Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
136 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Some observations about this show..., 31 July 2006

First of all, I think series creator David Shore has done something very cool here. He's taken Sherlock Holmes and plopped him right into a high-stress job in the 21st century. Shore has said House is modeled strongly after Holmes, and this is definitely clear in a lot of House's dialog and mannerisms (especially in his conversations with Dr. Wilson). He and Hugh Laurie have done a better job creating a modern, believable version of the character than most other attempts I've seen ("Law and Order: Criminal Intent" comes to mind).

Also, although I love Laurie's performance, it could get annoying if it was just a one-man show (again: "LAO: CI"), and Shore has wisely surrounded him with a large cast of characters to make things more interesting. Each character adds something to the show, and it's very entertaining to see all the different personalities bouncing off each other (and ultimately, bouncing off House). My one complaint is that character development has been a little slow (especially with Chase), and if they don't branch out in that area, things could get stale.

Finally, I've heard some people criticize this show for being too unrealistic, but all I can say to that is, it's not supposed to be (what mystery show is!?). Yeah, the diseases patients come in with are totally off-the-wall, and House diagnoses and cures them in unrealistic ways, but if they were coming in with commonplace diseases, they'd get cured in 5 minutes and there wouldn't be a show! If you can manage to suspend your disbelief and think of it as a character-based mystery show (and can handle some of the graphic surgery scenes), you're bound to enjoy it.

22 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
It would be funny, except..., 26 June 2006

Except people apparently buy into this garbage! As shows like "Moral Orel" have shown, even if you tried to make the most outrageous, over-the-top parody of evangelism you could possibly think of, it wouldn't come close to the hilarity of this show. It's hard to tell what's even going on when you're watching it. Is it a news show? A talk show? Who knows!? They start out by reporting on various international news stories, but at seemingly random points, the news is interrupted by this odd, troll-like little man with a forehead bigger than his entire face, mumbling and laughing and generally being creepy.

Pat Robertson doesn't even seem like such a bad guy at first glance. He just seems like a senile, yet harmless old coot stuck in his archaic beliefs (like most of our grandparents). But this is a man who has called for an assassination, who has befriended and offered aid to not one, but TWO murderous dictators, who has illegally used donation money to run diamond mines, who has SUPPORTED forced abortions in China, and who regularly implies that Caucasians (straight American male Caucasians in particular) are superior to all other races.

Still, this would all be funny, except that he apparently has a large enough fan base to keep his little show on the air 40 years later (either that, or enough money to bribe some TV executives who don't give a damn what they show). The idiocy of the show becomes alarming when you realize that some people, somewhere, must be watching it and hanging onto every word. Even when Robertson has repeatedly shown how corrupt he is, people still listen to him. I don't know if it's funny or scary. I guess a healthy mixture of both.

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Rotten, horrible, unfunny, etc., 9 May 2006

There is maybe a glimmer of a good concept here. An inkling. A particle. A klutzy idiot ruins the house of a famous, upper-class gigolo, and has to raise the money to fix it by prostituting himself. With weeks of tweaking and rewrites, and a much better actor, this could possibly have been funny (maybe, for example, if Deuce had to actually assume the identity of the gigolo). But that obviously didn't happen.

Instead, it's just a series of stupid scenes involving women who have some weird problem. Haha, this woman is fat. Haha, this woman has Tourette's (swearing = funny). Haha, this woman has a prosthetic leg. Oh, haha, now they are parodying The Matrix for no reason at all. I can't imagine the amount of alcohol it would take for any of this crap to be considered funny.

There is ONE scene that's at least smirk-worthy, with an aquarium salesman who for some reason speaks only in sexual innuendos. Normally that would be pretty stupid, but it's like comic gold compared to the rest of this movie.

I'm actually ashamed of myself for watching this. For those users going, "But it's not supposed to be taken seriously; it's just mindless entertainment," you people are the reason garbage like this keeps being made. Stop laughing, you idiots. Movies like this are not funny.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
One of the worst documentaries I've ever seen, and this is coming from a bleeding heart liberal..., 28 February 2006

First of all, let me just say I can't stand Fox News. I think it's nothing but right-wing propaganda and a shameful excuse for journalism. I also think a documentary exposing Fox's hypocrisy is much needed, but this one is an extremely poor effort.

Frankly, I am SHOCKED at the amount of people rating this movie a 9 or 10. People, these ratings are supposed to be based on the QUALITY of the movie, not the ideas it stands for. And quality is one thing this movie lacks. For starters, the interviews are the worst I've ever seen. They are poorly lit, and consist of nothing but the same talking heads over and over again, which becomes really tiresome. The graphics and music are painfully cheesy. The sound quality is horrible, the dialogue is usually out of synch, and even the clips from Fox News look extremely poor, like they've been taken straight from the Internet. The entire movie looks and feels a high school film project at best, and (as another user pointed out) a Powerpoint presentation at worst. I understand it's on a low budget, but the fact that the director has a career going back decades makes the lack of style or creativity especially outrageous. You'd think in all that time he'd have learned a thing or two about, say, lighting a shot.

Technical stuff aside, even the movie's basic argument (Fox is biased and unfair in its reporting) is weak. I never thought the day would come when I'd be defending Fox News, but it has to be said that many of the clips are taken out of context or otherwise distorted. For example, most of the scenes of anchors spouting wild opinions are taken from Fox's political talk shows. Fox has NEVER claimed these shows are to be seen as news, but that's what the movie keeps implying. It's as unfair as anything Fox has ever reported.

An even better example of the blatant distortion is when they show Bill O'Reilly responding to criticism that he always tells his guests to "shut up." O'Reilly says this only happened once, and this is followed by a montage of him yelling "shut up!" at different times. Well, that's very clever, except that in almost all of these instances he's not actually talking to a guest. We even see the infamous moment where he yelled at Al Franken on a book tour, which had NOTHING to do with Fox News AT ALL. Do all these clips indicate that O'Reilly is an obnoxious moron? Sure. Does it indicate that he's lying about only telling a guest to shut up once? Nope. Just the opposite, in fact.

The movie has some good points to make, and occasionally does so effectively, but the overall distortion, low quality, lack of narration, and complete lack of a sense of humor bring this one down. I suspect that the people rating this so highly were either directly involved with the making of the movie, or are just flakes who will jump at the chance to support anything remotely anti-right. Ignore the hype; this is simply a bad movie. 4/10 stars.

Tall Tale (1995)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Possibly the most confusing movie I have ever seen, 26 January 2006

First of all, the casting is perfect. That's the one good thing I can say about this movie. Patrick Swayze, Oliver Platt, and Roger Aaron Brown make the most of their characters and have great chemistry together. Swayze is particularly hilarious as a tough-as-nails Pecos Bill. But the rest of this movie is a disaster. It has almost NO plot, and what little shreds of a plot it has are ridden with holes. I'll explain.

You see, there's this guy Stiles who wants to buy up all the land in a community. So he holds a town meeting promising to give people vast sums of money in return for their land. Everyone is positively giddy about it, until this guy Jonas stands up and makes a touching speech about how the land is their heritage and it would be a sin to sell. Everyone gets on his case about it, and he concludes with, "Well, I ain't selling." Then what happens? Do they discuss it further? Does Stiles resume the meeting? No! Everyone just gets up and LEAVES! The meeting isn't even adjourned; they all just... walk out of the building! Did they forget what they were doing? Do they have Attention Deficit Disorder? Someone please explain this scene to me.

Now, if I remember correctly, Stiles is so mad about Jonas ruining his meeting that he does the logical thing and... shoots Jonas. At the last minute, Jonas's son Daniel gets ahold of the deed to their land and runs away with it, because Stiles will stop at nothing to snatch it right out of his hands (a tried-and-true legal tactic). Daniel runs away and falls asleep in a boat. Then he dreams about being in the Old West with Pecos Bill. Then he wakes up, and Stiles tries to run him over with a train. Suddenly all the townspeople are on his side and he gets to keep the deed. It's all very confusing.

What a dumb movie. 2/10 stars.

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Good, cheesy 70's fun, 20 January 2006

This is definitely one of the weirder 70's movies out there, and it's most notable for kicking off a decade of Bigfoot hysteria. It is also notable for the little touches of insanity throughout the movie, especially when the dark, moody first half is replaced by a MUSICAL INTERLUDE of all things (as another user pointed out, one of the songs is dedicated to a character, Travis Crabtree, who paddles around in a canoe for a while, then... leaves, never to be seen again). Although it's painfully dated now, i's still a fun scary movie to show to kids, and anyone who enjoys either Bigfoot lore or 70's hillbilly culture is bound to get a kick out of this. My favorite part: a guy gets so scared that he jumps headfirst through a door (!?) and the narrator explains he went unconscious from "shock." Uh, I'd say breaking a door with his head is more likely why he went unconscious, but whatever.

4/10 stars, or 7/10 if you like bad Americana.

King Kong (2005)
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Worth your while... barely, 4 January 2006

Even though this is one of better experiences I've had at the theater lately, I'm going to be a jerk and complain about stuff before I get to the good parts.

One: WHY is this set in the 1930's? It serves no purpose other than providing Jackson an excuse to show a lot of CGI buildings. It's not like the original was taking place in the 1850's. It makes absolutely no sense.

Two: boring subplots that nobody gives a rat's about. OK, so Naomi Watts' theater is closing down and Jimmy wants to prove himself. Who cares? What does this have to do with anything? It never even gets resolved. The original had the sense to make the movie about Kong, and Kong alone.

Three: Bad, unnecessary CGI. The dinosaur stampede is embarrassing. It looks like what it is: people running aimlessly with dinosaurs superimposed on the screen behind them. This entire sequence needed to be cut out, along with the subplots, and save me from unnecessary leg cramping.

Four: Kong holding Watts in his hand while he's fighting off dinosaurs. Why, Peter? Why?

That stuff is rather significant, and harms the movie. But the bad outweighs the good. Naomi Watts' relationship with Kong is wonderful, and Kong himself looks so real that I swear you can see a soul in his eyes. And the T-rex fight is one of the most thrilling sequences I have ever seen (regardless of Watts being in Kong's hand the entire time). Most of the CGI is mindblowing, and if you have the slightest bit of imagination, chances are you will be swept away.

For me, though, the greatest thing was seeing Kyle Chandler in a major role. He disappeared off the face of the earth after "Early Edition," and all of a sudden he's back, and as likable as ever (even though his character is a jerk). Unfortunately, he doesn't get very high billing in the credits, even though he's a major character.

Bottom line: it's worth your time. You'll enjoy it. I did.

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Idiotic movie for idiots, 28 December 2005

I have to admit, when I finished watching this, I was not entirely sure if I had seen a good or a bad movie. I thought maybe the incoherent, surreal, nonsensical lack of a story was intentional, that maybe this was multilayered and deep and I missed the symbolism or something. I thought about it for a good, long, hard 10 seconds, then decided that no, it was just trash. I mean, sometimes it can take hard work to make a movie this weird, but I'm pretty sure this was by accident.

Let me put it to you this way: if you were amused by the phrase "long, hard 10 seconds" in the above paragraph, you will think this movie is a classic. Actually, no, you probably won't. You will be disappointed because there is no nudity. That's right: a movie about porn stars and the porn industry, and that condones porn as a good thing, has NO NUDITY. What the hell kind of message is THAT sending? I'm not even going to bother explaining the plot, because there is none. There's about a thousand different climaxes (haha, I said climaxes), and the movie contradicts its own attitude toward porn even more times than that. If you can make sense out of this mess, consider yourself a genius (or an idiot. I'm not sure).

Other users have mentioned the movie's depiction of Asians is "borderline racist." I think the word they're looking for is "downright," not borderline. Here's a true story: when I was 12, I started taking a tally on how many American comedies attempt to get laughs out of minorities swearing in goofy accents. Including this movie, that number has now surpassed 5 trillion (and the only time it has ever been funny was in "Office Space"). Anyway, if you think an Asian kid wearing huge glasses and talking like Elmer Fudd is high comedy, this is the movie for you. If, however, you are not a racist dumbass, you'll want to avoid "The Girl Next Door," and stick to something a little more watchable, like "Manos: Hands of Fate."

The Wool Cap (2004) (TV)
19 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
A great movie, 14 December 2005

In "The Wool Cap," William H. Macy once again proves that he is one of the best and most underrated actors working today. He creates a distinct personality, and has great chemistry with other characters, without ever saying a word. Keke Palmer is also one of the best child actors I've seen in a long time, and gives an award-worthy performance. Their unlikely friendship makes for a funny, sad and bittersweet movie. It's a bit slow, but it's entertaining the whole way through. And the soft, jazzy soundtrack sets the mood perfectly. Steven Schachter is obviously a talented director, and it would be nice to see him do something for the big screen. If he keeps making movies like this, it's bound to happen at some point.

Scrooged (1988)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
"I must've been out of my miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind!", 29 November 2005

Oh man, I love this movie. It is unlike any other Christmas movie you'll ever see. This is warped, surreal, and insane. Richard Donner surpasses Tim Burton in terms of darkness, and the only problem is that the producers rewrote the script to make it LESS dark. A shame, because they were really onto something. The ghosts are grotesque, the sets are distorted and weird, and even the ending is dark. At first it seems out of synch with the rest of the movie with over the top sentimentality, until you realize it is disturbingly over the top, and Murray is playing the character as if he's been driven insane. The movie as a whole is a lot more chilling if you look at that way.

Bill Murray's dry style of humor doesn't work for everyone, but it works for me. He can deliver lines like no one else, and even his facial expressions are genius. When a nerdy, stuttering employee (Bobcat Goldthwaith) tells him, "Gee, Mr. Cross, I think you and I are alike in a lot of ways," Murray reacts with the funniest expression in the history of the universe. (It's even funnier than the face he makes at the old lady in the cab in "Stripes," and THAT was funny). Frank Cross, like most of Murray's characters, is sarcastic and mean, but with a sense of humor that lets you know there's a good person in there trying to get out. It's the same with the movie: there is a heart underneath the morbid tone, and it occasionally surfaces with really touching scenes.

I'm not saying it's a perfect movie. The script has weak spots, but the look and style make up for it. It's certainly not for everyone. I can see how some people would find this abrasive. But if you like Bill Murray and dark humor, this one's for you.

Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]