55 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
Eat Pray Love (2010)
Eat Julia, Pray Julia, Love Julia...
25 June 2011
It is all Julia, just a venue for the producers of this film to make some money off a big name actress.

Contrived story line, average acting, and silly melodrama make this a must miss movie.

But even though I have given my review already, I have to keep writing or IMDb will not allow me to submit this review!

In Julia's defense, even actors like Steve McQueen, Paul Newman, and Laurence Olivier were given clunker roles at the end of their careers, just to make some money.

But then she is not in their category...not even close! But that's what you get when you have to add a couple lines to get your opinion published.:)
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Can't get any more stupid
21 September 2010
Big robots with English accents.

Did they attend Oxford? Dialogue that makes no sense.

No plot, no action.

lots of mugging for the camera.

We are now officially the most stupid nation on the face of the planet for allowing this crap of a movie.

I love comic books and some of the movies that are made from them, but not this one!

Don't go to the theatre, don't rent it, don't even watch it for free!

Getting your nipples pierced would be less painful than watching this movie.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Uneven, incomplete, and boring depiction of the story
30 May 2007
Very slow moving movie, which detracted greatly from the story it should have been telling. If you haven't read the book, or knew nothing of the history of this story, you would be completely lost.

The cast was great, and the acting was good. It is not the actors fault that the direction and editing was terrible. I had high hopes that the story telling would be straight forward, of a relatively well-documented event, based on the well known book.

The title is misleading; it is not Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, it is a small excerpt combined with some other story I was not familiar with. The ending of the movie is really mangled, combining color with black and white for dramatic effect, but it just doesn't work, especially when it never even shows the event depicted in the title.

Watch it for good acting, good music, great camera work, but don't expect to be educated, or entertained. The atrocities committed upon this Indian nation deserves a better rendition and remembrance, than presented here.
62 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Watch the movie, you will like it!
23 March 2007
I love this movie. Great actors, great scenes. The song the panzer commanders sing is a great moment in movie history.

I read other reviews and many of them I don't understand. Some of them give one star because they say the movie is so historically inaccurate. Was the TV show Combat accurate? Was the popular movie Dirty Dozen accurate? If you want accuracy, stick to the History channel, and even then there will be debates. If you want an entertaining war flick, watch this one! There are none much better.

Another gripe I have with reviews on this movie is with those that question its title. There actually was a Battle of the Bulge in military history. But there never was a "Longest Day" battle. Titles of movies are meant to bring people to the theater, not teach history.

Lest you think I am not an educated reviewer, you should know I was an enlisted Marine, then an Officer of Marines 30 years ago. My family goes back to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, and afterwards.

Even if I was a fly on the wall watching one of my ancestors participate in the Battle of the Bulge, that would not qualify me to comment on the entire battle. Watch the movie, you will like it for entertainment. Then read a book afterwards if you worry you have not been sufficiently educated.
26 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jane Eyre (1996)
A haunting movie
18 October 2006
A haunting movie. Charlotte does a stunning job of playing Jane Eyre. William Hurt is perfectly cast.

The story is a sad one, of bitterness, and a down trod human spirit, and the meanness of humanity.

Jane brings brightness to the lives of others, even in the face of treachery from others. As a child, she overcomes the ill-intent of others by her shear strength of will and determination.

The movie has great suspense, even when you know the story, you are still pulling for a happy ending.

I see the movie has a relatively low rating, but its not a movie for today. Its a 19th century rendering of life at that time. A great movie, I highly recommend to those with patience.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you believe this I have some swamp land in Florida for sale.
2 October 2006
I went to USMC boot camp in 1977, rose to the rank of Private First Class. In 1978 I went to Junior OCS, and again in 1980 Senior OCS, when I was commissioned as a 2nd Lt. Finally, in 1985 I attained the rank of Captain. I completed my service in 1990.

With that said, I can assure you that there was nothing right, accurate, or plausible in this movie.

However, I am a sucker for Clint Eastwood, and he was fascinating to watch in this movie. Watch it, but please do not assume this has any resemblance to the Marine Corps.

I recommend it as a generic military movie. Without Clint, I would have given it 2 of 10, with him it gets a hearty 5 of 10.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Powerful acting and writing, all-star cast
28 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is similar to 12 Angry Men, just with a lot more scenes and locations.

As another reviewer said, it bears a second watch to appreciate it fully. Holden plays an intense character who constantly analyzes the situation as it develops. In fact, all the characters are intense, each having having both a business and personal reason for their actions.

The more I watch this movie the better I like it. Every scene has its importance, and there is no wasted dialogue. It moves quickly to its conclusion without ever giving away the ending, since its very basis is the unpredictability of human nature.

It is also a very accurate portrayal of how business works at the "tower" level.

Another reason I liken it to 12 Angry Men, is its use of body language. For example, in the penultimate scene when Holden is delivering his blockbuster speech for the election of President, he stalks around the table, stopping at the chair of various directors. At one point he plants his hand on the shoulder of the Stanwyck character, and you can see her emotions shift. Shortly after he puts his hand on the shoulder of Walter Pidgeon.

His speech and mannerisms provide an exciting climax to the movie, as he breaks out as the strongest of the bunch, and gives closure in an exciting ending. All in all, this is a great movie with an all-star cast, that requires close attention in order to appreciate its greatness.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's a feel good movie
24 September 2006
I really should have given it a 5 of 10, but it just felt good to watch.

This movie reminds me of some of the Elvis movies where they surrounded him with great character actors. Audie was famous years before Elvis, but in a different way. I would not be surprised if Audie was a hero of Elvis.

Anyway, this is a vehicle movie made for Audie, and it works fine. Audie is a good actor, and you will always get what you expect from one of his movies. Sandra Dee is good as well; she conveys much with her pouty face without ever saying a word.

Worth watching.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Searchers (1956)
I just don't get it....
1 September 2006
I have seen this movie 9 or 10 times, and still don't understand why it is so highly regarded.

I find the plot to be very uneven, and most of the actors performances are blatantly overacted. I love westerns, and I love John Wayne and Jeffrey Hunter, but both of them were just too odd in this movie.

I know this movie was supposed to dispel certain prejudices, but I think it does the opposite. Some of the girls who were abducted by the Indians went nuts, others supposedly fit in so well they couldn't remember their lives otherwise. There just wasn't enough supporting material in the story to support why it would happen one way or the other. For the most part, the Indians were portrayed as savages or idiots.

Give me High Noon, Cimarron, or even Dances With Wolves anyday, but this movie just doesn't do it for me.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
How can you go wrong with Disney?
31 August 2006
When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.

Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.

It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10.
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Even Disney can't screw up a good story.
29 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The story is great, the movie is bad. I didn't care for the casting, except for the actor who played Eddie the caddy and the actor who played Vardon.

I didn't care for the directing. The story of Ouimet is so good that it would have been great without all the weird camera work. For example, several times at an exciting point in the game, Paxton used weird flashbacks and cartoon like contrivances. And what was the point of the ladybug on the ball? Sometimes it got just plain weird.

I have other problems with the movie, but the playoff statistics were entirely incorrect. In the 1913 US Open playoff Ouimet shot a 72, Vardon shot a 77, and Ray shot a 78. (source:

The movie ending shows Ouimet winning by one stroke. I give it 5 out of 10 just because the story is so good. I just don't understand why Disney felt they had to change history to make it a good movie.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Too bad there are not any big names....
21 August 2006
OK, just said that to get your attention. Rarely have I seen a 50's movie with so many names. Probably the restrictive contracts actors had with the studios were responsible for that, plus the drive the actors had to be first billed.

But here we go...Olivia de Havilland, Robert Mitchum, Frank Sinatra, Broderick Crawford, Charles Bickford, Gloria Grahame, Lon Chaney Jr., Harry Morgan, and Lee Marvin as well as many great character actors whose faces I know, but have names I don't recall. (except for Jerry Paris of Dick Van Dyke fame) Every one of the names above are of actors who were top billed in one movie or another, with the possible exception of Gloria who I remember most for Its A Wonderful Life. The interesting thing is that they are all mostly either at the end of their career or the beginning, with the exception of Mitchum.

Ones at the beginning are Frank Sinatra, Lee Marvin, and (questionably)Harry Morgan (M.A.S.H. came much later). The ones at the end are Charles Bickford, Lon Chaney Jr., and Broderick Crawford (at least as a leading man). Gloria kind of fizzled out at both ends of the scale.

Olivia won 2 Oscars and was nominated for 3 others prior to this movie. At the age of 39 she was pretty much done at this point for great roles, nevertheless she was as beautiful as ever (notwithstanding her odd hair color), and I think showed even better acting skills and diversity afterwards in movies such as Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte.

Mitchum was probably at the top of his game at the time he did this movie, with great performances on both sides of this role. Some reviewers here did not like him in this movie, but personally I think he carried it.

Some fun things to watch for in this movies are signs of the time. For example, smoking cigarettes is predominant in every scene, even in the classrooms of medical school by both teachers and students. Also, Doctors making house calls with no thought of how it could be otherwise.

I can't say I liked this movie a lot, but there were things about it I did like. I liked the beginning, and I liked parts toward the end, but parts of it were too long (like my review is going to be). I especially did not like the abrupt ending nor the lack of resolution to problems that were so long in the making.

Of particular note is the odd accent that Olivia and Harry Morgan were forced to carry throughout the movie. Also, I suspect that up and comers like Sinatra, Lee Marvin, and Harry Morgan learned much from being paired with veterans like Mitchum, Crawford, and Bickford.

And yes I know, Sinatra already had an Academy Award in 1954 for Here to Eternity, but he was not yet known for acting like he would be later.

The movie could have used better editing, but the actors did their jobs. If nothing else, the movie has the earmarks of being the end of one era and the beginning of another, not only in the movie world, but also within society.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty good 60's comedy.
12 August 2006
This is the standard comedy plot of the 60's, but one of the better ones. Probably doesn't hold up well to movies people expect nowadays, but at the time it was very popular fare.

Rock Hudson was an excellent comedy actor, and always gave his all. Without Hudson this movie wouldn't hold up, but he deftly plays his way through the pratfalls and love scenes. Considering his sexual orientation, it is all the more remarkable that he was so popular and successful in these type of comedy romances.

Paula Prentice, the long-legged, tall pretty actress with the unique voice is fun to watch and well-cast in this type of comedy.

The movie can be a little silly at times, but always seems to find a way to move along. It is a very enjoyable light-hearted comedy, and one of the best of its kind among its counterparts of the 60's.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Finally, a movie that everyone likes!
6 August 2006
Well, actually it is a documentary, but I will refer to it as a movie from here on in because that word has fewer letters to type.

I cannot find even ONE person who does not like this movie! I have searched the message boards, the reviews, even googled the internet, and absolutely everyone who has seen this movie likes it! Quite a bold movie to make, and very well done. Its about comedians telling the most obscene and gross joke ever told, and about how they all tell it differently, and about how there are not any rules.

It's a testimony to the project that there are so many well known comedians who agree to be involved in the movie, and that many of them you would not expect to want to participate.

This movie is really a testimony to comedians like Lenny Bruce, and later George Carlin. But enough of the free speech stuff. The "joke" is an inside one, which measures a comedians skill, when they are all on a level playing field.

They all have to start with the same beginning and the same ending, but everything in between has to be as filthy and revolting as possible. And it is almost always about taboo subjects, such as incest, defecation, and uninhibited distasteful sex.

Everyone involved has lots of fun in the making of this movie, and I recommend it. However, if you are at all offended by "filthy" jokes, you probably don't want to watch it...

But, it appears no one yet who has watched it has disliked it! Amazing.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unfaithful (2002)
Some movies never end...
3 August 2006
Some movies never end, and this one is no exception.

It dragged on and on and on and on. Gere gives his usual geek performance, and Diane Lane is beautiful as usual.

However, this movie has great emotion, and at times I was on the edge of my seat, with Hitchcock-like anticipation.

Erik Sullivan gives a very poor performance as the son, when he could have helped the movie.

All in all, it is an up and down movie with a questionable ending. But I give it 6/10 and worth watching because of some good scenes, and an almost worthwhile plot.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Escape (1940)
No twists, no turns, just a simple well-made movie.
1 August 2006
Just stumbled upon this movie tonight. Quite a gem.

Lots of emotions involved in this movie, considering it is a son trying to save his mother from an undeserved fate. Nice acting by Taylor and Shearer, and Veidt does well as the ominous and ever-present antagonist.

What I really liked about this movie is the timing of its making. It is before average American's really knew about Hitler and Nazi's, and well before Pearl Harbor, and America's entry into the war.

Yet, it shows in a magnificently subdued way the political climate of the time, without ever mentioning Germany or Nazi's.

Keep in mind, if you watch this movie, that the actors, directors, and producers knew nothing of the horrors the Nazi's would ultimately do.

Seeing movies like this one makes me wonder what people were thinking at the time. Could the holocaust have been prevented? Is there something going on right now that we should take notice of, and maybe prevent? In summary, I say watch this movie, and try and put yourself in 1938 while watching. The movie has to be viewed from that perspective to fully appreciate it.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
David Schwimmer at his best!
27 July 2006
Schwimmer doesn't get any better than this. He puts everything he has into this role, and there is only one reason he didn't get an Oscar nomination for his acting in this movie. That reason is: HE SUCKS! Why would anyone ever cast Schwimmer in a movie? He is not funny, he is not good looking, and most importantly, HE IS A VERY VERY BAD ACTOR!

OK, enough of him. I might have given this movie a 7/10 if he had not been in it. Harrison Ford does his best, and he has a lot of funny lines; he is not the fault in this movie. And Anne Heche is a pretty fair actress and delivers some funny lines as well.

BUT!...I really didn't care about seeing Heche's body, her cleavage or the ever-present nipple shots. Those types of shots are usually reserved for very nice looking women, and she is very average in face and body.

And what is with the pirates?? It was OK to bring them into the play once, but why would they risk their lives tracking down Harrison and Heche? I mean, what did they have to gain? Pirates (by definition) are usually out for gain, not revenge, so it just didn't make sense.

Back to Schwimmer, did I mention that he SUCKS? I am really really offended by having to watch Schwimmer in this movie, he is a REALLY REALLY BAD ACTOR!

OK, enough of him (again). In the end there is some good chemistry between Heche and Ford. And they were cute together. So there, I have said enough, not a bad movie all in all...BUT

Schwimmer really sucks! (sorry)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Almost great...
26 July 2006
The story is there, the special effects are there; we are only short of actors.

Jeff Goldblum and Judd Hirsch combine to wreck this movie, while everyone else does a good job. Their constant bickering, and posturing, is annoying and undershadows better performances.

Pullman, Smith, Loggia, and especially Randy Quaid are the ones to watch, and almost save the movie. I am disappointed however, because this could have been one of the best of all time.

Goldblum and Hirsch, in my opinion, relegate this movie to B status. I still rate it 7/10 for effort, pathos, and fun!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I am undecided on Undefeated.
17 July 2006
It takes place after the Civil War and has great characters, and an interesting plot.

On one hand, it is a feel good movie about how the south and north work together, and on the other hand it is really corny.

This movie tries to tackle too many social issues, it is north vs. south, Indian vs. white, USA vs. Mexico, and Mexico vs. insurgents.

The ending is melodramatic, and without the action that characterizes earlier scenes. However, it was refreshing to see an ending that was diplomatic, rather than a blood bath.

Worthwhile watching.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sergeant York (1941)
Sometimes the story is the movie...
4 July 2006
In my book this is one of the best movies of all time. It is the story of Sergeant York, the most decorated soldier of WWI.

Whether the movie presents factual the story or not, is up to historians. But 50 or 100 years from now this movie WILL be the factual history.

Great filming, great acting, great story, all add up to perfection. One of the reviews at this site said something like "an otherwise undistinguished cast." Well, wake up, it has a cast of Walter Brennan, Ward Bond, Noah Beery, Jr. Howard DaSilva, Clem Bevans, Margaret Wycherly, June Lockhart, Dickie Moore, George Tobias, and Joan Leslie. Including probably the greatest character actor of all time, Walter Brennan.

One of the few movies I can watch over and over and over.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why do fools fall in love?
22 June 2006
I had only previously watched parts of this movie, this time I watched the whole way through. I was not that familiar with Eleanor Parker, but now I am! She is fantastic in this movie.

She is sexy, with a husky voice, beautiful body, and a presence that overtakes anyone else in her scenes. It might seem odd to some that Chuck Heston has an immediate antagonism towards her (when he meets her as his wife), but I think it is well explained. As he explains it, she is too good to be true, and his character clearly has to have total control.

Why do they fall in love? Well, its tough to pull off in a two hour movie, but they do. They have similar strengths, and similar weaknesses, and later rather than sooner their animal instincts take over.

It is kind of a cheesy ending, with Chuck saving the day. I give the movie as a whole 6/10, but I give Eleanor 10/10, for an average of 8/10.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Birth (2004)
Nicole is fooled again!
21 June 2006
Silly movie, but has good acting by young Sean.

It is sad though that interesting stories are ruined by high paid actors. Nicole is an actress that doesn't seem to know where her talent lies. Is it comedy, or drama, or horror? I have not seen anything yet by her to indicate she is worthy of her status monetarily or with the media.

She was fooled by idiot Cruise the first time, now she is fooled by a 10 year old.

I give the movie 4 of 10 only because the music score is very haunting and helps to keep the viewer focused. The story could have been played better, and the ending is ridiculous.

Overall, the movie has no winning quality to it and you will be disappointed if you watch it. Cannot recommend.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jarhead (2005)
Finally a movie for non-Marines!
7 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The only thing this movie had to do with Marines was the two "uh-rahs" in the movie (not counting the group uh-rah). And they were not expressed appropriately. You just don't say uh-rah like you are asking to pass the salt.

I went to USMC boot camp and OCS in the 70's, so I can attest to some of this movie's authenticity, but I have to suggest that the majority of the movie is just trash.

It is trash born from the mind of a disgruntled ex-marine who's only objective is to make money by writing a book. He succeeded at the detriment of the USMC.

I cannot recommend this movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Derailed (I) (2005)
It had promise, but lied about its premise.
25 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie for me was an elaborate joke for the viewer. In the beginning we see a jail scene, with a convict writing the story of the movie, so we assume it was Clive Owens.

Throughout the movie we wonder how he ends up in jail, and we know it would not be fair since he is the victim. Then it turns out we were fooled in the beginning, since in the end he was not really in jail.

I found the plot of this movie ridiculous. He pays a total of $130,000 to a blackmailer because he is too spineless to tell his wife he had an affair, and he would rather spend the money they saved for their daughter's health-care than risk a stranger (Anniston) getting in trouble with her husband.

Clive Owens goes in a matter of months from a spineless sissy to a murderous assassin. I was very disappointed in this movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You don't have to worry about taxes once you are dead.
11 March 2006
I really like this movie. Brad Pitt was perfectly cast. His boyish charm is a winner. And his robotic acting fits the role.

Claire Forlani is perfect as the fall in love, bashful beauty. Man, check out the pool scene for a steamy romp. Claire goes all out to deliver the most vampish look, and she carries it off very well.

But of course Anthony Hopkins carries the movie. The scenes with him and Brad are priceless. Hopkins is able like none other, to evoke emotions that are integral to the movie's purpose.

There are some sci-fi boundaries that are crossed in this story, which are concepts you just need to accept if you want to enjoy the movie.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.