Reviews written by registered user
|149 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
~*~* Minor Spoiler ~*~*
I saw 'Jeepers Creepers' for the first time about a year ago. I had never heard of it before, which seemed to be odd since movies get so much advertising these days. I found it to be a mixed movie in which the first half was excellent while the second half went down hill. All in all, though, I enjoyed it.
The main reason I like this film is because it is different, to say the least. It has a very unique plot with a weird turn of events. (It got a little ridiculous at a couple of points, but I was able to sit through it.) Two other things that made the film good: the cast and the simplicity. I was very impressed with the cast. Justin Long and Gina Philips were great. They worked well together and their acting helped move the movie along so that it didn't get boring or dull. I had seen the two of them in bit roles prior to 'Jeepers' and I would definitely like to see them again in something else. Who says a movie can't work on a low budget and still turn out good? Ah, simplicity. It's a beautiful thing. The film's obvious low budget is one thing that I really appreciate and tend to look for when searching for movies. Everything about 'Jeepers' is simple. The cast is uh, quite small, the set is nothing spectacular, the writing is straight forward, and that's what I like to see.
I'll break the film down into two sections: one being the first half of the film and the other being the second half. The movie jumps right into the action and doesn't beat around the bush, which was something that I appreciated. It continues to move at a steady pace, everything's going good until...the Creeper starts making out with the cop's head. Yep, that's where I started to go 'What?'. Now while the second half of the film, and even the ending, are weaker than the first part, I think that it all evens out. Since it is a relatively short film, I wasn't bored with it (as I usually am with the films that I sit through). When it comes down to it, 'Jeepers' is a good film that kind of got a little silly, but since I found most of it to be worthwhile, I would watch it again. And I have. About 50 times. Because I bought the movie. And that is something that I rarely do which goes to show that I actually do like it despite having let me down at times.
Having not heard about this film before stumbling on it at the videostore, I'm surprised because it really is something worth catching. The reviews I've read aren't all that great, but I don't listen to critics, so I would recommend ignoring them while trying to see this movie. Overall, 'Jeepers Creepers' is a good film to watch every now and again for some cheap and easy scares.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: 'The Amazing Race' is the best
reality show on television. I've watched every season since it premiered
and have loved all of them, but I was disappointed with the fourth edition
for a number of reasons.
The one thing that I felt this edition was missing, not to mention the most important element, was an interesting group of teams. There are usually those teams that I love and want to win so badly, however, there weren't any this year that I really enjoyed watching. The teams, I felt, were duplicates of past ones (need I mention the Cindy and Russell coincidence?). I hate to say it because the producers are usually good at choosing contestants, but this year, there were some people who I still didn't know their name by the end of the season. That is not good. Another problem with this season was that the challenges were dull. There were some interesting ones over the course of the show, but for the most part, they were bland. I will point out that I was a little taken by surprise with some of the road blocks/detours simply because they were on the dangerous side.
Things I liked about this season? Well, the wonderful crew, of course. The camera crew, editors, sound people, and everyone else really did do a good job with putting the show together. I am always impressed with the editors especially because they really have a tough job, but they never seem to fail me.
If there was one good thing to come out of 'The Amazing Race 4', it was that my favorite team (one of two teams that I could actually stand to watch) made it not only into the top three, but won the million dollars. My other favorite team came in third. It was a bummer, though, that the finale was terrible.
While this season was by far the worst of the four, it did have some strong points along the way. I was thrilled that the show was nominated for an Emmy and then actually won, and I was even happier to find out that CBS gave the go-ahead to a fifth season. Maybe CBS does like Bruckheimer.
I caught a few episodes of the first season of 'American Idol', but it was
only until the second installment came around that I actually started to
like it despite that fact that it, you know, is like the cheesiest show out
I hate television anymore. I really do. All of the shows that I used to never miss are the ones that I refuse to watch anymore simply because television has gone so down hill it isn't even funny. I must say that I have taken a liking to the reality shows such as 'Survivor', the wonderful 'Amazing Race', which I've watched since the first season, and God help me, I even sat through the first episode of 'Joe Millionaire'. So, when the second season of 'American Idol' rolled around, I figured that I'd give it a shot. I immediately became hooked on it. Why? I have no idea. The show is so dumb, yet I couldn't stop watching it.
Okay, the premise of this show is so, uh, lifeless. It's not entirely boring, but it isn't the greatest. It is filled with nonsense for the most part. It craves ratings so badly that I almost feel bad for giving into FOX.
The judges are horrible. Randy Jackson is okay, I suppose. Paula Abdul is an absolute joke. May I just ask exactly what prompted the producers or whoever to actually hire her? She serves no purpose whatsoever. Simon Cowell is probably the judge who I like the most. He's honest and I usually agree with him, but he does put on a ridiculously huge act time after time, so he drops a few points there in my book. Oh, and Ryan Seacrest is a terrible host, but I like him. I do. He's one of the main reasons I watch this show.
'American Idol' is set up entirely wrong. The show starts off by dragging out the auditions, then becomes fairly good when there are actual performances, but then slips terribly when it stretches out week after week. Personally, this season felt like about three seasons combined. It was just so long. Also, this show is the absolute worst when it comes to wasting time, commercials, etc. So much time is wasted when it could be put to good use. I hate watching it for that reason right there.
So, to sum things up, 'American Idol' is a pathetic show where it tries its hardest to win ratings, but it is so addicting, in my opinion. Will I watch 'American Idol 3'? I'm not really sure. After the way the second season ended, I just don't know if I can bear to watch a whole other season. After all, this is the show that crowned Ruben Studdard as the winner as opposed to CLAY AIKEN. That's another story in itself, so I'll just stay away from that. I still am recovering, though.
I first saw 'Pretty Woman' a while back. I wasn't impressed with it the
first time around, but when I caught a second viewing I was a little more
interested. It's okay. Just okay.
Julia Roberts and Richard Gere work really well together. I like this team of actors. Roberts is pretty good; entertaining, not annoying as she sometimes can be. Gere is a little lifeless at times, but I didn't have a problem with him for the most part. Hector Elizondo was, uh, sweet. Jason Alexander bugged me for quite some time. Laura San Giacomo was average.
The plot's decent, the writing's a little dull, and the the film seems to be three hours long or so. It did get very slow after a while.
'Pretty Woman' is okay. It certainly isn't Roberts' best role or performance. It's something that I would watch twice and probably never again. That sort of thing.
Is it really possible for a film to turn out bad that has both Susan
Sarandon and Goldie Hawn in it? Normally, I would say that there is no way,
but I now have to change my opinion after sitting through the mind-numbingly
stupid 'The Banger Sisters.'
Why'd you do it, Susan and Goldie? Why?! I love these two gals; they are two of my favorite actresses of all time. Unfortunately, they can't save this film. The previews that I saw led me to the conclusion that 'The Banger Sisters' would be a funny, good-natured, amusing film. Well, it wasn't funny at all, the writing was pathetic, the characters were poorly written, as was the whole film, and it was simply a waste of time.
Sarandon and Hawn disappointed me. Not with their acting (because they both are wonderful actresses), but with their choice to take part in this dribble. Geoffrey Rush has a major role in this film for some unknown reason. You know, that was one of the main things that irritated me. I was under the impression that the two leading ladies would, in fact, be the leads. However, Hawn was on the screen for the majority of the movie, Sarandon's role was butchered, yet Rush had an incredibly big part. I was happy to see Eva Amurri play Sarandon's daughter; they really lit up the screen. I was just waiting to see Kate Hudson make a cameo somewhere, but of course, she didn't as I wished she would have. Erika Christensen was enjoyable as well.
The plot was all screwed up. I didn't like how The Banger Sisters' didn't even share the screen until about the middle of the film. The writing was simple and too generic.' I had heard beforehand that it was outrageously funny. I ended up laughing approximately five times while the person I was watching it with chuckled approximately seven times. I was that bored that I actually resorted to counting the number of times laughs were produced.
So, The Banger Sisters' was a huge disappointment. I had been wanting to see it ever since it was playing at the cinema, but now I wish that I never had watched it at all. Performances didn't let me down, but I was just not amused by the casting (Rush), or the setup of the acting. I shall not recommend this to anyone.
'A Beautiful Mind' IS a good movie. The acting is quite good, the story
itself is ho-hum, but it just doesn't have what it takes to be a Best
I have to admit that I was pretty impressed with Russell Crowe's performance. I might just have to go all the way and say that I wouldn't have been upset if he would have won that Oscar. He did a terrific job; he let his emotions flow, didn't seem to annoy me...no complaints here. Okay, I have a complaint. I did not agree with the casting of Jennifer Connelly. Am I truly the only one that thought that her role was extremely small? I mean she just didn't have that big of a part. She won her Oscar for some reason, not really sure why. Ed Harris was alright. He wasn't anything spectacular, but he certainly was better than Connelly. I can't really remember any of the other actors just because they were all males, plus they looked somewhat similar to each other.
I'm not too thrilled with the story itself. I had never even heard of John Nash before. It seemed interesting, but then boring after a while, then it picked up, but became tiresome again. It was a bit long, so I was somewhat relieved when it finally did come to an end.
Okay, 'A Beautiful Mind' is good, but it did not deserve to be named Best Picture of the year. I'm not sure that I would have even thought to put it in the nomination category. The thing is is that Ron Howard did a wonderful job. I'm a big fan of Howard; loved him for years. He's an amazing director and his direction of the film is handled so well, but for some reason the movie just did not deserve that award. He, however, did deserve his long awaited Oscar as it was rightfully awarded. That didn't really make sense what I just said, but the main point that I'm trying to get across is that Howard did a great job.
'A Beautiful Mind' is a good film to watch if you have the time and patience for a pretty slow paced movie. Normally that would bug me to no end, but it's not as bad here. It does lag though, at times. It may have been nominated for a load of awards (winning half), but was still in need of that extra touch to really make it shine.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I only put the word movie in quotations because I do not consider 'Monster's Ball' to be a movie in the least bit. A movie is something that has to be somewhat entertaining, somewhat interesting, somewhat worth the time that it takes for me to watch it. 'Monster's Ball' wasn't any of those and I found it to be one of the worst projects of 2001. Scratch that and make it one of the worst of all time.
I'm going to come down hard on this film (there, I didn't use "movie") because it truly is a piece of garbage. I am so tired of the movie companies being under the impression that just because a well known, highly paid and recognized actor is thrown into a film, it will have to be great. That is so not the case. Anyway, let me actually get to my review.
I like Billy Bob Thornton. I don't like Halle Berry. Mix these two together and what we have is a disaster. Thornton turns in a less than average performance. At times, his acting just plain stinks. I'd like to say that I was still interested in him because of his looks, but oh, what a mess. I have just one word for Berry: Oscar!? How in the world did she manage to take home an Oscar? For this performance? I'm sorry, but did the Academy and I have alternate versions of the same movie? She is completely unbearable. I thought that any movie where Penelope Cruz was involved was terrible (and they are), but Berry is so darn annoying. Unlike Thornton, she is at least somewhat believable at times. I had enough of her crying though after fifteen minutes. You know, I think that the only reason she won that statue is because someone on the committee just liked that scene in which everyone keeps commenting on. Honestly, she won it because if the Academy kept moving at the pace they were moving at, they would have soon gotten a racist card thrown at them. They have to cover their tales just like everybody else. So, those nauseating credits roll and I find out that Heath Ledger is in 'Ball.' Goody! My hopes of him saving this trash were soon killed as his character faced the same fate. What a shame. Who else do I feel the need to comment on? Oh, yeah, Sean Combs. He's dropped the 'Puffy', so I know he's serious. You know what? He was probably the best actor in this film. Yup, I actually said that.
The plot is paper thin and runs out of steam practically ten minutes into the film. I was so bored by it all. Just when I thought that it wasn't capable of getting any worse, the ending came. I was twirling my hair or filing my nails or something to pass the time, I looked away for a split second, and the next thing I know the credits are rolling again. It was absolutely terrible.
I thought that I could get all the way through this review without commenting on that now famous scene, but I can't. Thornton's and Berry's love scene was a little uncomfortable, to say the least. I was relieved to realize that I was watching it by myself instead of with somebody else where I would feel the need to break into conversation at that given moment. Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call that scene pornographic, though it was quite explicit. That's just another thing that I hated about this film. The director seemed to think that a sex scene was the only direction to go in; that it would save the film in a way. Why?
So, I think it's pretty clear where I stand on this picture. The acting was horrible, the cast just didn't 'jive', the plot was boring, the whole thing's overrated, and I still can't get over how Berry won that Oscar. 'Monster's Ball' is a horrible, horrible film and I wouldn't suggest anybody see it. Ever.
PS - If there was one good thing about this whole disaster, it was that I didn't fork out $3 or so at the video store; I caught it on Cinemax.
Yeah, yeah, I know my 'language skills' could use improvement, but what do
you want from me? Anyway, I'm here to express my opinion on 'Barbershop',
not to receive criticism for my vocabulary. Oh, by the way, this movie
The previews for this film looked really good. Though I'm not prone to going out and renting these types of movies, I eventually did make it around to seeing this comedy, if that's what some insist on calling it.
The casting was terrible. Though I hate to admit it because I find him to be absolutely dreadful, Cedric the Entertainer (although among tasks on his to-do list involve actually entertaining me) brought a couple of laughs out of me. That's just because I agreed with him (on the O.J. and Rosa Parks bit) while he managed to poke fun at the whole ordeal. I was kind of pleased to see Sean Patrick Thomas, those ATM guys were kind of funny, but all in all, the casting was horrible. Among the top snoozers: Eve and Ice Cube.
The plot is extremely weak, but what can one expect nowadays? Everybody claims that 'Barbershop' is hilarious, funny, amusing, the best! Wrong. As I have mentioned, Cedric came through with, perhaps, five successful jokes. The rest of the film consisted of annoying writing that tried to be funny but failed terribly.
Well, the previews looked really good, as do all of today's movies. The actual movie, however, was another story. 'Barbershop' is slow, not really funny at all, had a bad cast and was just weak all over. This one managed to get a 2 out of me. Do not see this!
I find that all of Jennifer Aniston's films are pretty much the same. If it
weren't for her 'Friends' success, I would guess that she wouldn't have a
whole lot of luck with her movie career in Hollywood. 'Picture Perfect' is
a simple comedy that is somewhat entertaining, but nothing to brag
Jennifer Aniston is a good actress. I will admit that. And the main reason that she is one is because of her TV fame. Who cares, I like her, so whatever. She does a great job in this role. Well, I might want to tone it down a notch. Jay Mohr is also pretty good. I can't say that I like Mohr, but in the few films that I have seen him in, he was fairly decent. Kevin Bacon, who has a very small role, is okay, I suppose. Neither of the guys are fantastic, but they aren't that bad.
The plot is a little out there; it could use some work on. Actually, it's particularly dumb, but I'm not that bored with it. The writing is average. Is it even supposed to be a comedy? It is? Well, it isn't too funny. I really didn't laugh at all, come to think about it.
So, 'Picture Perfect' isn't bad or anything, it's just ho-hum. If you like Aniston, what the heck, go out and rent this. I would, however, recommend 'The Object of My Affection' as opposed to telling someone to see this. They both have a little deja vu going on for me for some reason, but I'd say go see 'Object' instead of this.
It's funny how my opinion on this movie has changed since the first time I
saw it. I caught it on NBC when it first premiered and boy, did I think that
it was good. I made the mistake of not recording it and for a while after
that I looked EVERYWHERE for it. Couldn't find it but finally Lifetime came
to my rescue. Lifetime is known for helping me out with those movies that I
can't find anywhere else. I watched it again the other night and guess what,
I hated it.
The plot is simple. The movie starts off good but soon travels downhill. It takes a while for the movie to actually get going, but it finally does. Oh, and it has the one thing in movies that bugs me the most: it starts off showing what will eventually happen. That irks me to no end. I mean I knew what was going to happen, but it still frustrates me when that occurs.
So, it drags on, and it drags on, and it drags on. It's entirely too slow.
I feel bad criticizing the acting here, but it has got to be done. I liked Ariana Richards in 'Jurassic Park' no matter how minor her role was. She is just awful here. Seriously, I haven't seen such bad acting since I went out and rented a Bette Midler movie. Oh, yeah, I don't like Bette Midler. Richards is just so...so...boring. She puts absolutely no emotions into her words, which results in her character being not likeable. I at least didn't like the character. Susan Blakely, on the other hand, is really good. Good acting, good character development, no complaints from me in that area. William Bumiller wasn't anything great.
This plot has been done so many times that it needs to be put to a rest. 'Race Against Fear' is slow-moving, predictable, and has some very, very bad acting. I would not advise anyone to watch this. I'd suggest another TV movie: 'She Fought Alone.' It's basically the same idea and I know that I said that all movies along this line need to stopped, but it IS good; a lot better than this horrible thing.
|Page 1 of 15:||          |