Reviews

41 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
8/10
Overall good, but strictly for certain ages.
22 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There are some movies that are ageless, and those movies are perhaps some of the best. This is very rare. Then there are those that wouldn't make sense or be funny to most if it's not in that particular period of time. This, sadly, is the latter.

This was released, obviously, at the perfect time, in the 60's. But some of the younger generation probably won't appreciate it for what it is. It can even be tedious at times.

I'm sorry if it appears that I don't like it...I do. It's no Rat Race (my generation), but it's better viewed for the elder generations.

Grade: 8/10 ********
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rent (2005)
10/10
Worth your Saturday.
31 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If you've seen RENT on Broadway, this movie is for you. If you haven't, you may like this too. Most is kept the same, with 3/4 of the original Broadway cast, excluding Rosario Dawson as Mimi, and Tracie Thoms as Joanne.

It keeps most of the songs intact, some left out are: We're Okay, The Tune-Ups, Voicemails, and On The Street, and sometimes they are still in the movie, just spoken.

This movie is heartwarming and emotional, its characters have plenty of depth, and perhaps the best part of all is that it covers and talks about openly the things that are bothering America today (and this was written in '96): Homophobia, AIDS/HIV, the homeless, being poor, etc. All of which is portrayed in catchy, sometimes, beautiful songs, and with a nice ensemble ranging from bouncy drag queens to pessimistic AIDS-infected musicians to out-of-touch filmmakers.

All in all, 10/10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fantastic Four (I) (2005)
6/10
Special Effects were good...but not much else was...
2 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic Four was at first glance a very good superhero movie (though, I must add, there are lots of them ^.^), but there are much better ones out there.

What's good: How not all the superheroes are perfect; how they didn't wish for this to happen, how it's not exactly the greatest thing in the world, especially for Ben a.k.a. "The Thing." Also, the special effects are the best part of the film.

What's bad: While the special effects are good, there isn't much else to the film. Also, only half of the superheroes do much with their powers, which is totally unrealistic; if I had super powers, I'd be using them as much as I could. Ben and Johnny did nothing BUT use their powers (as well as the bad guy, but that's another story. Power corrupts), while Sue and Reed rarely used them. The acting...was all right. There wasn't much to it, actually. But, they pulled it off OK. ****** 6/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A fun movie for the whole family.
1 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Better than I had expected. It remained faithful to the book (I'm also a Roald Dahl nerd), which I was happy about, but one of the biggest problems was the SONGS. That could have remained faithful to the '71 movie. As an Oompa-Loompa for Halloween, I am very attached to the old Oompa Loompa songs. ;-) And the old tunes are very catchy, as compared to the new ones, not catchy and NOT REPEATED. *groan* But anyway, one of the best parts of the movie was Willy Wonka. Because you see, in the Roald Dahl book, Willy Wonka is very...well, batty. He is very strange and not at all paternal, unlike the way he is in the '71 version. The children were very good, very bratty. One thing that could have been improved (yet this is from the book, not the movie) is that you obviously knew who the winner is going to be from the very beginning. It would have been better if you had maybe a few moments of doubt. I liked Missi Pyle as Mrs. Beauregarde; she's a funny actress, and overall most of the cast was pretty good. So...10/10. Though it wasn't always done perfectly as I'd like it, it was done very well.

********** 10/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
They rated this one "R" for a reason...;-)
1 August 2005
This is a very funny movie, and has an interesting, if not totally original, plot, but altogether is definitely an enjoyable film to watch. Though they did rate this "R" for a reason. It's very, very, naughty. The summary doesn't do it justice. Obviously, you'd think a movie called "Wedding Crashers," about two friends who pick up women at weddings, would be raunchy, but....IS THIS RAUNCHY. A bit too raunchy sometimes, though. It's nice, however, that the guys don't want to pick up beautiful, sexy women forever. They, like everyone (except for Will Ferrell's character, Chaz), want to settle down at some point, which was nicely shown in the movie. So it did have some depth. Ultimately, though, this probably won't win any Oscars, but it still counts for a good time. :D
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A mixed bag...
1 August 2005
Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin, the Monty Python troupe, play various parts in this zany, wacky movie, allegedly about "The Meaning of Life." Monty Python doing Meaning of Life? What? You think. And you're right. This movie shows nothing whatsoever about the meaning of life. And the guys realize this, of course. It's nothing serious, but at some points, it's dreadfully funny.

You definitely need to be a Python fan for this one. A sketch movie more than anything else. Odd but enjoyable. As some of the guys say in the interviews on the DVD, they wanted to do a sketch movie, but they had to have a storyline. And they didn't. See, the thing is...a movie is very different from a television show. One of the major differences is that you're expecting very different things from a movie as compared to a TV show. A TV show does not necessarily require a storyline (such as game shows, Whose Line, Monty Python's Flying Circus, etc.) but it can (The O.C., some reality shows, The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.). However, a movie, generally must. (There are exceptions, though. Mermaids. ;-) ) Anyway, a definite mixed bag. I enjoyed most of it, except for the fat man scene and of course, the liver donor scene. And the pre-show could have (and should have) been cut out, as I just didn't find it very funny. So, yes, a Python fan should see it and other people...well...don't expect them to actually TELL you what the meaning of life is.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Fun beginning to end. A crackup!
1 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Simply hilarious from beginning to end. This movie has things that are so ridiculous, such as a vicious rabbit attacking seven or eight armed men, or so irrelevant, such as a very serious king trying to talk to a swallow-obsessed guard, and not getting anyway. All the funny stuff. You would think that a 30-year-old movie wouldn't be this funny, but I guess I am proved wrong. This is rightly in the top 250. Obviously the funniest and best Python film. And the six guys who are playing all the main characters are sort of...spread out, if that makes any sense. For instance, in The Meaning of Life, you would see Eric Idle, Eric Idle, Eric Idle, and then Palin, Palin, Palin, and you would barely ever see Gilliam or Chapman. In this, there's a bit of each. Another great thing is that, if you listen to the commentary (I'm a total Monty Python DORK), the people commenting seem to be pretty happy with their movie as well. And they make fun of themselves too, which of course is wonderful! ********* 9.5/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Spice World (1997)
9/10
It DEFINITELY depends...
1 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, firstly, this had to be more popular when it first came out, like most movies. It's not meant to be serious, it's simply lighthearted and shouldn't be treated otherwise. Secondly, you have to realize that the Spice Girls aren't serious. Should they make a movie, it wouldn't be anything depressing or even anything that made you think. It is most pleasant to watch on a sleepover with your best friends and dance around lipsynching the words. You must be a Spice Girls fan to watch this movie. So it definitely depends on what you like, etc. So maybe it would have been more popular in 1996-1997, when the Girls first came out.

9/10--Because I'M a Spice Girls fan. ;-)
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
If you've seen the play...
5 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I've seen the play, so maybe I'm biased but... Excuse me if my opinion differs from yours, but I just didn't think Seymour's character or Audrey's character could sing. They could lipsynch to someone else's voice. Having said that (which, "coincidentally," is a big part of the movie as it is a musical *rolls eyes at casting director), the movie actually wasn't too bad. They skipped a few numbers with cursing (*wipes eyes*) but it was funny (Steve Martin and Bill Murray) and there were parts younger ones couldn't see...but overall it was pretty good. Don't bring those who've seen the play!

7/10 *******
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Freaky Friday (2003)
Enjoyable for all ages
31 December 2003
Freaky Friday is enjoyable for ages 10+. I did read the book, and although they changed it, it was very good. It was funny, and for family. Lindsay Lohan is at her best, and Jamie Lee Curtis is very funny. The grandfather and Anna's brother are funny too. All the actors played their characters well, and they mostly kept on storyline, so I think ****1/2/5
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.