Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Gleason (2002) (TV)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Why so inaccurate?, 18 December 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Brad Garrett did a great job, but why did they have to veer so far from his real life? Did they have to completely fabricate the circumstances of his mother's death? Did they have to show he was fired from the movie Navy Blues when he wasn't? What was the point of that? And Calvacade of Stars? Really? Gleason was the third host, not the first. I would love to see a movie about Jackie Gleason, but not a fairy tale. Garrett's wonderful performance notwithstanding, the lack of accuracy completely ruined this movie for me. Even before I did any fact checking, I found myself scoffing at some of the obvious dramatic license that was taken for absolutely no good reason.

35 out of 70 people found the following review useful:
ugh!!!, 3 January 2012

I wanted to like this, but the writing is so lame that even if the delivery was better, it wouldn't help The laugh track is making me crazy- it seems almost random, not waiting for a funny line but settling for any line at all. Last night, half the show was dedicated to tampons. Really? And the whole Jamaican cashier in the grocery store- why was that funny? Why did the laugh track explode every time she said something? On a personal note, I don't find the blonde attractive in the least- is she bowlegged? I think Melissa McCarthy from Mike and Molly is hotter, mostly because of the personality that the (excellent) writers have created. This show is surviving solely to it's time slot, but I hope the network can find something better to drop in there, and soon.

63 out of 85 people found the following review useful:
Better than I thought, 9 November 2009

I took my grandson to see this, but I was dreading it. I'm not a Jim Carrey fan but it's a Christmas movie, after all , so I bit the bullet and we saw it at the IMAX in 3-D.

The visual effects are great, even though a lot of it was :"Look, we have 3-D!" They stayed very close to the original story, though they added a miniaturization segment that was unnecessary. Carrey was muted and did a great job with some occasional clowning around. It was actually scary in some parts, as it should be, but not overwhelmingly, and there were some laughs as well.

I have always enjoyed this story, because it's one of redemption, and there is no better time than Christmas to tell it. It shows people being compassionate, even in the face of someone as seemingly heartless as Ebeneezer Scrooge. I was first exposed to this story as a little boy watching the animated version with Mr. Magoo that came out in 1962 and is shown every year on TV. There are many such movies that define the season and I truly expect this to be one of them, along with Christmas Story, Home Alone, Miracle on 34th Street, and It's a Wonderful Life.

Like the Macy's Parade, we all have our list of must-see holiday movies, no matter how many times we have seen them. I really expect this to make this list, with one caveat- I'm not sure how well the non 3-D version will translate to the TV screen. But the story is timeless and this movie does a good job of telling it.

16 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
How did they screw this up?, 16 October 2009

Seriously- it was set in an AMUSEMENT PARK! How in the name of all that is holy can they take a great setting like an amusement park and end up with such a slow, lame, awful movie? I was ready for a comedy but would have accepted a dramatic love story. Instead, I sat through nearly two hours of really painful cinema. The writing was poor, the plot predictable, and it hurt to watch it. There was very little character development and very little was believable. This movie had no idea what it wanted to be and just wandered all over the place, but at least it was excruciatingly slow. Let's see- confused kids, obligatory scene of prejudice (anti-semitism, which is always popular with Hollywood), adultery and lots of alcohol and drugs. It was like watching someone run through a checklist.

My wife has vowed never to allow me to choose our movie again because of this and I can't even argue with her.The only think I am thankful for is that I saw it on TV and only paid $5.99 instead of $30 at a theater.

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing, 12 August 2005

This is an excellent book that was translated into a poorly written, poorly acted movie. I was really looking forward to watching this when I saw it on the cable guide. Imagine my disappointment as I watched the undeveloped characters morph into Hollywood cariactures and the story line turn into a study of glibness. The director seemed to be rushing from one scene to the next, pausing just long enough to allow someone to spout some clichéd line. I just didn't care about the people and wasn't too interested in their quest. It's almost as if this movie was a homework assignment that someone had to get out of the way before he could move on to what he really wanted to do.The book was educational and compelling. Jon Krakauer deserved better.