Reviews written by registered user
Michael1958

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
43 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

30 out of 83 people found the following review useful:
An updated review, 28 November 2003
1/10

Okay, now for all of you who have read my older post and have not been happy with the review. I took what you wrote to heart, the sincere and well worded messages that is. The one's describing me as a Muslim bashing *&^%$$ bleep bleep I did not appreciate, but noting the derision in their message, it still made me want to go back an to another review of this film. So, hear it is. I also watched the film again after reading The Koran and Islamic history. First, I saw this film back when it had a limited U.S. release in the 70's. I rated it from that memory. In my second rating, combined with my further reading I give you this.......... The stars give great performances and for someone ignorant of Islam, this film does help answer some questions non Muslims might have about this faith. The film shows a fairly accurate account of the Prophet Mohammed in accordance to Islamic history study. The readings given from the Koran are represented well. Overall, the film in it's quality and depiction of the Islamic people is very well done. Now that this is out, I must add that after having learned more about Islam, I have come to the conclusion that Islam, like Christianity did spread at times in history in violent ways. Do not write me back contradicting this. It is historical fact, but I stand corrected about the film The Message-okay? I got the message. Last, if you read this and you do not know about Muhammed or the birth of Islam, then this film is worthwhile viewing.

Seabiscuit (2003)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The 2003 Best Picture Oscar winner!, 1 September 2003
10/10

This is what film making is all about, good script, great cast and good photography. The main performers all handle their roles very well. Chris Cooper and William Macy are superior in their parts. Though the nod for Best Supporting Actor should go to Macy. The best picture of 2003 thus far.

MM

Chicago (2002)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
The worst best picture since Midnight Cowboy, 1 September 2003
1/10

This film was not a musical, perhaps a dance fest, surely a waste of money. I know many found this tripe entertaining, then again we are the same nation of people who have elected some rather low quality politicians to rule over us, so with that said. My main advice-Avoid this film if your idea of a musical is something like The Sound of Music or Singing in the Rain. See it if you honestly thought Moulin Rouge with Nicole Kidman was entertaining. Oh where have you gone Gene Kelly, Judy Garland, Fred Astaire, Eleanor Powell and Ginger Rogers? Passed away, just as good taste in musicals has.

MM

20 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
Just what we need, another egotistical bad teenager!, 7 July 2003
1/10

I was told see this movie, it's classic 80's teen comedy. Personally, the best Classic 80's teen movie is John Cusak's Better Off Dead. Matther Broderick is a great actor-it is just that this film is just so over rated it isn't even funny. I had a hard time watching this film, not so with Better Off Dead-both made in the same era-mid 80's. While I have many friends who just rave about this movie, it didn't do anything for me-it just isn't funny. I am glad to see Broderick improved with age.

MM

7 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Yuck, what a waste of talented performers!, 6 July 2003
1/10

This film had so much promise with the cast it boasted. Despite Walter Huston, Gene Tierney and Victor Mature, this films sinks into a state of wretchedness as does it's characters in the storyline. It has all the markings of a borderline exploitation film more often seen on the "B" movie circuits of the era in which it was made. See it if you wish, there are far better film noir examples out there-this is not one of them.

MM

Moby Dick (1956)
56 out of 70 people found the following review useful:
A classic like none before or since!, 28 June 2003
10/10

If you have ever read the Herman Melville story of Moby Dick, then you will know how hard it must have been for John Huston to turn it into film. Thanks to Ray Bradbury's screenplay and great acting, this film became a classic. That it is not in the top 250 IMDB rated films is a shame. I hope that this is due to it's limited showings and therefore not being seen by many of this site's users. From the start to the finish the film is well paced. The casting of Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab was wise. He commands the role well. Orson Welles appearance as the minister is also a treat to behold. Welles shows that he can add so much to a film whether it be a small role or a large one. Special effects are the only thing that could have been a bit better done. However, in 1956, depicting a great white whale with an attitude was not an easy accomplishment film making wise. This film does go into the relationship between man and God, so some folks will no doubt be prejudiced against the film. Keep in mind the story's time period and locale. The seafaring men of New England really did once hold God close to their heart. Melville's use of a whale to depict the struggle was good. Huston getting it onto film was even better. Sorry, I like the film better than the book. MM

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Good flick, better than the newer version!, 28 June 2003
8/10

If Hollywood must makes remakes due to the mostly lack of creativity that we see these days coming out of Tinsel Town, then at least make the remake better. This original story of a Girl and Her Ape is so much better, so much better paced and without the hideous mean spirited additions the new one had added. The very fact that this first version was done with stop motion photography gives it an edge over the computer generated swill we saw in color just a few years back. Sure there are some 1940ish hokey "B" movie formula stuff, but in the end-the 1949 film is just so much better paced and more palatable for the younger set. If you have not seen this one, give it a shot. If you prefer the newer version then you obviously have a thing against the black and white films of yore.

MM

3 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Argh!!!!!!! This film stinks!, 28 June 2003
3/10

I gave it only a 3, because of Barbara Stanwyck, Kirk Douglas and director Lewis Milestone. If not for them, I would have given it a minus zero. This film noir is horrible, it features idiotic acting from Elizabeth Scott, a goof leading character named Sam-played by Van Heflin, a overly wicked performance by Judith Anderson. See it once then forget it. The only curiosity piece is Kirk Douglas as a weak willed coward of a husband to Barbara. A waste of great talent.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
In the top 250? what gives?, 28 June 2003
2/10

This film was not only a waste of time and good video rental money, but made even more horrible after seeing that it is listed here on IMDB in the top 250 films as chosen by site users. They say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, well I saw none in this film. It's greatest attribute was that for once, Hollywood came up with something original sci fi wise. The past couple years has seen a drought in the creativity department. It was how the story was told that left me gasping. I do not think Tom Cruise is a good actor. I do think Steven Spielberg is a great film maker, which is why I was shocked at how bad this film was. So the bottom line is, for Cruise-a good film, he stinks as a leading film star. For Spielberg-a terrible film, he is too good to make such tripe and even better to have to work with the likes of Cruise. This is what I think, if you liked the film, so be it.

MM

14 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
Once again bad old whitey needs to be educated, 11 May 2003
1/10

This is another typical Hollywood send up about how uncool white people are, even to the absurd remark that white people don't hug. It shows a world that might have existed in exclusive white California neighborhood 30 years ago, but not now. I feel sorry for any young white american who once again is made to feel ashamed of their very being by a film like this. While there are moments that could have been funny culture shock wise, they just don't appear. This film should be as offensive to white's as the roles Stepin Fethcit and Hattie McDaniel portrayed in the 30's and 40's were to blacks. If it wasn't, then to coin a black american phrase(I don't hyphenate groups with African-American or European-American, because if you are not american-get out!) you would then be a white version of an Uncle Tom. I feel good about my color and nothing the Queen Latifah's of the world say can make me ashamed of my race and people(except any involved with this racist filth). In case you think I am racist-think again, Densel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Cuba Gooding and Halle Berry are some of my favorite performers in today's films.

MM


Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]