Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Something's Gotta Give (2003)
"Give" me a break. *spoilers*
This movie wasn't trying to re-invent the wheel. It took the 20-something female empowerment genre and placed it some thirty years from now. Think Bridget Jonse's diary with A LOT of Viagra jokes. While Keaton is an admirable Miss Jones, the script gives her only a stereotype to play. Nicholson's character, meanwhile, has been promoted to "co-starring" status as an afterthought.
Keaton seems to have a perpetual expression of amused befuddlement, which I can't deny is somewhat endearing. However, the wry approach wears thin on the viewer after a solid 2 hours plus. Emotional outbursts are wrought in spurts with equally dubious motivation. I believe that this was a failing of the script - despite sections of snappy dialogue, the cliches rolled on in. Of course she's a writer. Of course she's famous and supposedly good at it. Of course this affair happens to be the TNT to her writers block AND the autobiographical basis of her best work ever. I am sorry to say that where Diane Keaton was standing, I was distracted by the writer / director's personal transplantation and wishful thinking. It was, safe to say, awkward.
Nicholson was right for the part in that its sole salvation was in a meta-theatrical play off his own celebrity. The script left his character stagnant in its own "Heff"-nic glory, his only radical development being in a slapdash flashback. Diane is heaped with laurels but Jack is the perrenial dartboard. If it were any other actor, this would be no more of a duo film than Keanu Reeves makes it a triple header.
This should have been breezy fare, but the aforementioned length demands a weightiness that the concept can't carry. The middle-aged dating crisis has been ignored by Hollywood, but for something less vapid you might want to wait awhile. Like until Bridget Jones gets menopause.
Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
I'll admit it, I laughed a lot during this movie. But instead of using clever, fresh, silly , NEW jokes, Mike Myers now resorts to the old jokes from the movie before, now worse since we all know how they're going to turn out. This movie was just trying too hard to make us laugh. Goldmember is pathetic. Definitely Mike Myers' worse character ever. The plot doesn't flow and tries to bring a new emotional level to all the characters that just doesn't work. My biggest complaint though is that those dance interludes that were present in the first two movies are missing in Goldmember. As a comedy, this movie serves its purpose and makes us laugh. But as an Austin Powers episode, it is quite disappointing.
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
For the people who hated it...... (Spoilers!!!!!!!)
I have a suggestion for you. Watch it again. The first time I watched it, it was all I could do to sit through it until the end. I too was disgraced at the anachronisms, especially musical. Nothing was accurate to 1899 Paris. Then when it ended, I thought to myself, "I kind of understand what this is all about." So I rewound it and watched it again. Since then I have seen it three more times. It is my all-time favourite movie. Watch it again and don't take it too seriously. Realize that everything, accurate to 1899 Paris or not, is there to help tell the story of their love. Allow yourself to laugh at the silly "Like a Virgin" dancers and be shocked when Christian yells, "Because she doesn't love you!" Forget that it's predictable and not historically correct. Get lost in the story, music, and visual effects, and I promise, you will cry when Satine dies.
America's Sweethearts (2001)
Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.
Head Over Heels (2001)
....so bad that I didn't even watch the whole thing. It's very rare that I actually stop watching a movie around 40 minutes into it, but I just couldn't stand this cheesy, unentertaining movie any longer. Perhaps the movie would have gotten better if I would have given it a chance, but I'm glad I chose not to.
Death on the Nile (1978)
One of the best Agatha Christie movies I've seen
When I began watching this movie, I expected it to be similar to "Murder on the Orient Express", since "Death on the Nile" followed that one. But I was plesantly surprised that "Death on the Nile" is far superior. Although it cannot compare to the book, it is a great mystery movie. Unlike "Orient", this movie shows the different characters enough so one can actually make an educated guess as to who the murderer will be. (By the way, I watched this movie with my mom, and she guessed exactly who the murderer would be and partly how they did it.) My only complaints are the lack of characters and certain plot lines, ie. Tim Allerton was turned into Jim Ferguson, and this character was not involved with replacing real jewelry with false ones. *slight spoiler ahead* Also, I was disappointed that it was never fully explained why that boulder fell and almost killed Linnet and Simon. Peter Ustinov's Poirot could not compare to David Suchet's, but Ustinov is far more "Poirot-ish" than Albert Finney was. I was disappointed though that in this movie, Poirot actually accused each person he questioned. Although it was good for the audience to see the different possibilities of what might have happened that night, the "real" Poirot would have never flat out accused people. I think it would have been better if he had voiced the possibilities to Colonel Race instead. Anyway, overall it is an excellent Agatha Christie movie. Definitely worth seeing.
Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
Read the book instead
It's horrible how many times that after a movie I sit thinking, "The book was so much better." I know that a four hour long movie would not be reasonable, but that is what it takes to properly adapt a book into a movie! I am a HUGE Agatha Christie fan, and "Murder on the Orient Express" was one of the first books I ever read by her. It has been a few years since then, so I've forgotten most of the characters, but the plot was so unique that of course it has stood out in my mind. While watching the movie, I was appalled at how little screen time the suspects got! How could anyone (who had not read the book) have formed any guesses as to who the killer was before it was revealed? You call that a mystery movie? If you can't form educated guesses, then who cares who the murderer is! Anyway, apart from not enough screen time for the suspects and not enough time for the movie in general, I did not enjoy this at all. Where were the clues? I sure didn't see any that would have lead me to believe that a certain person was guilty. And Agatha's famous red herrings were not in the least bit conclusive or suggestive!! Apart from that, Albert Finney did not resemble the Poirot I picture while reading Christie's novels. The Poirot I picture is plump, with, of course, the twirling mustache (it wasn't twirly enough in the movie), and a rounder, egg shaped head (as is always described to the reader). Apart from physical differences, "my" Poirot is kind, not at all modest, does not yell, and has a certain way of questioning his suspects so that it is more conversation than questioning. The Poirot in the movie was way too snappy with his questions, and he yelled!! He yelled!! The calm, cool, collected Poirot, does not yell! Poirot is what makes his novels interesting, and yet it was mostly Poirot who ruined this movie for me.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
Worst movie I have seen in years.
Sometimes when I see a really bad movie, I wonder to myself, "Do film makers watch the final product of their movies before showing them to audiences?" I first wondered this after paying $5 at a movie theater to see "Buddy"... but I won't get into that. I absolutely hated this movie. It didn't capture my interest, the special effects were horrible, the acting was laughable, the jokes were forced, the sidekick was shoved in to amuse the kids, and overall I was remind of Star Wars: Episode One, and after reading the other comments here I know that I'm not the only one. My boyfriend loved it, but I'm wondering if it's because he's been playing the game for years. Maybe if I was familiar with the game I would have liked it, but I really don't think so. I watched X-Men, not being at all familiar with the comic book, and while I didn't have the same appreciation as readers may, I really enjoyed the movie. I've often heard people say that if it's only entertaining for children, it's not a good movie/book. Well I apply the same rule here. If it's only entertaining for D&D game players, it's not a good movie.
The Cure (1995)
I have one main point of this comment. Read through the other comments left here. See anything negative??? ....... I didn't think so. Get this movie. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The acting is wonderful, and the script is interesting. Five out of five stars.
Charlie's Angels (2000)
I have very little to say about this movie. It was not hilarious, it was not interesting, it was not fun, it was just plain boring. Simple as that. People who disagree with me are probably guys who were too busy watching the girls slink around in leather outfits to notice the lack of intelligence in the movie.