Reviews written by registered user

10 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

10 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Let's do a little substitution..., 13 October 2016

OK, so every evil thing that happens in the world is due to a specific group and getting entirely rid of that group solves all of the world's problems. There's something that seems familiar about this, and I don't normally Godwin things, but it's most like Nazi Germany.

Imagine that the group portrayed by a similar movie was the Jews. The theory is that getting rid of them solves all of the world's problems, huh? Or maybe a different version that eugenically bred out people of color, or from a different religion.

Movies like this are hate speech. The producers shouldn't borrow concepts from genocide advocates to try to make a comedy.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A spectacular piece of art, 17 March 2011

Jim Carrey manages to pull off a tremendously difficult role with this film. How to honestly portray someone who was not a very good person. Sure, it's less difficult to a Nazi psychopath or some other sicko, but how do you let the audience in on the fact that the person they thought they knew wasn't who they thought.

So it takes another misunderstood genius to adequately describe him. Andy Kaufman was an artist, but a jerk, a lot of people knew this, but not the vast majority of his fans. Now we know. His goal in life was to annoy people and he was very talented at it. He could also sometimes do comedy, but mostly he spent his time trying to figure out how to annoy the most people he could. He went after pro wrestling fans because he perceived them as being easily deceived and annoyed. He couldn't stand his day job, so he tried to destroy it.

It must have been insanely difficult to portray Andy. To be able to bring a mass audience into his mind, to not sugar coat anything and to make the audience understand someone in a completely new light is film making art at its highest level.

That doesn't mean that this was a particularly enjoyable film to watch. Much like a lot of expressive art, it's not supposed to just be a pretty thing to enjoy. Anyone could represent an uncomplicated concept well enough for thoughtful people to understand. Representing a complex subject well enough for average people to understand takes great skill.

There were a few minor annoyances about the film and I can't say that there was much to laugh about, but Jim's acting makes this a solid 8/10 in my opinion.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Was this supposed to be a comedy?, 18 January 2010

I must start by saying that, perhaps, this would have gotten better after the first 40 minutes, but I was saved from further suffering by a scratched DVD. Normally you can hit the chapter skip button and chance losing some continuity, but I don't think it would have mattered. Perhaps the outtakes could be funny, given the rotten, trite dialog. I'm glad I checked this out from the library, because this would have been a terrible date movie.

The incredible creepiness of the male characters struck me as the worst aspect of the movie. I got the feeling that they might work up to physical violence. Hopefully not.

Not that the women portrayed were much better people, although they did look good, so it was at least worth the second star for that.

Needless to say, there wasn't anything funny in this "comedy". We didn't even smile, let alone laugh. Ben's "girlie" glasses were almost funny, but they didn't play it up.

Anyway, if you want to see a sad, pathetic movie about sad pathetic people and pretend that it's a comedy, go ahead and borrow this from a library. Just about all libraries would have it, since anyone silly enough to have purchased this wreck would want to get rid of it somehow.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Really pretty bad, 11 August 2002

The thing I found most surprising about this movie is that Spielberg directed it. This is just not up to his standards. Cruise does a decent job but there really isn't anything that can make this film believable.

I was kind of worried that the film would present a possible future where everything is watched, monitored and recorded, like 1984. Then I suppose they could assign probabilities to future actions and prevent crimes before they happen, as was the subject of an Asimov short story.

Thankfully they chose a completely impossible, ridiculous psychic imaging prediction instead. Look people, I hate to make life a little more mundane for you, but there are no psychic abilities, they are completely impossible and there is nothing to worry about from any con artist pretending to ascertain your future. If they weren't impossible, someone would be able to walk off with James Randi's $1000000 prize (see

So, anyway, I'm glad they didn't make the movie too realistic or present an actual possible future because the movie is depressing enough as it is. I can't imagine how awful the world would be to actually have popup ads that knew who you were everywhere you go. Think about it. Would you actually want streaming advertisements everywhere you look? Should we allow that to happen to our society?

The movie wasn't all bad, Max von Sydow was good as usual. The stunt/special effects work was decent, if rather pale in comparison to some of the other movies coming out lately (LoTR).

But the worst thing was the plot, which really couldn't be saved by any effect or actor. I think the whole thing was meant to make people realize that we have to get control of our essential freedoms and how the government and purveyors of trivia like the media companies are trying to not only control but actually ruin our lives. I hope that the people who lost 140 minutes of their lives watching this turkey can get something back out of it in the realization that we can prevent the destruction of our freedom.

Please people, don't let the message go unnoticed. If you let the evil people out there continually take your freedoms away, we'll end up with a horrid world like the one presented in Minority Report.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
I'm nuts, 28 July 2000

I have two competing trains of thought about this movie. One is the obvious praise/adoration/no-holiday-season-complete-without that all of the other reviews have said. The other is much darker.

Does anyone else see that the point of the movie is divine intervention from holiday suicide? Does anyone see this as a bad thing? Let's examine the facts. 1. George is unhappy with life. 2. He gets in financial difficulty. 3. Because he sees no way out, he decides to commit suicide. 4. Divine powers intervene and save George from killing himself at the last minute.

Does this happen in real life? Ya, all but #4, which never occurs. I hate to say it but this movie that we all love should be avoided by depressed people. It is probably indirectly responsible for thousands of suicides. People aren't thinking clearly when they are depressed and seeing divine intervention save someone at the last second, if and only if they are good enough, is probably enough to push people over the edge. That stupid 'Touched by an Angel' TV show is just as bad.

People have a hard enough time distinguishing truth from reality without suggesting to the weak-minded that some supernatural entity is going to come along and solve all of their problems.

All that having been said, I still love this movie.

Yuck, what an awful movie!, 19 June 2000

I can't believe that people thought this stinking heap of trash was funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among cruelty, disgust and stupidity, 'There's Something About Mary' leaves little reason to stay until the end. Sure, Cameron Diaz is very pretty, but that is never going to be enough to save a movie. Ben Stiller tries hard to work within the plot, and is obviously very talented, but the movie is a loser.

Not once were any of the scenes believable. The shots were badly timed and poorly framed. The Farreley brothers should be kept away from making films at all costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to avoid.

2/10; the bonus is from the one time I smiled. It's not like I'm immune to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, too. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just stunk.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
I can't believe they call this 'Science Fiction', 4 January 2000

This show has one of the most absurd plots I have ever heard of. Why on earth would a government agency that has done all of the engineering for their supposedly 'perfect' body pick up some dead Joe Shmo's brain to implant in it? There is no way they would, not under any circumstances. They would use a volunteer, someone who is a trained spy already. Anything else is sheer stupidity. Are the producers braindead themselves? How did they expect anyone to buy this plot?

And don't even get me started about the idiotic action plots. The 'bad guy' characterizations are so one-dimensional that it is a wonder they find actors willing to portray such a person. I'd lose all respect for someone for doing a 'Now and Again' badguy. They would have proven that they cannot act.

I'll admit that the love-story plot is kind of new. Margaret Colin is definitely the best actor on the show. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this; recently networks have gotten away with such travesties as 'Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman' where the only character with even a third of a brain is Jane Seymour's.

In 'Now and Again' they have created a show that only a female television critic could like. Unfortunately, they are the ones that decide what to put on the air, not normal people.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Ugghh. What a waste of a good plot!, 3 September 1999

Without going into too much detail, all I can say is that if you watched the first half of the movie and liked it, then stop watching at that point. They do such strange things, violating science fiction rules, that the last half is painful.

The acting was OK. Matt LeBlanc was pretty convincing; William Hurt was passionless, cold and forced; the rest of the cast played their parts about average, no complaints.

The plot suffered from Armageddon-itis, they just barely escape about every 10 minutes and lots of things blow up without need. Throw in the annoying world-saver type children and obligatory cute aliens and you have a very annoying movie.

What there was of motivated, essential special effects were better than average, and some of the unexplained events at the beginning actually stimulated some thinking.

All things considered, this was a movie that is ruined by trying to fit in every possible mass-market niche. It seemed like they had several bad rewrites of a fairly decent screenplay, IMHO.


A comedy of justice, 19 August 1999

Very Bad Things is about the consequences of mistakes. After the prostitute is killed at the bachelor party, things seem to be OK for the guys. They are a little shaken up, but that is to be expected. When the realization starts to sink in, life starts to fall apart.

This movie is a comedy of justice. It points out that life will have its revenge on those that assume they are untouchable. You never really get away with killing another human.

Without going into too much detail, I think that the rest of the movie is fairly reasonable in what would happen if 4 average guys are pushed around by a raving lunatic. Famous last words: 'It seemed to be the thing to do at the time'. Not an actual quote, just the mood of the picture.

Boyd (Christian Slater) is the ideal soul-less yuppie pervert. Great casting. Jeremy Piven is his usual wonderful character actor, very sympathetic. Cameron Diaz comes off a little unbelievable, but I've seen women get pretty nuts around the 'big day'.

Nonetheless, I will not give this film a very high rating because it might encourage people to go see it who would not 'get it'. Only rent this movie if you are interested in divine retribution. Otherwise, see something comparatively happy like 'The Sixth Sense'.


Communion (1989)
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Never so close to sleep in a 'thriller', 19 August 1999

I tried to watch this piece of trash late one night, and even though I have a profound phobia about alien abduction (no, I'm not lying) I didn't think this was scary and I didn't think it was suspenseful. The 'special' effects were absolutely idiotic. I can't believe that anyone would think that those blue creatures were aliens. I'm getting sleepy just thinking of it.

I'm not sure that they weren't trying to make a spoof. It was _that_ bad. A ridiculous waste of film.