142 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Wild On... (1997– )
All hail Brooke Burke
18 June 2003
Everytime I'm done watching an episode of this, I feel drunk.

Anywhere the Wild On crew goes , whether it's in South America,

Europe, or the Far East, everyone is always drinking and exposing

their boobies.

Jules Asner, the first true host(I think there was briefly one b4

her)was really cute and funny, like the girl next door. I identified

mostly with her because I can't dance for the life of me and when

you see footage of Jules dancing, she is as clumsy as can be.

Brooke Burke came next, and with as much charisma as Jules

had and then some , she also added that exotic beauty she carried

so well. Brooke was my absolute FAVOURITE Wild On! host-she

did what she had to do on the show, took risks but looked cool and

collected doing it. She was pregnant twice during filming(!) but she

could've fooled us! Brooke was the heart and quiet party-girl soul

of the Wild On! atmosphere...just look at how the Wild On! show's

popularity soared after she started hosting. .When Brooke asked a

question to anybody-even to a total drunkard in a really loud club-

she handed them the microphone and awaited their response.

She was a listener. When she hooked up with those cool young

travel guides from each "destination"-Italy, France, etc.-she always

blended in with what they were doing. No action from her ever felt

forced or was made to draw attention in any way. A graceful,

sophisticated, sexy, beautiful but truly groovy and down-to-earth

chick. Brooke was the model host.

Now Cindy is hosting, and though she's real sexy and cute as a

button, it's just too hard for her to match up to the charisma

Brooke, and even Jules had. Although she's an adequate host-it

always looks like she's having fun, and she doesn't run her mouth

or anything,-she doesn't seem to "control" or "own" the

camera....maybe she's very young yet and has to grow into it. I'm

also not as keen on the directing style of this season-they added a

sort of interview with Cindy in each episode, Let's say one is when

Cindy is talking about her personal experience with a party that

night while the show inter-cuts with footage from that party, for

example. Last season would've shown you actual footage of

Brooke interacting with the people and situations first-hand...She

seemed to make acquaintances as she walked by with the

camera close behind her. So there was never any need for

explanation afterward..the party was what you saw first-hand.

This-in my opinion, was a much more natural way to shoot such


Either way, the show is entertaining, and definitely one of the best

shows on E! If nothing else, it really does open your eyes to a little

bit of culture -to people who have never even left their U.S. state,

while still realizing that people from all over the world like to get

"wild" in pretty much the same way.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
License and registration....chickenf*cker!!!
24 April 2003
This movie was funny from beginning to end. Random jokes and

funny parts come out of nowhere, and a lot of cases that's what

makes a comedy so great... ..but then again, I'm biased. Just seeing these guys in umiform

makes me laugh..What keeps the charm of this film is that these

characters are believable as cops. Casting the crew-unknowns in

front of the camers-was a great idea.

I'm convinced there are cops who like to kick back and watch this

for a good time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dr. Phil (2002– )
really embarrassing
3 April 2003
This show stirs up a lot of negative emotions within me for Dr. Phil,

but mostly its embarrassment in general. I am embarrassed for

adults that need to come on his show and listen to him load spout

stuff that is already common knowledge. Embarrassed at myself

for flipping through the channels and stopping on him for just a

few minutes to give him the time of day. What a big mistake.

Can't people just talk things out without having this mentally-challenged pretentious, "doctor" telling them what's ok?

The saddest thing of all is it seems like most of his guests are

extremely well-off, intelligent people who can work their own

problems out through time. I sincerely wish they wouldn't waste

their time on his show. I even feel like I'm wasting my time now,

but I had to balance out the gushing reviews for this man.

If you're in a really good mood and you feel like diminishing it,

watch Dr. Phil. He's useless, pretentious, and boring. "Dr. Drew"

would be a much better show.
38 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Crow (1994)
an old comment
13 December 2002
I found this in my old stuff; a review from 5 years ago for this movie...though I already commented on The Crow; I feel this may be the most honest review for it:

Once upon a time-not so long ago- Halloween was something more magical. Up until the early 90's kids were happy to be frightened because it was about being alive and honest, without the fear that evil truly did reign the Earth. It was optimism and how it related to human darkness. Moreover it was about how "Goth" had come back in style, the education in literary background that came with it. There was a lot of culture behind black attire and make-up of this time- whether it was referenced to writers, music, religion, or just pure romantic love.

That's where this film comes in. Its theme-"love conquers all"- is not about romance-but about true LOVE. This film is all about staying true to the essence of its theme. If you're talking about "love" during this time(1992-4), you're not talking about any "areas" around it- like romance, lover's quarrel, jealousy, self-doubt. It's not about enhancing the faces of your film's attractive leads; Brandon Lee's face is mostly covered in make-up and similarly Sofia Shinas is barely shown, but when she finally is it is only her face-she is more like an angel than an attractive woman. Point being that everything needed to make an action/horror film was there. But it's like the director wanted to show how he deliberately ignored these aspects and remained loyal to his theme.

Sarah and Officer Albrecht are plot thickeners and serve to give the film a modern perspective, so they are shown as realistically as possible. But all the "bad"-guys are purposely unrealistic, they are shown as symbols for you to HATE-out of pure emotion. You don't want them in the slammer, you want their evil out of this world.

This film is like a landmark in a temporary (American-I can't speak for other countries) pop culture between 1992&4. Kurt Cobain's suicide, Real World London, Live, Pearl Jam's zenith of pop influence, Nine Inch Nails, STP...this is the era when some young kids today (and older folks who passed by this era) complain we took ourselves too seriously. It was right before grunge supposedly"died" and before humour and obsolete issues came back into rap and rock; before new-wave "punk". Financial gain/monetary value was shunned during this short-lived culture, because it didn't have to do with human emotion. Incidentally the "bad guys" of this film aren't out for money, just for the glory of madness, anarchy, and hate.

There is a line in The Crow where Eric tells Albrecht, upon fond reflection:

"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think they were kind of trivial. Believe me-nothing's trivial."

There was a little gap in pop culture history, reminding us how important love and classic literature was, and how youthful optimism and love could be combined with negative attitudes(like anger,sadness, and vengeance) to create a character everyone could identify with. This is the time when "nothing was trivial"-the "important" stuff mattered, a feeling to which music of the time consequently made a huge impact. Nothing was done without thought, so words could make you fall in love or cry.

If there ever was a film that could reflect this confusing and beautiful revival of the Romantic Period, The Crow is the movie. It will take you back. This is the only film that I wish could've lasted longer.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
26 October 2002
while I watched, the grown-up part of me kept saying, "ok, they just really got hurt, right?" and "It's just a matter of time b4 someone really gets hurt"

But the kid in you reminds you of how courageous all performers were, and dedicated to getting that shot or stunt just right.

The whole film is hilarious.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Explorers (1985)
I liked it better than E.T.
3 September 2002
This film really has nothing to do with E.T...people seem to think it was a 'reaction' to it...I say that maybe it made a wonderful film gem like this, a sci-fi for and starring kids, possible.

Funny and inspiring. Probably the first film I ever saw with both of these qualities. I was 6 when it came out, and though it stars 3 boys, the tomboy in me came out...even as an adult (I watched it recently again) I become awed by the scenes of the boys constructing the 'scapeship'. The writer and Dante were good about packing in little extra details, like the "talking" mouse, Wolfgang's strange family, the kids using walkie-talkies, the dog who chews gum, the drive-in movie, Ben writing a will, one of the kids living in a trailer, etc. Without being hokey, these tidbits add more depth and charm to a story that could've been called a Mickey Mouse approach to E.T. These kids are older than Elliott and smarter and the film doesn't go for tearjerking scenes; EVER. Some of the direction reminds me of Spielberg, **however... instead of this film being a kid's approach to space-travel, it's a space-travel approach to a kid's film.

Then there are the aliens. Well, we feel the way the kids do about them; disappointed. But that is the point. What would you expect to see? It is kind of like the mataphorical satire of the grass being greener on the other side.

I tried not to get too emotional when reading the viewer comments on this film. I do not consider myself a Yank-I like to use the term American-but being 1st generation -born here, I still consider myself part-European, and the fact that the film did better in Europe than in the States, and from what I hear- Joe Dante's apology for the film- makes me sad. This film started my fascination toward the unknown and the general sciences. I happen to be one "Yank" who really enjoyed this movie!
35 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Amnesty must be jealous..
16 August 2002
..yet this concert is nowhere to be found......


Ok, I'm the only reviewer here who hasn't seen the rockumentary, but I can assure you that it's not like I haven't been trying. Just don't know where to find the friggin' thing...If anyone knows, please e-mail me at sweetlullabyep@hotmail.com

If anyone's curious as to why I am so interested and desperate to see it-well I'm Dylan's #1 fan and heard the live recording of "Mr Tambourine Man" -sung during this concert, and wow..just hearing it was an experience I'll never forget. RIP George!
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
19 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I'm still confused as to where the positive reviews came from... because what *I* saw on my 10 hr plane ride a few days ago-since there was nothing better to do-was watch this "reimagining" of <The Time Machine>...*guessing* it would be not as good as the original..*guessing there was gonna be some sort of cop-out in the plot somewhere.. was TOTAL CRAP.

Sure there are cute little semi-precious parts, like the change in time while the professor is going through it..it was like a man dressed in drag..they don't look more feminine-only stranger..the nice touches in this film didn't make the film nicer because the entire structure of the film was crap to begin with.

Like the ONE nice touch they put in the plot; to show the automobile guy twice - SPOILER**the 2 "death" scenarios-which WOULD'VE been normal anyway for any time travel movie, was a hint that the screenwriter had a sense of what he was doing. But that all gets overshadowed by a severe bunch of stupid parts -to call them plotholes would be an understatement-that I only recommend seeing if you are in a plane for a long time and have about 4 glasses of wine in you.

*** SPOILER<Back to the Future> may not offer cutting-edge insight to engineers, but it did for me when I first saw it. One of those insights is that, if you travel into the past, there are 2 you's, depending on whether or not you were born. In this case, the professor is reliving a past event...where in there did it show him dealing with his other self? What would have been intelligent AND just as effective would be the time traveler to try and fight the guy behind the bushes..you know the *bad guy...but, no.

Oh, well. There's always the 1959 version to watch, and besides the monsters' blue make-up, it aint bad.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
For Dylan & Fiona fans...
16 July 2002
..if you're not a fan of either, you may not be able to stand the cheese!

Well, it seemed pretty low-budget; not many characters get introduced. Though the script didn't have much, it was still better than having stupid dialogue..

For Dylan fans, if you've seen <Don't Look Back> or even interviews with him, you already know that he likes doing things his way, and sometimes pushing people's buttons. That's why it's funny to watch him "sleepwalk" through his character, as someone said, you have a feeling you're watching "the" Bob on a set acting, and *that's* hilarious! Punching someone, trashing his hotel room, etc. I only wish there was even more romance going on between Bob and Fiona :)

Fiona's really cute and sexy, and has a great voice; she defines the 80's rock star.

Rupert Everett was just a tiny baby way back then, playing the "next generation -big $ 80's music industry" part well. It seemed like his mullet had been growing out since it was cut to look like Bono's..If it was even real..

A decent flick..watch it for Dylan, Fiona, and the wonderful music they play together. And the Zim punching Everett's character is just classic/charming!

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The 73rd Annual Academy Awards (2001 TV Special)
30 June 2002
The show was great, although Bjørk's swan dress will probably be more remembered than Gladiator.a very cool dress in my book...I was personally rooting for Crouching Tigre all the way...because once in a blue moon a fantasy flick should win for Best Picture!

...And what else can you feel when Bob Dylan wins an Academy Award other than pure happiness and joy? His humble acceptance speech was no less riveting than his exciting via-satellite performance. I only wished I could've been there to start a standing ovation. Truly memorable.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.