Reviews written by registered user
mgressma

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
16 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

"Fury" (1955)
10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Ah, Saturday mornings!, 7 June 2006
7/10

It's funny, I had completely forgotten the name of the show, but I remember watching "Fury" on Saturday mornings as a kid. I knew it starred Peter Graves, so it was easy using IMDb to find the name of the show. The only episode I can remember off-hand is one where an aunt comes to the Broken Wheel to live, and one day while the men were out, she cleans up the house and re-decorates with white curtains and table cloths and such, so that when the guys return, it's completely unrecognizable! They think they're in the wrong house. Well, gotta go, Bugs Bunny is on and then "Sky King."

Mike Gressman

8 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
A complete waste of time, 14 April 2005
1/10

It's movies like this that give "arthouse" movies a bad name. This movie is pure cinematic gibberish. It begins nowhere and ends in the same place (I think). I say, I think, because I didn't stay until the end. My friend walked out about 20 minutes before me. I said I was going to stick it out, but I couldn't take it, and had to get out. This movie is senseless, unbearably so. If there was anything at all, a coherent story, some movement, a sympathetic character, anything, I would have stayed to the end, but this movie has nothing going for it. I must say though, there were some incredible shots of the backs of people's ears, but other than that, nothing.

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Inspiration for all wannabe screenwriters., 10 November 2004
1/10

If you're a screenwriter having trouble with your screenplays, thinking that they just aren't good enough to get made, don't fret. Because if this screenplay can get filmed, anything can! "After the Sunset" is just awful. It's brutally bad. I can't believe that I sat through the whole thing. I was tempted every five minutes or so to walk out. This is a heist movie where the heist is so incredibly implausible that it was just stupid. In my mind there has to be at least a miniscule possibility that the scheme would work, but there wasn't even that. There are holes in the plot that don't make any sense, as if the screenwriter said "what the heck this is a good scene, who'll notice that it blows a huge hole in the story." As for the actors, I'm disappointed more than anything. Any bimbo could have played the Salma Hayak part. There must have been 10 scenes where the only noticeable quality was her cleavage. As for Pierce Brosnan, let's face it, if he's not playing James Bond, he's nothing. Don Cheadle, a very good actor, unfortunately is saddled with the most insipid dialogue in the film. A wasted performance. Woody Harrelson is OK. At the end of the day though, I'm sure all the principals just did this stupid movie for the money and a chance to spend time in a fabulous location on someone else's dime. I guess I can't really blame them for that.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Real Life meets Reel Life, 13 November 2003
8/10

"Nosey Parker" is a delightful combination of fact and fiction. John O'Brien, the creative force behind the movie, takes two actors, Natalie and Richard, and inserts them in his (O'Briens) hometown of Tunbridge, Vermont. Most of the other characters are denizens of Tunbridge, with George Lyford taking on the starring role as himself. John O'Brien was a guest at the screening I attended. He said the story is loosely sketched out beforehand, and then he gives the actors free reign to improvise during filming. The result is wonderful. I enjoyed this movie from the opening credits, which in themselves are amazingly imaginative, to the end. The movie will probably go straight to video, unless there is a clamoring for it (which I recommend) but either way, see it.

4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
One of the worst movies ever., 29 October 2003
1/10

This is without a doubt, one of the worst movies ever. I saw it at a screening where we had the bad-director-terrible-actor-atrocious-screenwriter as a guest. He seems like a nice guy, but how he ever got this movie made is beyond me. One of the producers was also a guest, and from the stories he told, I think a documentary or mockumentary about the making of this movie would have been infinitely more enjoyable. Then again, any old 8mm home movie would be more enjoyable.

Bad first half, nice comeback in the second., 13 November 2002

I did not like this movie at all until it made it to the adult world. Every scene in the rich-kids boys school was predictable, boring and has been done to death. I'm also not a big fan of Kevin Kline (yes, I'm the one), but he does a commendable job in his role as the "cool teacher" who everyone loves. I almost fell asleep a few times, but I'm glad I stayed awake until graduation, because the scenes subsequent to that and the ending are worth waiting for.

The "Funk Brothers" in the spotlight, 6 November 2002

This is an excellent documentary film. I didn't know any of the "Funk Brothers" before seeing the movie, but when it was over I felt like I've known them all my life. There is a perfect blend of current interviews, older interviews with now deceased "Funk Brothers", re-enactments of humerous incidents from "the day", and the music. And through it all, the "Funk Brothers" are in the spotlight, mostly together, but we get to meet them all individually as well.

The filmmakers are to be commended for such a wonderful effort. Hopefully, the movie will provide the "Funk Brothers" some long overdue rewards for their efforts.

5 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Nothingness to the n-th degree, 16 October 2002
1/10

This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me.

The worst movie of the century., 9 October 2002

I can't believe how bad this movie is. The script is laughable.

All I can say about the performances is, the post office must have been busy when it was made, because it looks to me like the actors just mailed them in. My guess is, John Malkovich couldn't decide whether to play it like "The Godfather" or "Johnny Dangerously." His performance leans more towards Johnny Dangerously. Seth Green is the best of the lot. I was going to put in some info about the unoriginal, uninteresting, ending, but I won't. If you go see this movie, rest assured, the ending dones eventually arrive.

Skins (2002)
12 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Excellent, thought provoking, depiction of Reservation life., 3 October 2002

"Skins" is much better than I thought it would be. I was expecting a stereo-typical rendition of life on an Indian Reservation, but instead was treated to an all-American story about a family with problems. It is a very well written story that really moves along. Going in, I thought it would be torture to sit through, but, it was over before I knew it, and was a delight all the way. As a result of seeing "Skins" I see Mt. Rushmore as the period at the end of a long and bloody sentence in the history of man in North America.


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]