Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
26 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Copycat (1995)
Wow, people are really overrating this one., 9 February 2014

This is not even close to Silence of the Lambs. In fact, it has so many plot holes and logical inconsistencies that 6 - 6.5 rating is generous. Acting was good but character development was sparse. We get no background on why this kid kills. He just does. And, the all-knowing psychologist who surmises that he has technical lab job, can't figure out that he has access to sperm samples and get police over to IVF labs? Really? The most unbelievable part of Copycat is that the Dr. gets attacked multiple times in her apt yet police put a single,bumbling officer outside her door time and time again. The movie has some suspense but it is not even close to top thrillers of all-time. Too highly rated on Amazon and by many here..

5 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Watch the UK series first then you will notice the weaker U.S. version, 11 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I can't believe people have not watched the UK version but think U.S. version is spectacular. I could barely get through the first U.S. episode. Literally it was a direct copy of the first UK episode line by line..but without the charm or laughs. Let's see what changed in the U.S. version *Fiona now has supermodel looks rather than a normal girl. *House is huge and immaculate * Steve can't act and has no chemistry with Fiona *The general grittiness of tough, lower class life is lost.

I love WH Macy but David Threlfall is the classic Frank - lazy, drunk, delusional, selfish, hilarious.

Please watch the UK version first.

"Hung" (2009)
12 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
I watched only because of Alexander Payne but "Hung" is a mess,, 10 August 2009

No one does loser-hero characters better than Payne. The story of "big Ray" satisfying rich women was worth a look. Thomas Jane and Jane Adams do excellent jobs but there is nothing else interesting here. The plot lines are all over the place after only 5 episodes. Before the show's premise can even get off the ground, Ray goes from insecure stud, to confident prostitute to falling in love with a customer. His ex-wife goes from rich to poor and from cold to caring. Not enough character development to pull these shifts so quickly. The kids are truly annoying. I don't see how it can recover from that miscasting. Overall, it is not just that interesting. You can wait around to get your "Boogie Nights" thrill but I don't see how HBO could justify more episodes.

21 out of 52 people found the following review useful:
Wake up. This was a sell-out by Aronofsky., 15 February 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The guy is very talented. Pi & Requiem for a Dream were brilliant but made no money. The Fountain was solid but overly ambitious and lacked a Hollywood storyline thus lost about $25 million. The Wrestler is Darren paying back his Hollywood machers. Yes, it is well acted but the story of an aging burnout who can't let go of his past glory is the oldest story in the book. I found the depth lacking and overall it just plodded along until the ultimately cliché ending. Just follow the numbers people - cost only $7 million and will probably gross about $20 - $30 million. This is Darren trying to remain viable in Hollywood and little else.

12 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Guys, make sure you get credit for taking her to two chick flicks., 31 October 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


That is how long and awful this movie is. Two major rules broken by Curtis Hanson:

1. It is well over 2 hours which immediately breaks first the sacred covenant of chick flicks - KEEP IT SHORT (1.5 hours or less). Yes, you hate your sister and your step-mom. Yes, the cute guy cheated on you with your sister. Yes, the nice guy you overlooked in your sensitive knight in shining armor. Move it along, we've seen it all before


I really can't believe it, Curtis. What happened? I can't believe you are not directing better movies than this.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
One of my top ten of the last decade., 9 February 2004

‘You Can Count on Me' is a rare find and one of the best movies in recent memory. It is a mostly sad but sometimes funny look at the family binds that can infuriate us yet often nurture as well. Laura Linney, Mark Ruffalo and Rory Culkin were perfectly cast. Linney particularly was Oscar worthy. The story is simple - Linney and Ruffalo play siblings whose parents died when they were children. The movie skips immediately to adulthood and you have no real idea how they were raised after this tradegy. Laura plays Sammy, a single mother with an 8 year old boy (Culkin), who tries to balance her work and personal lives. She still resides in the house she was raised as opposed to Terry, played by Ruffalo, who is a troubled, pot-smoking wanderer. Terry comes to visit and ask for money, but he decides to stay for a while. Soon, he rekindles the ties with his nephew and sister. The addition of Terry allows Sammy to focus on her own life which has become troubled lately due to the pressure of marriage from her on/off boyfriend as well as her tough new boss played by Matthew Broderick. The relationship between Sammy and Terry becomes strained when his ‘honest' nature with Culkin leads to trouble. ‘You Can Count on Me' is the most genuine observation on family I have ever seen. How Lonergan has not directed another movie is beyond me. He struck absolute gold with this work. The ending is completely moving (and I'm not easily moved) 9/10 – the only weak link was Broderick. His acting, at times, was not up to par with the rest of the cast.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
No plot, no originality, not funny, wayyyyy too long.., 21 November 2003

I'll never understand what women see in these movies. This was pure, sugary garbage. Painful movie going experience. The only eye-catching moments were some of the lead women wearing tight lingerie (and sometimes nothing at all). Avoid if you treasure your testicles.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
See it!, 12 April 2003

The people below who criticize Moore for splicing Heston's speeches are completely missing the point of the film. We have over 11,000 gun related deaths in this country each year. Canada has 161. Someone mentioned the population differences- if the US is 9 times larger than Canada then we should have approx. 1,400 deaths a year..but we have over 11,000! That is the point. What is it about American society that makes us much more trigger-happy towards one another? Is the blame on music, movies, or video games? The whole world eats that up. Moore claims accessibility, media-created hysteria/fear (Y2K, African Bees) & racism are at the heart of gun issues in the US. 'NRA member' Moore maintains that the NRA is particularly racist and Heston does little to dismiss the argument. He makes some very dumb statements about gun control during his interview with Moore. It's particularly disturbing that he sleeps with loaded guns when he lives on large, gated estate and admits to never being robbed or burglarized in his life. Right vs Rationality needs to be addressed. This movie is bias, sad and important. Regarless of how you feel about "Bowling for Columbine" it is closer to reality than farther from it.

Spider-Man (2002)
5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Avoid if you're over 13, terrible adaption of Spiderman, 4 May 2002

I don't know where to begin with the mess I saw on the screen last night. I'll start with the acting. Tobey Maguire is a so-so Spiderman sometimes right-on, others just too goofy. Some really bad one-liners in this film. It looks like he's about to laugh when really he's trying to cry- bad acting in my opinion. Dafoe as the Green Goblin was good but the Goblin looked like a Power Ranger character. Dunst is the typical girl role. Kind of average looking but my does she have some assets. I could not believe what I saw during the rain-fight sequence. My lord, the theatre was filled with 8 year olds!! Still my favorite scene in the movie.

The storyline & flow is what really puts this movie in the dumpster. Basically there are none. There's no build-up, the end battle just happens. Overall, a bad script & a bland story with bland acting. The special effects are great sometimes but horribly computer generated the next. Note to Hollywood: Please stop adding Matrix style scenes to every freakin action movie. Also, please stop with the "we love New York, we love America themes". We get it OK. We're dealing with post-Sept stuff enough. It's only placed into movies that are so awful they need it for dramatic overtures.

Well-made but too slow & not clever, 30 April 2002

Quirky characters & solid fim noir style but honestly the Coen Brothers missed the target on this film. It moves at snail speed & there are not enough plot twists to keep suspense. The viewer see the deeds done & really the film goes nowhere for over an hour. Billy Bob does a good job as the very boring barber, Ed Crane.. but no acting chops needed from him. Following up the colorful & entertaing 30s-era "O Brother" with this uneventful 40's era dragger was perhaps (god forbid) cliche for the Coens. Time to get back to the present boys..

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]