10 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
It's the best since the original ...
9 November 2010
I am surprised by some of the negative reviews on here. This is the best incarnation yet of the original show. The Scooby Doo Mystery ones with the special guests were pretty horrible, the Scooby/Scrappy show was a disaster, and the most recent "What's New Scooby Doo's" were decent but a little too trendy and trying to be hip to the 2000s. Therein lies the beauty of this show. It is a new show, with new stories, new relationship drama, and new villains and mysteries. However, it keeps the old look & feel too. The show is darker now than it's been since the original series (when almost every episode happened in the creepy night time) and you feel that darkness when you watch it. It's spookier than the hackneyed villains of "What's New" and certainly far less goofy than the ones with the special guests. I cringe when I see those awful episodes with The Globetrotter and Phyllis Diller. Sure, the relationship stuff is more "adult" than the past but for those of you pointing out that the costumes are 70s again ... that's cool! So is Fred playing an 8-track on a record player ... that was funny, and meant to be! You've got to get the joke. Look, no one likes change all that much. I'm a marketing exec and I know this more than anything but change, when presented with elements that make us still feel comfortable, is great. Kudos to the writers for this fresh take on a great show that still makes me feel at home. (Oh, and I love the "Mr. E" stuff. It's a nice creepy sub-plot that now has me tivo'ing the show for myself, not just my kid!)
34 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Depressing, Sad, but Haunting (in a good way) ...
10 May 2010
Found this movie to be really strange and not at all what I expected. I rented it to watch with my 4-year old and that was clearly a mistake but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this review. Just don't bother watching it with small kids (it will both bore them to tears and depress them.) Here's the deal: I have read a bunch of the reviews on here ranging from 10 stars (absurdly high) to 1 star (absurdly low). The truth I think is somewhere in the middle. I had a lot of trouble dealing with the Max character in general and found him so thoroughly unlikable that it was hard to get through the film. I was rooting against him; almost hoping one of the monsters changed their mind and ate him. No such luck. However, I also really appreciated a lot of the metaphors and parallels that were drawn and this aspect was really intriguing and well done and at the end of the film, made the sum appear greater than any of the parts I recall at any given point. It was just strange to deal with such a sad, sad plot line. A kid who is empty on the inside and craving attention, despite the reasons, is still hard to like and yes, I found myself saying "If I were that mother, that kid would be getting a lot more than a 'why'd you bite me?'" Again, the hollow feeling you get at the conclusion and throughout the duration of the film are actually what keeps it from being a complete train wreck but unless you are in "I'm in the mood to wallow in my own sadness" mode, stay away from it. It wasn't quite good enough to warrant watching it unless you're in the same mode you're in when you feel like tuning on "Leaving Las Vegas" or "Eye for a Eye."
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Had Potential But Came Up Short ...
2 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie kept my attention long enough that it kept me awake about an hour longer than I wanted to last night when I watched it, but in the end, it was disappointing. There were just too many holes in the logic of the experiments to make sense. If they knew who was going to be the selection all along, why bother putting that person with other innocent civilians who they were going to kill off, especially when they make the claim that they do NOT want to waste innocent American lives? What then became the purpose of all of those number guessing questions? Why was Clea Duvall's character in the movie at all, other than to kill her senselessly and shock the other three participants? It just made little to no sense in the end. I thought it was well acted, but it still came up light.

I will say this that I am surprised the comments posted by matrix29 were allowed to be posted on IMDb. Anti-American rhetoric such as that, and calling the Bush regime Godless and Nazi is most certainly anti-American, in no way reviews this movie. It just gives you a pulpit to launch your silly little ideas and slander individuals who have different beliefs than you. Grow up, and review the movie. Start a blog that no one will read if you want to preach.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Parts are great, but on the whole overrated
27 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I liked the movie a lot for at least the first hour. However, truth be told, I was braced by everyone I had spoken to about the "awful non-ending." So at least I was ready for a lot of disappointment at the end and that was good, because the disappointment aspect certainly didn't disappoint.

Some observations on the whole: the Llewelyn character is the best in the movie and is killed off so unceremoniously that the movie loses a lot right there. In a weird way, it reminded me of "Psycho," how so much time is spent developing one character and that character winds up being very secondary. Next: the whole Javier Bardem academy award thing is eluding me. To me, this role wasn't even challenging. How is it hard to play a robotic serial killer who delivers every line with the exact same cadence? When I see all the hype this guy got, it makes me wish I got into acting. Nice job mind you, but not a difficult role.

My biggest problem with this movie though is the long string of superfluous characters. Woody Harrelson's character is completely and utterly useless. I'm not sure why that character even existed in this. The Tommy Lee Jones character is deep at some levels, but besides making one phone call to Llewelyn's wife and walking into the one hotel room, he doesn't pursue our villain at all. In fact, he doesn't do much of anything save serve as philosopher-Du-jour (in a hick sort of way) to the audience. I just don't get it --- he in the end, seemed equally useless.

Normally I like movies with odd endings, I really do (I even wrote a novel as such). I enjoyed Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and heck, I even LIKED the way the Sopranos ended --- but this just lost me. Not confused me, but lost me. In the end it all seemed very pointless and if that's the only point the movie makes, all I can hang on to are the positives of some good suspense scenes and some stellar acting by Brolin. Watch it once, and file it under "overrated."
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Excellent Film
1 March 2008
I have actually seen a few bad reviews in here and I'm very surprised by them. This movie was really terrific. If you are looking for realism, I'm not sure where I could point you. 3:10 to Yuma is based on a story from about 40 years ago so of course it is going to have some points that seem "far fetched." They are all within the context of the movie. The acting is outstanding. I'm convinced Russell Crowe hasn't made a bad movie since "Virtuosity." Christian Bale is rapidly ascending the ranks with Crowe and Edward Norton as guys who simply don't put their names on to bad films (the Norton clown movie aside). Suspenseful the whole way through and great viewing. Nothing bad to say about it. One parallel I will draw though that may be a bit abstract but for those of you who have seen it I think you'll get the gist .... 3:10 to Yuma has a lot of "A Bronx Tale" in it (or should I say vice versa since this is a remake). Either way, watch it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Journeyman (2007– )
Worth Sticking Through
17 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the better shows on the networks right now. If you were patient enough to sit through the first 3 episodes, you were well rewarded. I admit the show got off to a slow, uneven start. The subplots with the main character's wife were way too sappy and way too predictable. The show took a turn for the better when the main character plants the newspaper in his concrete to prove to his wife that he really can time travel. Yes, I know that time travel shows have been done before but they really are rather intriguing. So what if it is a little bit borrowed? The fact is that it is well acted and well written and there's just enough of a plot hook where you could stay on it from show #1 and enjoy it or pick it up mid-year and enjoy each show as its own entity. All in all this is a show worth watching and better than most shows you'll find on network TV.
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wyatt Earp (1994)
Far Better Than Tombstone
3 December 2007
I will say that I saw this film before I saw Tombstone but I have to say, upon further review, this is so far the superior film it's not even funny. It's been 14 years now since these were put out and the more I watch them, the wider the gap between the two films becomes. Quaid is a far superior Doc Holliday. Costner, a far superior Earp. The biggest difference though is in the writing. So many of the lines in Tombstone come across as corny and contrived. They are, for lack of a better term, "goofy." Wyatt Earp the film is the grandiose and much more realistic-seeming film. The characters are better developed and the writing is clearly more polished. I don't particularly like either of the Morgan Earp characters in either film, but Virgil Earp again is portrayed much better in Wyatt Earp than Tombstone's Sam Elliott, who basically does his usual and plays Sam Elliott rather than a character. At the end of the day, I've sat through Wyatt Earp about eight times. I've watched Tombstone twice and I've decided there won't be a third. It doesn't stand the test of time at all. Earp does.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Enough Already ...
13 October 2007
Look, there are parts of this movie that are over the top no doubt. I am a person who is pretty conservative on the whole and actually (the few) a George Bush supporter ... but you know what? This stuff is still hysterical. Now, it's not hysterical consistently throughout, but the hysterical parts are just too dang funny not to give this movie an overall good review. The only part that bothered me was trying to decipher between the scripted and the unscripted scenes. Let me tell you, if it was all NON-scripted as the producers claim, it's even funnier. Sure, some of the gags are cruel. Sure, some of the stuff sort of laughs at a "stupid" America. But it's still funny. Does the anti-American stuff bug me some? You bet. But is it inaccurate or unfunny? Absolutely not. You've got to be able to laugh at yourself to appreciate this film, but if you can, it's funny, and it's unique. Not quite as funny as the infamous "Throw the Jew down the well" skit in his Ali G show which is still the funniest skit Cohen has ever done, but all funny nonetheless. Step outside of yourself for a minute and laugh at all of it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
13 October 2007
Thank goodness I waited until it came out on HBO to watch this. I 'd say this was the worst movie I've ever seen, but that would be undervaluing the word "ever." I am quite sure "ever" isn't long enough. Not scary. Not funny. Not well acted. It was like "Return to Eden" meets "Children of the Corn" meets "Wonder Woman." Horrible. If I never hear the word "Rowan" again it will be too soon. He must have said the little girls name about 700x in a row. Ellen Burstyn was so great in "Requiem for a Dream" that I wonder how she even entertained taking this script. Maybe it was a favor. Hard to believe a movie this bad was put out by a big studio.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Blood Diamond (2006)
Surprised by the Negatives in Here
21 June 2007
I'm very surprised by the number of negative comments about this film. Was it perfect? No. Did it have perhaps a little bit too much on the action sequences? Absolutely. Still, it was compelling and I thought DiCaprio was terrific. Those of you mocking his South African accent have clearly never been there. I thought it was spot on. What this film was was a movie with a good message that managed to entertain too; which is perhaps the best way you can ever really get a message across anyway. Education while entertaining makes something a lot more memorable. I think the critics in here are being way too harsh. I t was a very good film and extremely well acted. Poking holes in it for the sake of comparing it to docudrama films is missing the point.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this