edit the footage of a dying man to make him sound like a nut...

Overall, this movie is right about half the time, which isn't half bad. Moore clearly tried to make an objective film about the nature of the gun control debate and succeeded for the most part. I say, 5 out of 10 because it's not without it's flaws...

I'm getting kind of sick of those complaints. Worst movie ever? No. Worst movie this year? No. Worst sequel this year? No. I think the only way to really judge this movie is to see the movie coming out in a few months. Then the story will be complete. Either this movie sets it up right and the next will finish off the storylines started in the first movie; or they'll drop the ball and both movies won't look good.

As far as this movie goes, it was ok. The one thing I think people easily forget is that the car chase in this movie makes all the other car chases ever made look dull and pointless by comparison. There wasn't too much philosophical jargon. I think the beginning of the movie is weak and poorly done. I was almost ready to walk out. However, after about 1/2 an hour things picked up and we all forgot the bad beginning. The end of the film was just that...it ended. There was no sense that one story was done and the next will pick up on loose storylines and have another story. The movie just stopped where the next will most likely start.

However, I will give the writers credit for that guys' line about french swearing. Probably one of the funniest things I ever heard in a movie theater. Overall, an entertaining movie for what it is. I would never label this as a great movie, but it's not as bad as the two Tomb Raider movies, that's for sure.

What's so amazing about this miniseries was the fact that it was on the air at all. Were you people watching the same thing I was? Honestly, I can't believe you were. The dialog is pure garbage. I've heard better dialog written by seven year olds.

The acting is even worse. A bunch of no-name, 3rd rate B movie actors get together to face the evil Visitors. The special effects are cheesy and bad. The whole premise plays like the plot made for a porn movie.

I think the people who watched this and claimed how great it is probably haven't watched enough real sci-fi like Babylon 5 and Farscape to know what good is. I wish you people would pull your heads out from under that rock their stuck in and get yourselves a clue. This miniseries bites. My geek friends think so, I think so and anyone with the ability to think, thinks so.

This movie was great. A much better and funnier movie than any of the Austin Powers movies. Sadly, however, Chris Kattan does his normal job of making the movie worse than it should be. Minus the end fight, every minute he's on the screen he sucks the humor and joy out of the film.

However, Kattan is in the movie only for bits and pieces. The rest of the cast is perfect. Chappelle does the best job in this movie. His Conspiracy Brother has most of the best lines in the movie. Also, Billy Dee Williams is good as a retired General and of course Denise Richards is hot in tight clothes.

I suspect however, the reason this movie didn't make it big at the box office is because The Man didn't want it to...

While this isn't a horrible film; it doesn't belong in the top 250. First of all: it's long. Way to long. It felt like I was actually sitting there for three hours. Good movies will draw you in and let you forget about time during the running length. This movie wasn't good enough to do that. Did they really need all those scenes about Hanna's home life and poor marriage? No. Likewise, was all the screen time with McCauley and his girlfriend necessary? No. It felt like typical movie relationships. The entire movie spent way to much time developing each character and quite frankly it didn't need to.

However, there are a lot of great scenes. Including the bank robbery, the shoot-out afterwards, the heist at the beginning of the movie, the diner scene between Hanna and McCauley, and the shoot-out at the drive-in. The acting is top notch. DeNiro and Pacino are great leads. They both portray their characters wonderfully. The rest of the cast was great too. Plus any movie with Danny Trejo is worth seeing.

So if not for the overlong running length, I highly recommend seeing it. If you want to see a fast pace heist movie; I'd recommend Heist with Hackman and DeVito. Heist was able to cut the fat and make a great movie. This movie just keeps going and going and going until it finally reaches the end.

This movie is one of the worse movies of all time. I'm kind of upset this movie isn't on the bottom 100; it deserves a spot at least number 60 or 70 on that list. This isn't just a film I think is bad in a campy-fun sort of MST3K way; it's just bad. This is one of the few films that I really, really HATE. Freddy Got Fingered is in the same category of bad.

So the story in this one goes that the daughter (Gugino) goes to California to go to school and comes back with Crawl (Shore) and he tries to learn to be a farmer. Then the boyfriend tries to set Shore up so that the girl will leave Crawl and go back to him. It ends and what's left of the audience can leave.

The main purpose of this movie is for Pauly Shore to mug for the camera and try to be funny; but I'd say about 100% of the time he fails at that. Their horrible inaccurate and out of date view of farms and farming is offensive and there's nothing in this movie worth seeing. If you think of seeing it: don't. The one time I saw the movie it felt like I was watching it for 5 or 6 hours. If you've already seen it; you have my sympathy.

The first Austin Powers was a classic comedy. Well written, acted, directed and most importantly very funny. It was fresh and original. Enter Austin Powers 2. Probably one of the few movies I had to resist walking out of. Austin Powers 2 was terrible, unfunny and very stupid. Fat Bastard and Mini-me were horrible new characters and all the freshness of the first movie was gone.

Enter Austin Powers 3. I didn't bother to see it in the theaters because it looked pretty bad. Even after the roommate bought the DVD, I was rather hesitant to watch it until I just finally decided to give it a shot. This movie was rather average. No where near the pure badness of the second movie; but not at the level of greatness of the first movie. I enjoyed some parts of it; but in general it feels like Austin Powers is finished and that anymore movies would just be overkill.

There's still a lot to like about this movie. Including seeing Tom Cruise in Austin garb and the Japanesse sub-title scene. Ms. Knowles is a slight improvement over Heather Graham and I loved seeing Britney Spear's head explode.

So I will say that if you're looking for a way to watch some mindless film, for a while; you can't go wrong with this one. Just don't expect too much.

Just caught this movie on HBO. See Dubya bowling oranges, eating Cheetos, and drinking Non-Alcholic Beer. Instead of the serious statesman we usually see on TV, we get this fun charismatic guy we never get to see. George jokes around and has fun. This movie never takes George or itself seriously and the post election Florida fiasco is short and sweet. If you just want to know more about what kind of man the president is "behind the scenes"; this is the movie to see. My favorite moment from the film was when the filmmaker yells out to ask Mrs. Bush who she's voting for.

But it's pretty close on my scale.

In general, this movie has overrated syndrome. A Christmas Story has the same disease. I first saw this movie during my Junior year in high school at the end of a semester long class and we had nothing else to do for 2 or 3 days. I was horribly bored by the whole thing. Found it to be overly cheesy and I guess it just tries to hard. After the class was over with, I put the movie in the back of my mind as one to never watch again. That was 1997.

So I hadn't watched it until a few days ago when my roommate took it out of the DVD selection as something to watch. So I watched it again, well, some of it. At one point I got up and went to my room. I have better things to do with my time. It's attempt to be witty and fun just came off as horribly staged to me. It was a just another cheesy Hollywood piece of junk. Someone mentioned on here that this was the Shrek of the 80's. I disagree, Shrek was much more fun than this dull thing.

This movie was terrible, horrible, disgusting, and just plain bad. Even "Manos: The Hands of Fate" is better than this movie and that's saying a lot. The fact that this movie isn't #1 on the bottom 100 disturbs me about what people think of movies. I can't believe anyone would give this movie more than a 3 out of 10.

If this was supposed to be a comedy; I wasn't laughing. Even the "Apocalypse Now" reference was pretty stupid. There was a lot badness to go around. Rip Torn; who's usually pretty good as Zed in "MIB" wasn't even trying to act. Julie Hagerty was probably just there to get a paycheck. Shaq? I suppose this is a step down from "Kazaam". Eddie Kaye Thomas looked really bored. And Tom Green was horrible like always.

Nothing worked in this film. The comedic timing was off on everything. I'm sure with the right director and some writing improvements; it still would have won the Razzies; but it wouldn't have been this bad. I'm glad this movie was on Showtime, so I didn't have to pay for it. But I think I should get my wasted time back.

Let's forget for a second that a comet wouldn't hardly put a small dent in to an astroid the size of Texas and that the chances of a comet hitting an astroid are rather slim. Also, let's forget that there are no astroids the size of Texas in this solar system. So right off from the start; the movie is too stupid to be taken seriously. Anyone who really understands physics and astronomy will have a good laugh at this movie's expense.

Let's move on to all that other stuff in a movie (story, characters, special effects). All of them are poorly done and some of them are at an absurd level of silliness. Yet, you can tell that the director is taking this movie seriously and expects us to. A movie that should have been a comedy (and would have been a good one) instead injects melodrama and techno babble. At any rate; if you're up for a stupid movie that fails big time; check this one out; it will be worth your while.

Well, the best of the Star Trek films. True, a lot of people have recently declared Star Trek Frist Contact the best. There are others who love whales and political correctness declare Star Trek The Voyage Home the best of the Trek films. Out of all the Star Trek films; only two deal with the human element of Star Trek as well as the original TV series did and that's Star Trek 2 and 3. This is the one Star Trek film that I would recommend to people who don't like or watch Star Trek. It's probably one of the best Science Fiction movies of all time.

People will complain that it's too violent and dark. But that's a part of life. Anytime you deal with the darkest human emotions of hate and revenge; you will have starships being fired at and people dying. To say that in the future humans will be 100% peaceful is silly and naive. Themes of life and death are explored very well in this movie without getting preachy about it. Shatner and Nimoy are allowed to expand their characters and bring more life to them. Shatner turns in his best Trek performance since "The City on the Edge of Forever".

The special effects are good, but don't overshadow the story like they did in the first movie. Instead they service the story, as special effects should. The score is great; probably the best of all the Star Trek movies. The uniforms have been toned down and no longer look like pajama's from the first movie. I suppose if you really want to sum up this movie, it should be that this movie brings out the best from the TOS and makes a wonderful movie experience. Also it shows the potential that is in Star Trek that none of the other movies have been able to reach.

In general this is a satire of 1950's Sci-Fi movie with a huge budget, bad acting, over the top effects and action, and poorly put together story. However there is one thing that saves this movie from being a total bust: The Co-Ed Shower Scene. Rule. When the movie was over; I could tell that was why they made the movie. Sure some of the other stuff is interesting; but nothing beats the showers.

I love how they just invade the planet and it has the exact same atmosphere as Earth. They'll probably get back to Earth and never bother isolating anyone because, damn it; there are no diseases on that other planet. Why didn't they just release some biological weapon on the planet (like a huge tank of Raid) and leave. Wouldn't that had been easier than having legions of troops die there.

Well, in general; they needed more nude scenes and more comedy. I was laughing with and at this movie; but when I wasn't I was rather bored. It lacks punch and it seems to just drag on towards the end.

When we look back at the 90's we can feel happy that with films like ID4, Demolition Man and Starship Troopers are nothing more than 50's films with better effects and bigger budgets.

This movie is pretty bad. Basically, in 1996 (for some reason, I don't remember any of this happening) some psycho killer is frozen for eternity (Why they just didn't execute him, I have no idea) and he is awaken in 2032. Well, his arch enemy is also frozen for a crime he didn't commit. Well he's also awoken in 2032 and you know these two will meet up and blow stuff up. That's all you need to know.

On the other hand is the rather interesting idea of futuristic left-wing facism. Basically anything bad for you (meat, cigarettes, beer, swearing and salt) is taken away. The current fight against tobacco is perhaps a beginning to it all? Below the surface lives a group of freedom loving people who want to be able to do what they want, weather it be drinking beer, smoking cigarettes or eating hamburgers. Sex is done through a machine instead of in person. Big Brother is watching. Unfortunetly, the movie presents all of this in such a silly and poorly done manner, that you don't take any of it seriously.

I think this movie had a lot of potential; but it's wasted on bad acting, bad screenplay and loud explosions.