Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

4 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Rounders (1998)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
"I don't think there ever was a lazy man", 25 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Critics have unrelentingly focused on this movie's depiction of gambling. I don't think the screenwriters ever meant to make a movie strictly about gambling. Rather, gambling, like boxing in Raging Bull, is the world the characters happen to live in. This movie is about the two philosophies every human being chooses between in life whether they're aware of it or not.

Edward Norton and John Turturro's characters represented the two philosophies Matt Damon's character was conflicted between. Turturro represented the philosophy that it's better to grind out a living and live a nice safe life, get a comfortable job, buy a house and pay your mortgage and get an equally boring wife who takes out her frustrations in life on you and tries to suppress and kill who you are as does your entire life; your job, your kids, your debt, the obligations you signed up for and from which it is hard to escape.

Edward Norton represented never getting comfortable and never sprouting roots and always shooting for the moon and not denying who you are and getting rid of anyone who doesn't care about you enough to accept you as you are which is what any woman who tries to change her man is doing. It makes me think of Leaving Las Vegas where Nicolas Cage's character, even though he was an alcoholic and he was talking to his prostitute love interest, talked about how he accepted himself and her for who they are, which is not to say he didn't care or that he was indifferent but merely that he was at peace with it.

As despicable as Norton's character was he was true to himself and he loved Damon's character, he knew who he was and he wasn't always just looking out for himself when he tried to get him back to gambling. There was always this glimmer in Norton's eye that suggested he knew what he was talking about and knew that Damon's character was a card player and knew he was suppressing who he was. Norton's character was trying to help Damon's character's true self break through all the nonsense and fears he was clouded by.

The end was the movie arriving at the conclusion that it's better to shoot for the moon and be who you are. Anyone who's got a passion should watch this movie. Damon winning at the end is a positive sort of note to end it on but who knows how many people shot for the moon and missed. Maybe it would have been better to show him lose but nonetheless be content and nonetheless keep at it.

Someone said, "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss you'll land among the stars." I don't think this quote makes a lick of sense. You're probably gonna land in a vacuum and let's hope you don't end up near a star or you're gonna get sucked in and burned to death. Most people who fail don't end up in some better position in life because of it, they'd probably be in a better position had they played it safe in terms of their standing and wellbeing.

However they do learn from their mistakes and grow and many of the greatest people in the world failed in many ways before succeeding such as The Beatles getting turned down for a record deal and Abe Lincoln being defeated in multiple elections and Michael Jordan being fired from his high school basketball team. These are just some examples but The Beatles are the most successful and critically adored band ever, Lincoln is one of the most revered leaders in all of history and Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.

If we make the stars contentment at being true to yourself and symbolic of growing not just as a person but also at whatever it is you have chosen to do in life, that quote could be the tag line for Rounders.

55 out of 61 people found the following review useful:
My action fix, 5 March 2010

I get the sense this show is made by smart people. It's not an intellectual show but it doesn't insult my intelligence like so many action movies. It is as advertised and as expected and as is made clear from the first ten seconds of every episode. The last one I watched had Mark Valley diving through the air within the first ten seconds of the show.

This show certainly doesn't leave me thinking about it afterwards. I watch it, it makes me feel good and I go do something else. It has a certain cheeseless charm. I feel when I start watching the show gives me a promise of giving me some good action, a little bit of information on the protagonist's past, some fun interaction between the three main characters and a few new characters. This never feels forced, it's the nature of the show. When I watch a Michael Bay movie I expect some romance, a kissing scene, some sexy scantily clad ladies, some car chase scenes and a lot of explosions but he's putting it in there because he feels like it. We expect it but we expect it because we know he's gonna force it in there regardless of the story.

I remember how people used to talk about every episode of The West Wing being like a small movie. The Human Target is the same but in the action genre. They came up with a good formula for a show, they had a great concept, they hired likable and talented stars, the direction is straightforward, the production values are extraordinarily high. Why even mention the flaws? A show is supposed to make you feel a certain way and give you a certain something. The Human Target delivers.

I imagine The Human Target's episode formula is gonna start to bore me eventually but I have trust in the people running this thing for some reason. I get a strong feeling watching it that the people in charge of this know what they're doing. Maybe I'm wrong.

Waitress (2007)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Most emotionally moving picture you'll see in a long time, 31 May 2008

I've seen most of 2007's movies, I'm almost certain that I've seen all the top movies and I can say without a doubt that Waitress moved me more than any of them. In fact, it moved me more than any other movie made in recent years, at least reaching back to 2003.

I'm rather an icy person, even if I say so myself. Don't show emotion and hate melodrama - and my definition of melodrama is quite broad - and this movie didn't even once give me silly chills due to unoriginal melodrama staples that so many movies so often like to lean on. And that's a feat because this movie is so emotional, but didn't even once go into the typical Hollywood melodramatic romance that I have despised so much in so many movies.

I've wanted something emotionally satisfying and feel-good for a long time and this movie perfectly serves that purpose. I've seen it three times in three days from start to finish and every time it puts me in a better mood than I was in when I sat down to watch it. You feel so much for the characters; when they're sad you're sympathetic, when they're happy you're happy with them, when they're trying to do something you root for them and when they cry, I think most people will cry with them.

Andy Griffith stood out for me though all the actors were amazing, most notably him and Keri Russell, who performed immaculately in every scene she was in and she was in pretty much all of them. Not to mention that she looks gorgeous, even when giving birth! The outstanding and charming dialog they're given helps, of course.

I've heard this movie be described as being reminiscent of a fairy-tale and I agree to a degree, it does have that aura about it. But that's only a good thing, in fact it's a wonderful thing because the movie was already magical. It's a realistic fairy-tale; it's something everyone can relate to in one way or another but at the same time unusual because the characters are so deep and developed. I searched far and wide and I couldn't find one generic or shallow character in this movie.

I promise that you'll have a more positive outlook on life after watching this movie.

15 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Smashing season finale, 24 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't often laugh at movies or episodes, I usually just smile and laugh on the inside but the Steve Irwin jokes and the ending of the episode made me cry of laughter.

I don't understand why people don't like this episode, it depicts the other side of a typical Hollywood sports movie and everything works out for the OTHER side (the father accepts his son etc.) but the kid with cancer dies and everyone lies in a pool of their own blood on the side we saw. I just laughed and laughed at the end of the episode and when the kid flat-lined I laughed even harder because I totally didn't expect that to happen nor did I expect the pee wee team to get crushed like that, I was sort of expecting some fudged up miracle to happen South Park-style and make it all end well and it was such a pleasant surprise.

Stan: "How are you doing?"

Kid with cancer: "I feel pretty good, except for the cancer."

Brilliant episode, I feel bad that everyone is dissing it because it might make Trey and Matt feel like they didn't do a good enough season finale but they did! I haven't laughed this hard since Manbearpig.