Reviews written by registered user
longislandlloyd

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

Norbit (2007)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Let's Compare this to all the others.., 1 September 2007
4/10

I've read nearly all the reviews here on Norbit. Each one is more negative than the next. And each one insults anyone who found the movie humorous or entertaining. But these elitist reviewers have not taken into account that many people are tired of all the senseless violence, bloodshed, car chases, political statements, drug use, homosexuality and complete negativity that Hollywood movies all seem to promote these days. While Norbit is a very flawed film and one that has juvenile fat jokes, racial stereotypes, cock-eyed characters, and scenes that we've all seen too many times before in Murphy movies..it is harmless and it is funny. And for once, I didn't get sick from all the bloodshed or angry with our political leaders or our capitalistic society. Not all movies have to make a statement or put you on the edge of your seat. There are times when you just want to have a few laughs..even if that means laughing at Blacks, Chinese, fat people, pimps, or anybody else that YOU would say it's NOT correct to laugh at.

SO I applaud Eddie Murphy and his attempt at low based slapstick entertainment. He's a well needed break from the current crop of Hollywood "geniuses" like Mel Gibson and Michael Moore.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Hollywood Morality, 26 March 2007
6/10

I think the song "Love the One You're With", which played prominently in "Forces of Nature", told the entire tale. Few Hollywood celebs take relationships and marriages seriously, and they seem to last only until the next casting comes along. I never saw a movie with so many negative remarks about marriage, and with Ben Affleck's romance record, he could have written the script all by himself. While the movie had its funny and "oh, not again" moments, there just seemed to be that underlying feeling that Ben's marriage may never happen and he has discovered that his buddies are right.."Why tie yourself down to one woman when there are so many others out there interested in you". Even when Ben decided that he'd better do the right thing and marry his fiancée, he just didn't seem to make the decision with all his convictions. It's definitely "art imitating life" when it comes to love commitments in Hollywood. As far as all the symbolism many people have written about here, it's just hard to take any of it seriously in this love farce of a movie. The only symbolism that I took to heart was Stephen Stills' song of free love. "So if you're down and confused (and just waiting for something to do") on commitment and marriage, and you think that Sandra Bullock is hot enough to break up a romance, then "Forces of nature" is the perfect movie for you.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Sort of like "dejavu all over again"., 25 March 2007
7/10

I enjoyed this movie and I didn't fall asleep after 20 minutes, due to the fact that I couldn't stop wondering where I've seen it all before. "North Country" gives ya the feeling of "been there, done that". But the very credible and talented acting saved it from being victimized by me exclaiming, "The other movie was better". Also the fact that the movie is supposedly a semi-fictional/semi-factual, semi-biographical, semi-Hollywood-taking-creative-license-with-the-truth kinda story, leaves ya wondering, did it or did it not really happen? And while I was doing all this wondering, I kept waiting for Erin Brockovich or the Molly Maguires to pop up somewhere in the story. Nevertheless, I highly recommend this movie to all who want to see justice done in the end, a mother patch up things with her estranged kids, and a divorcée possibly getting more from her lawyer after the trial than a handshake and the bill.

6 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Did I miss somethin'?, 19 March 2007
1/10

It's gotta be me. I read many of the comments/reviews here and all of them placed this movie on an Academy Award level. You all loved it..from the story to the acting. To put it mildly..I beg to disagree. Stranger than Fivction may have been the most boring movie of all time. There was absolutely nothing in it to keep my girlfriend and I awake for more than half of it. No humor, no suspense, no cursing, no use of the "n" word, no frontal nudity, not even rear end nudity, no sex at all, no car chases, no drive-by shootings, no screaming or yelling..just NOTHING to keep a person awake for 2 hours. I don't care how perfect Will Farrell and Dustin Hoffman were for their roles, they were totally monotone and robotic and seemed to sleepwalk through their scenes. They were better than Ambian for putting the two of us right into dreamland. So if you want a movie that's a perfect cure for insomniacs, Stranger than Fiction is your medicine.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Star-studded, 11 March 2007
8/10

Here's a movie that seems to contain something for everybody..sex, romance, violence, tension, humor, great directing and some of your all-time favorite actors. I wouldn't quite go as far as some of the reviewers here who wrote that it's the greatest movie of all time and it's so unpredictable. On both counts, it's not. I found it very predictable, but with the acting so good and the movie so fast paced...it didn't matter. I particularly loved Patricia Arquette. She was terrific and very hot and sexy. All I want to know is..where has she been hiding all these years? It seems that her resume is short and unimpressive. She deserves better. And just to watch James (Tony Soprano) Gandolfini do his violent thing, was worth the price of admission in itself. True Romance is miles ahead of Pulp Fiction. The characters here are so believable and sympathetic. I would compare it more to Bonnie & Clyde. So I recommend it highly for its acting, directing, and story line. But don't eat your dinner just before you watch the movie.

3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Extremely disappointed, 1 March 2007
1/10

I've posted dozens of comments here on IMDb. Most have been fairly favorable. I've found something positive about even the worst movies over the years. But this one? I cannot find one thing good to write about it. My gal and I eagerly waited for its arrival through the mail. Our family and friends recommended the movie highly. So even though we are not into high fashion and are in our 50's, we were expecting to be entertained. What we got instead was a quick trip into dreamland. It is perhaps the most boring movie we ever watched. No redeeming value. No laughs. No suspense. No eroticism. No reason to fight off the temptation to shut it off and go to sleep. I don't care if Meryl Streep has won 50 Oscars. Even she couldn't save this snoozer. She's not funny, not sexy, and probably as obnoxious in real life as she portrayed on the screen. The rest of the cast, except for Ann Hathaway, went through the motions and collected their checks. Ann was at least cute and looked like she was having a good time. But it was not enough to keep anybody who's not in the fashion scene and over 25 years old awake and enjoying The Devil Wears Us Out.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Excellente!, 5 February 2007
6/10

I would have given this movie a higher rating but it was WAY TOO LONG. I really got into it, but it had too much music and dance for me. I enjoyed the politics, historical references, and the tension more so than the culture. Andy Garcia is an excellent actor and played his role perfectly. I would have liked to hear him speak more Spanish for greater realism, even if that mean subtitles. We Americans do know how to read and many of us even understand enough Spanish to get the drift of what the actors are saying. Also, I found Dustin Hoffman's "cameo" role to be a waste. He reminded me more of "Rainman" than Meyer Lansky. Hoffman couldn't touch Lee Strassberg's version of Meyer Lansky/Hyman Roth in The Godfather II. And Bill Murray was an embarrassment. I have no idea what he was doing there and I was hoping his character quickly became a victim of the violent revolt. So I do recommend the movie if you have a lot of patience to get through it. It IS worth the effort.

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
The Holiday from Hell, 6 January 2007
1/10

I can't think of one redeeming feature in this piece of schlock. Except, maybe, that it gave me a chance to get about 30 minutes sleep in a near deserted theater on New Year's Eve day. Apparently we must have missed the word that The Holiday is a total waste. But we had absolutely nothing else to do that afternoon..so we "snuck" into the theater under the senior rate. Just a couple of questions I'd like to pose...

Does it really snow that much in suburban London? Did I miss a sex scene while I was napping? Does Cameron Diaz have a shape? Do all women wear bras during sex? Would any less than desperate woman, take back Jack Black after getting dumped in a restaurant for another woman? Is the over-acting, comic wannabe, Jack Black, miscast in this disaster movie? Would any sensible person let a total stranger stay alone in their multi-million dollar mansion without even meeting them first? Would you lend your home to someone, travel 6000 miles away and expect to find it in perfect shape when you return? AND..who can I write to to get my money back? So, as you can figure out, I would not recommend this movie to anybody.

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
The Sopranos is better, 1 December 2006
2/10

First of all..I've seen better acting and more realistic makeup in porno flicks. How bad was "Chris Moltisante" as Stewie Ungar? On The Sopranos, Chris is not taken too seriously and can be considered comic relief. And then throw in "Bobby Baccala" as one of his Vegas cronies. It's just too much to take in a dramatic movie. Neither actor can handle a serious role and is better suited as a second banana for Tony,Paulie, or Uncle Junior. And I want to know who did the makeup for this disaster? I want that person to be MY make-up person over the next 25 years so I'll never age a day either. So that's all I'll write on this movie since it's not worth wasting too much more of my time.

Yes I DO know that Michael Imperioli and Steve Schirippa are their REAL names.

You call these guy Mobsters?, 22 November 2006
7/10

The movie was very good and riveting until the so-called "mobsters" showed up. As a big fan of The Godfather, Goodfellas, and The Sopranos I was totally disappointed and even insulted how the director tried to pass those 3 guys off as "mobsters". They resembled more Moe, Larry & Curly. The "Cusack" brothers were also totally unconvincing in their violent roles. I especially couldn't take William Hurt as a "Mob Boss". I guess he was trying to be funny. I didn't find it that way. Did he ever watch DeNiro, Pacino, Pesce, or Gandolfini act? It's obvious that the director never did or he wouldn't have picked those 2 clowns to play those roles. The movie is more enjoyable if you don't take the acting very seriously. Just sit back and enjoy the small town feel to the tale and think of ways it could have been made just a little better.


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