Reviews written by registered user
|12 reviews in total|
Between this movie (I always called it "Little League Moochie") and the Disney film "Tiger Town", I probably lost 50-75 hours of my young life. I would watch these two over and over from age 5 until about 8 or so. And even after that I'd sneak a peak at them once in awhile. So, I'll never put these films down. I always just assumed that everybody saw Moochie growing up, but when I ask my friends about it, they make weird faces, and say "are you sure you got the name right?". At any rate, this is a great film for a young sports fan, as I most definitely was, and I recommend it to parents searching for something new (or in this case "old") to show to their young sons. Give it a chance, you'll be surprised by its touching innocence and sense of fun.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Man I loved this movie when I was a little kid. It had everything I thought was important at the time: baseball, faith, and humor. I know it's pretty sad, but this movie left an indelible mark on my young life, which I doubt I've shaken to this day. Roy Schneider (don't ask me what he was doing in this!) of "Jaws" fame, plays an aging all-star for the Detroit Tigers, who are seriously slumping. He thinks he's lost his magic touch as a hitter, and in fact it seems he has. All of Detroit has given up on him except for one young kid, who somehow manages to restore Schneider's faith in the game and in himself. The trick: he shows up at every game and whenever he gets up to bat, the kid closes his eyes and squeezes his hands really tight together in some sort of possessed prayer to the Baseball God. And it works. Soon, the Tigers have moved from last place to first and the whole town has "Tiger Fever", of course there comes a time towards the end when the kid can't make it to the game on time and it's up to Roy to do it on his own...but it's a Disney movie, come on, what do you think happens? Anyways, it's an enjoyable movie, focusing on baseball , childhood faith and an aging athlete's redemption. Give it a chance (if you can find it anywhere!)
I enjoyed this movie, for the most part. But the reason I'm taking the time to comment on it, is because of Will Ferrell. As one of the Washington Post reporters, he is absolutely hilarious. He makes nearly every line he speaks his own, in a rhythm and tone of voice that cracks me up each and every time. He doesn't have a whole lot screen time in "Dick", but this movie is a must see just for his performance. As for the film itself, I knew enough about Watergate to get the majority of the jokes, but being under 30, I know there were a lot of jokes I probably missed out on. Still, the film flew by, with lots of great character performances, and some great bits of humor (though there were far too many "dick" jokes, so after awhile those got old). The rest was enjoyable, if light, and i'd recommend it for a good laugh...
Splendor is a much different film than you'd expect from writer/director Greg Arakki's previous work. It stays away from the stylistic and linguistic tendencies that plagued both "The Doom Generation" and "Nowhere". Visually, the film is also much more conventional, adding to a slightly strange, but by no means bizarre plot line. It's the story of Veronica, featuring a fine performance by Kathleen Robertson, who has fallen in love with two different men. She somehow manages to keep them apart, and then eventually, to get them to like each other. Together they form a triple, as opposed to a couple. It seems a bit of a stretch to assume that this complex relationship would work, that the two would be willing to share her as a girlfriend, and that they would all be able to live together in seeming harmony. The problem, is that the two different men soon become crude characterizations, rather than flesh and blood people that we could care about. They seem rather pathetic at times, and things get complicated when yet another man enters Veronica's life, offering stability and desiring a relationship with her. Despite the obvious nods to Three's Company, and the sometimes funny scenes that Arakki conjures up, the film is simply not exciting enough to hold our interest in these characters, the writing is not bold enough to grab out attention, and the film isn't nearly as erotic as its set up would suggest. All in all, it's an okay film from a director I usually don't like all that much, but it's definitely not what you're expecting from an Arakki film (which doesn't necessarily mean that it's any better for its difference)
As a child I was also captured by the magic of "Flight of the Navigator", and seeing it again a while back, it still worked for me. Of course, many years had passed, and Sarah Jessica Parker had become a big-time sex symbol and movie star (what ever happened to the kid,Joey, though? is he alive?), but the movie still "worked" for me. Whether it was stubborn nostalgia or genuine appreciation, I still love this movie...probably not as much as when I was 7 or 8, but I'd honestly recommend it to any one of any age. It's entertaining, fast-paced, sci-fi tinged fantasy that turns every viewer into a kid again, if only for an hour and a half.
I liked Growing Pains, and I liked Dudley Moore, and I was 10 years old--how could I not like this film. Though i would have easily given the film a 10 had the imdb existed eleven years ago, watching it again I realized there just wasn't much there. though i still enjoy it, with a guilty grin on my face. the adult-teen switch formula was done much better in "Vice Versa" and "Big", but worse in "18 Again" (which all came out in the same year or so if i remember). There are some funny moments, and though overall it's not very high-quality, watch a few minutes of it on TV, you might even like it a bit.
I don't know what to say about this excellent film, except for that it was
one of the most amazing ones i've seen in quite awhile. the picture seems
to owe somewhat of a surrealistic debt to David Lynch, but it nonetheless
manages to be unique, original, and utterly fascinating. I don't think i
could give away the plot even if i wanted to, it's a film that definitely
calls for multiple viewings; once you reach the end, you'll want
to see this one a second time...it's been a few weeks since i've seen it, but i can still feel the impact it's made on my mind. The performances are great across the board, and Penelope Cruz always makes good eye candy, though she more than holds her own throughout the film (acting wise). i have to say though, this film has one of the most misleading box covers/posters i've ever seen; if you've seen the film you know what i mean. this film is not about Penelope Cruz looking sexy, swaying in the wind (though that doesn't hurt the film at all!); instead, it's one messed up, mind trip of a movie that is constantly challenging, and always rewarding.
"Instinct" effectively answers the question: "can one film try to incorporate 14 different plots and genres into one coherent, entertaining story?". the answer is a resounding "No." This film is a mess, and what's worse, you can see the parts where it could've been a good film, there are good moments, which make the bad moments so much worse. it's a shame that an interesting premise turned out this poorly...
I go back and forth between Goodfellas and Casino, but if a Goodfellas die-hard pushes me into a corner, I'll always defend Casino. It's a magnificent film, and though many draw similarities between Goodfellas and Casino, the only connection i see is Pesci, who frequently plays Pesci, and plays him well. Sharon Stone shows amazing dramatic range, Deniro shows amazing restraint in the lead role, and Scorsese's restless camera shows the viewer everything. the inner-workings of vegas and the casino business, carefully researched by nicholas pileggi (in a great book!) eventually filtered through Scorsese's masterful cinematic eye, make Casino one helluva good movie, and one of the rare 3 hour movies you wish would just keep going...
scorsese has claimed that Powell's "Peeping Tom" has had a huge effect on his own career as a filmmaker. Ironic since it was the film that destroyed Powell's own career. And many of Scorsese's "trademarks" are seen in this excellent film, a film that deals with guilt, redemption, the feminine ideal, and disturbing issue of voyeurism. it is a film that causes the viewer to look inward at their own voyeuristic tendencies, and to question why they are watching such a film. it truly is an amazing, horrifying film, but a film that is completely believable both psychologically and intellectually. it's amazing that this film was made in 1960, it makes Psycho look rather polite...
|Page 1 of 2:|| |