christopher_greenleaf Reviews

Chicks Dig Gay Guys (2014)

Amazingly bad, Totally unfunny.

[1/10 · 8 March 2017]

While there may have been the seed of a funny idea with this plot, the way it actually plays out lacks any humor whatsoever. The chubby lead actor is totally charisma-impaired and the whole thing is simply unfunny and illogical. I was amazed to see Eric Roberts involved with this tripe.

The plot, if you want to call it that consists of this: a chubby office worker and his hapless, but more socially adept friend go out every night and the chubby one uses some amazingly obnoxious pick-up lines and gets embarrassingly shot down constantly. If this sounds at funny to you, trust me it's not. The behavior is totally boorish and never once actually translates as humor. The chubby man at some point realizes (in a painfully obvious and stupid scene) that women seem comfortable with Gay men, so the next thing you know the chubby guy is wincing, limp-wristed and behaving like a total queen dressing like Wayland Flowers and wearing a boa engaging in the most odd and stereotypical behavior ever, but of course it seems to work.

This was allegedly a "true story" and if so, I'm sure it didn't play out anything like this. Like the other negative review here, I wanted to like this film, but took the rare step of just shutting it off because it was so incredibly bad.

I would be very, very suspicious of any and all positive reviews of this film given how remarkably awful this "film" is.

Avoid at all costs!

The Greatest Man in the World (1980 TV Movie)

The Last Review is Totally Incorrect About The Story/Cast/Characters

[9/10 · 3 July 2007]

Jimmy Schmurch is the lead character here. He is played by Brad Davis, and is NOT played by Reed Birney, nor is he named Smidgeon. Smidgeon is another character all together, one totally different to Jimmy Schmurch. The review was akin to saying that in 'Casablanca' Rick Blaine's character was renamed 'Sam' and played by Dooley Wilson. How anyone can forget a Brad Davis performance is beyond my comprehension. That Brad Davis is not even mentioned in the review is baffling. Why two people would recommend such an error ridden review, one in which the reviewer obviously has not actually seen the film, amazes me.

The film features a chilling comedic performance from Brad Davis as the psychotic "hero" Jimmy Schmurch. Davis is able to imbue the character with a cold blooded viciousness, while simultaneously portraying him with just enough 'tongue in cheek' mannerisms that we are able to appreciate the more laughable mannerisms Jimmy Schmurch possesses. Carol Kane adds much to the short film, originally videotaped in early 1980 for PBS' 'American Masters', as Jimmy Schmurch's faithful sweetheart.

Ultimately, Jimmy Schmurch's cruel mocking nature proves to be his undoing. This short film is a lost gem well worth finding. Thurber's short story is given a great interpretation, and the cast is pure magic.

Wow! The original review I mentioned has been suddenly corrected and my review and a later one which mentions the writer's inexplicable mistakes both got one "not helpful" vote each! Hmmmm? Wonder who cast those votes!? LOL!

Don't get angry at us because you did not have your facts straight pal!

Cover Up: Behind the Iran Contra Affair (1988)

Heresay, Rumors, Circular Logic, But No Facts/Smoking Gun Whatsoever.

[1/10 · 24 April 2007]

I saw this film, and participated in a Q&A session with the filmmaker in Somerville, Massachusetts in 1988. Being a left of center Democrat, and a Dukakis supporter, I was more than happy to see a film that would blow the lid off of the Reagan arms scandal. This film presented nothing in way of evidence and used as it's principle source of "information" Abolhasan Bani-Sadr the former president of Iran who was impeached less than a year after his election for incompetence (Even Ayatollah Khomeini signed the articles of impeachment).Consequently, Bani-Sadr fled the country as he was being targeted for assassination. Bani-Sadr settled in France where he resides to this day. He is more than willing to give interviews where he speaks of far fetched conspiracies such as claiming Reagan himself visited Tehran in 1980 to meet with Ayatollah Khomeini (??!!) and disparage his homeland.

In the case of this film, there is really no evidence at all to show that Ronald Reagan conspired with Ayatollah Khomeini to skew the 1980 presidential election. This is one of two of the film's major contentions they try to represent as a revelation. These 'Alex Jones' style conspiracy theories about the 1980 election end up being paranoiac rumormongering of the lowest sort and have only the disgraced, discredited Bani-Sadr as their sole "source".

The film's second contention centers on their having previously unreleased information about the arms for hostages scandal. The "evidence' consists of Elizabeth Montgomery's ominous narration citing events and statements which might possibly prove something if you only allow yourself to believe.

In short, the film consists of half truths, innuendos, rumors, subjective judgments, comments taken out of context, opinions, and cherry picked evidence. All of these do not the equate to hard evidence, or truth for that matter.

At the conclusion of watching this film, I realized I had waited for a smoking gun, and there was none. During our Q&A session with one of the film maker's I opined that this film was nothing more than hearsay, and that their only major source the film utilized Bani-Sadr was far from credible at best. The film maker stated that she didn't look at the film as hearsay, and at that moment another audience member interjected "It is hearsay" The filmmaker fell suddenly silent, and the remainder of the Q&A seemed to be hurried along to an quick conclusion.

I am baffled by the other poster who whines about the film not receiving mainstream media attention in 1988. There was no reason for this film to receive such attention as the film claimed to blow the lid off of the the Reagan administration as well as the then current George H.W. Bush presidential campaign, but in the end was revealed to be a tepid, long winded "What if?" piece. If the film showed a static shot of a fire hydrant for ninety minutes and then had the credits roll, the end result would be roughly the same.

The Reagan Arms for hostages scandal has been explained and examined thoroughly in other, much better, works. 'Cover Up' is an absolute waste of time and not worth watching or owning unless you happen to be a conspiracy theorist or an Elizabeth Montgomery completest.

Terror in the Tropics (2006 Video)

Amateur Filmmakers Add Stock Footage For Awful Film!

[1/10 · 31 March 2006]

Note: There is an incredibly fawning and unbelievable review from a user who calls him/herself 'Son of Cathode' who claims that this piece of dog excrement is a "Merry, Mini Masterpiece" or some such thing! He also claims that this film is being unfavorably compared to 'Final Destination.' If 'Son of Cathode' had actually READ the review which mentions 'Final Destination,' he'd realize that the only comparison made was pointing out that the characters use the last names of famous actors/directors and that was done in 'Final Destination.' That is THE ONLY COMPARISON made between the two films. Nowhere was "budget or anything else ever mentioned! He then goes on to describe this ABSOLUE GARBAGE as a work of art made by "filmmakers." This wasn't a piece of art, it's a piece of something else. And these people are NOT filmmakers, they are talentless, pretentious hacks!!! This film is ONLY enjoyable if you like very, very, bad poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the "actors" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the "performers" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.

The "filmmakers" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.

The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.

Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!

My Sister Sam (1986–1988)

It Was Cancelled A Year Before She Died!

[9 May 2005]

Rebecca Schaeffer was certainly an attractive and fast rising young actress in Hollywood. Her career may have reached new heights had she lived beyond the age of 21. Her tragic death resulted in new laws which guarded personal privacy, and safety. However, the sitcom she was featured in was hardly memorable.

The show was fairly mediocre and lasted a little over a season when it was canceled.

The show is now remembered for the fact one of it's stars was murdered by a lunatic. People should get their information straight before posting.

The show was not canceled due to the death of the actress, It was canceled due to poor ratings a year before she died.

Too Late for Tears (1949)

Femme Fatally Flawed! ** May Contain Spoilers **

[4/10 · 13 March 2005]

I have to agree with the other poster who stated that Lizabeth Scott was not really into her role. If you replaced Scott with Lana Turner, and Dan Duryea (who seems to be just lazily aping his 'Scarlet Street' role) with Richard Widmark, or Robert Ryan, you would be in good shape.

Casting is just one problem with this film. The plot is filled with improbabilities from the first minute on. The one that kick starts the plot has a carrying bag filled with $60,000 thrown into Scott and Arthur Kennedy's car. A few days after this event, Duryea shows up at Scott's apartment impersonating a detective, and then claims to be the owner of the money. Instead of beating the information about the money's location out of Scott, he is unusually cooperative, and says he will check back with her after he checks the evening newspaper to see if there is anything in the paper to corroborate her version of where the money is located (!!??). Duryea returns later, repeatedly refers to Scott as 'tiger' (?) and once again is stalled by Scott, who this time tells Duryea to meet him that night "In the park. Under a palm tree" Of course, Duryea obliges again (what kind of criminal is this guy?) While waiting for Duryea, Scott, and Kennedy, take a rowboat ride, during which a seemingly unmotivated struggle takes place, ending in Scott shooting husband Kennedy. Bizarrely, few people react to the loud sound of a gun going off in an echo filled lake. The only response seems to be one woman saying to her boyfriend "I thought I heard something" The gun by the way has no silencer! What follows is Scott summons Duryea, who is obediently waiting by what must be the only palm tree in the park, and a very silly semi-reprise of the 'Double Indemnity' train scene, only done in a silly manner in a rowboat with Duryea & 'Tiger' in place of MacMurray & Stanwyck.

The plot thickens and soon the whole affair is coming across like a far fetched, early soap opera. This film has many good moments, but never becomes a cohesive whole. A script, which was a few rewrites away from good, and tepid performances from Scott & Duryea prevent this. When Don Defore is stealing scenes, you have big problems!

Sex in Chains (1928)

Terrible!

[1/10 · 14 February 2005]

I am total amazed to see this film with so high a rating on IMDb. This film is far from groundbreaking, and would never have been reconstructed, nor released on DVD, if it were not for it's 'gay' subtext. In these days of 'Will & Grace' and 'Queer Eye For The Straight Guy' any film with a gay theme seems to be considered brave, and innovative, when the actual artistic merits are ignored. 'Geschlecht in Fesseln - Die Sexualnot Der Gefangenen' aka is such a film.

Director William Dieterle's first misstep was miscasting himself in the lead role. Although Dieterle was certainly a good looking man (In fact he resembles a young Gary Cooper), he exhibits no depth, and never seems to be really affected by the events unfolding around him, nor does he show any chemistry with either his male (Hans Heinrich Von Twardowski) love interest, or with his wife (Swedish silent star Mary Johnson). Calling Dieterle's performance wooden would not begin to adequately convey his lackluster effort. There were many young capable German actors at the time who would have easily been able to play Dieterle's role. Gustav Von Waggenheim ('Nosferatu'), or Hans Heinrich Von Twardowski already cast in this film as 'Alfred', would have been a more appropriate choice. Think of Harrison Ford portraying Jimmy Carter, and you will get a rough idea how badly miscast Dieterle (Never a good actor to start with) is.

The second major problem with 'Sex In Chains' is it's over the top, melodramatic approach to the material. The story itself is pretty solid, but director Dieterle abandons the option of presenting the material as a structured,compelling narrative, and instead decides to use an over the top, emotionally manipulative, soap opera type approach, more appropriate to pre-1914 Hollywood, than to late 1920s Germany. Indicative of Dieterle's technique are: overly long exterior shots of German streets, and countryside done with a hand held camera which have only the vaguest connection to the actual plot. One cinematic non sequential scene is a long hand held shot panning from bottom to top of the prison, which again has little rhyme or reason. In another odd scene, which seems to be a 'What not to do' example for a film class, Helene Sommer prances hysterically about her apartment before she hallucinates, and sees the sitting figure of her imprisoned husband (a double exposed Dieterle in a scene that is oddly recalls the barge scene in 'Nosferatu'), then she wildly sprints around her apartment running into yet another apparition of Dieterle, and another...and another and another(!!??) At this point, I half expected to hear the cast of 'Mystery Science Theater 3000' to start riffing on this celluloid car crash! Another of Dieterle's touches is to show extreme facial closeups that seem to linger forever. I have no idea if these were artistic pretensions on Dieterle's part, or simply ineptness.

I very much wanted to like this film. Take my word, do not waste your time on this film. Contemporary political correctness can not make a bad film good, and the fact that its a German silent by a director who later worked successfully in Hollywood, does not make it a good film. Avoid at all costs!

Brat Farrar (1986)

An Enjoyable Yarn!

[5 April 2004]

First off, Josephine Tey died in the early 1950s, so her participation in this project or 'Paranoiac' (an earlier poster comments on Tey's direct participation in both these projects, and "storming" off the set of 'Paranoiac' despite having been dead a decade! Which certainly sounds more like the plot outline for a Hammer film!) must have been facilitated through a seance or oujia board session. In any case, Miss Tey's ghost was certainly justified in "storming" of the set of 'Paranoiac'. The earlier film is an enjoyable B movie which simply bastardizes the novel and has Oliver Reed going completely looney tunes by the end. This version does owe more to Robert Bloch's 'Psycho' than it does to Tey's 'Brat Farrar'. I would surmise that Hammer optioned the film rights to 'Brat Farrar' only to avoid any potential copyright conflicts.

The 1986 Television version of 'Brat Farrar' is much more faithful to the novel than 'Paranoiac' (This is probably due to the direct involvement of Miss Tey's poltergeist!) One major difference is that Farrar & Simon are now played by the same actor. In 'Paranoiac' Reed's brother was played by another actor who had no physical resemblance to him at all -- being that the characters in the Hammer film were no longer identical twins, in fact they were re-named! The lead does a remarkable job in playing both th ersatz 'Brat Farrar' and the cunning, sociopathic Simon. Despite the fact that, at points, the effect of the actor being on screen as both characters looks fake (as it did in many movies, especially flatly lit television movies in those pre, or very early post CGI days) the lead actor was able and adept enough in both performances, that I very often forgot that this was the same man. Another major advantage that 'Brat Farrar' has over 'Paranoiac', is that it was shown over the course of a few episodes (two at least if memory serves me!) and the tension is allowed to build slowly, almost painfully, to it's concluding climax. Despite being a British television film, the look, and feel of 'Brat Farrar' is much more akin to an American TV Soap Opera, and oddly enough, this adds greatly to the surreal, almost claustrophobic tone of deception and imminent danger.

The movies is served well by the fact that plot is allowed time to develop. This also allows the actors to develop and reveal their character's true natures and motives slowly, with all due fairness to the earlier film, 'Paranoiac' didn't have this luxury given the limitations of a feature film's restricted time frame. 'Brat Farrar' features a great cast especially the lead actor. Also noteworthy is Francis Matthews, a good actor who incidentally was featured in many Hammer horror films of the 1950s and 60s. If you can find this film, it is well worth watching!

The Atomic Kid (1954)

Enjoyable Paffle! Rooney

[29 February 2004]

This is an enjoyable little programmer from the early 1950s. Mickey Rooney (the #1 box office draw in the late 1930s and early 1940s) was no longer an A list star, and was hardly a "kid" at 34. The breezy plot, with it's sci-fi/comedy blend, along with Rooney and Strauss having an abundance of charisma, make this a great waste of time. If you enjoy the Bowery Boys, Francis The Talking Mule (Rooney actually starred in the final 'Francis' film) and The Ma & Pa Kettle series, this should be right up your alley! Rooney and Strauss have a great chemistry, and they clearly could have thrived as a defacto comedy team in a few more pictures. You may have a hard time locating this film, but for a few dollars, it's well worth it!

The Christine Jorgensen Story (1970)

A Must See (Like a Car Crash!) Irving Rapper down the crapper!

[14 November 2003]

It's hard to believe that the director of the classic 'Now Voyager' directed this wastebucket. The story of the world's most famous sex change recipient (THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST SEX CHANGE! NOT EVEN CLOSE! Sex change operations had been happening since the 1920s at least! Can't people research things? Jorgensen was the first Sex change celebrity for sure.) is so very bizzare. We are first introduced to little George Jorgensen Jr. played by the uber creepy Trent Lehman (Butch on 'Nanny & The Professor', Who later at the age of 20 commited suicide by hanging himself with his belt from a middle school fence) Little Georgie grins like a maniac while looking at a eye rolling doll through a toy shop window and endures the taunts of his pudgie playmates who proclaim that his name is "Georgette" while making stereotypical limp wrist gestures (This is very odd, given that nothing in Lehman's mannerisms is particularly effeminate!) After abandoning his erector set (!?), Georgie decides he would rather play with his sister's dolls. After being discovered with a doll at school, his parents start to worry. Years pass and Creepy Trent has grown into a Hetero Surfer dude who seems to be doing a mediocre wispy gay imitation (Inconsistent with Lehman's performance). Chubby playmates give way to bitchy fashion models and taunting prostitutes. The burly bleached blonde George decides to consult with some kind of hormone expert and soon is off to Denmark to be changed into Grace Kelley's stunt double. Our hero/heroine soon finds brief romance with a handsome tabloid reporter (Quinn K. Redeker, a few years after his riveting tour de force in 'The Three Stooges Meet Hercules') Poor Christine finds the people back home in America to be ignorant, simple minded and insensitive (As does most of Europe). I have to stop here, as words are inadequate to describe this overly melodramatic soap opera/train wreck. I will say this, it is never boring!

Say It Isn't So (2001)

I Say It's So So

[21 August 2001]

Well the fact that this is 'produced' by the Brothers Farrelly seems irrelevant. It makes no difference if it had been a Merchant/Ivory production. This film seems like a barely passable imitation of Farrelly Brothers film done by an rival studio and hack writers. If the Brother's names were not in the credits, I would believe their involvment was only a rumor. There are some funny moments in the film, they are just not consistent. Chris Klein is likable and handsome but is only adequate as an actor (he's only been acting since 'American Pie') certain scenes may have been very funny had say Woody Harrelson or Edward Norton been cast in Klein's role. Heather Graham is stunning as usual but is really given little to do here. Also, the Farrellys are know for kicking political correctness in the midsection. This film embraces PC, in that Klein's character is villified as a pervert and Graham is viewed as a victim in a consensual relationship. I don't think I will have the chance to review 'Say It Isn't So 2'

Tammy and the T-Rex (1994)

The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen!

[1/10 · 29 July 2001]

I can not agree with the person who posted here saying that the film makers knew that they were making a bad film and that we should be in on the joke and enjoy it. This film should stand as the very definition of hack filmaking. This film is bizzare, disturbing, poorly acted, terribly directed and astonishingly un-funny. Watching Terry Kiser crack horribly lame one liners while murdering a comatose teenage boy is like viewing a Carol Burnett skit from hell. This film is fascinating in the same way a major automobile accident is. Denise Richards looks incredible as always but, her poor acting here and in the box office and critical disaster 'Drop Dead Gorgeous' are examples of why she has quickly fallen off the radar. On a positive note, I think the Dinosaur looked top notch and the special effects were very good.

Hollow Man (2000)

Hollow Script (Possible Spoilers!)

[8 August 2000]

I saw this film tonight and I was let down.The special effects are stellar (except for one scene with an unconvincing digital nipple).Kevin Bacon is well cast as the title character and Elisabeth Shue is stunning.The film runs out of steam midway through.There is one point where an invisible Bacon terrorizes a female neighbor and rapes her.This is never again mentioned and her fate is left unknown.The bulk of the action takes place in the secret laboratory Bacon & Company are employed at.The film makers missed a great opportunity to have Bacon's character run amock in the city, which would have been much more interesting and suspenseful.I liked the film's ending and I have since I first saw it 10 years ago in "Terminator 2".You are better off waiting for this one to come out on video.In the mean while, avoid this film and stay in and rent Claude Rains in "The Invisible Man", a much better film that followed it's instincts and really was scary and funny!

Murder by Television (1935)

Great Fun!

[4 July 2000]

I purchased this movie in 1984, when I was a teenager. It is a low-medium budget whodunnit and it's great.Bela shines playing the FBI agent hero and his greedy, manipulative twin brother.An early version of television proves to also be a conduit for the "Interstellar frequency, otherwise known as the death ray!".This film is fantastic fun and Bela oozes charisma throughout.You may also recognize a young Hattie McDaniel (Gone With The Wind).If you can find it, this a great little flick.

Grips, Grunts and Groans (1937)

The Funniest Thing I Have Ever Seen!

[16 June 2000]

Out of all the Three Stooge' shorts that Columbia produced, this one is the hands down winner! It starts with our heroes fleeing from a railway car they have been stowing away in.They flee the police and railway detectives (knocking over an occupied baby carriage in the process and not stopping!), then finding refuge in a local gym.Once there they are hired by a crooked wrestling promoter to look after his star attraction, an amiable but violent, womanizing and hard drinking wrestler named Bustoff.Without posting a spoiler, I can tell you that Curly ends up on the receiving end of more violence than even he is used to,This one is the absolute funniest things I have ever seen in my life, Dr Strangelove being #2! See this one.

Living Proof: The Hank Williams, Jr. Story (1983 TV Movie)

The Legend of Bocephus

[8/10 · 28 May 2000]

In 1964 George Hamilton was oddly, yet effectively, cast as Hank Williams Sr in 'Your Cheatin' Heart'.In 1983 Richard Thomas was oddly, yet effectively, cast as Hank Williams Jr in 'Living Proof:The Hank Williams Jr Story'.Young Hank had to deal with being the son of a country music legend, who was also one of America's greatest songwriters, and living in the giant shadow of his dimunitive father.Hank Jr toured endlessly from early childhood.As a young child He was often dressed like a Mini-Me of Hank Sr. while on stage and would sing Hank Sr's greatest hits.As he grew into a young man, he was conflicted over honoring his father's memory and a desire to follow his own path in music.In the film, Thomas is able to capture this quite well.He never attempts to mimic Hank Jr's mannerisms but, seems to draw from his own emotion to recreate Hank's.Touchingly done is the accident which nearly killed him in 1971.This tragedy disfigured his facial features (His beard and sunglasses hide many of the resulting scars).He went through an extended period of physical recovery and, many reconstructive surgeries to repair his ravaged face.Thomas was able to make this process believable and infuse theses scenes with Hank Jr's resolve and strength.After his recovery, Hank Jr became his own man.His music, while a respectful nod to the greatness of his father, is his own.The film is well scripted and acted.You will also notice and young, unknown, and very fetching Naomi Judd as a groupie who seduces our young hero.This film is well worth your time.

Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives! (1989)

Great Fun!

[5 May 2000]

I hadn't seen this film since I had viewed it on video in 1990.When I saw a copy for $1 at Borders I had to buy it.Michael Pare as West/Wilson is just perfect and the John Cafferty/Beaver Brown Band deliver an even better soundtrack than the first film.Again, Cafferty's voice emanating from Pare's body is perfect.The ending is great, as is the supporting cast.I liked it better that the first one!

Black Friday (1940)

Ridges deserved an Academy Award

[5 May 2000]

In Black Friday, Stanley Ridges delivers one of the most incredible performances I have even seen commited to celluloid.As the meek University professor who unknowing receives part of a dead gangster's brain, Ridges is amazing.When the gangsters personality surfaces, Ridge's speech and mannerisms are transformed.He is convincing as a brutal, homicidal gangster and seems like a different actor.He steals the film easily from Lugosi and Karloff (No simple task!) and leaves you spellbound throughout.This one is worth the rental!

Freejack (1992)

Entertaining at points yet, I won't claim this a good film!

[26 April 2000]

Another reviewer noted that Emilio Estevez comes across as a kid in a role meant for an older, more seasoned actor.This person is right.It might as well be Michael J. Fox doing the honors.Mel Gibson would have been a good choice but, he would very likely have hated the script.There are some really good moments here.The moments are few and far between and, the flick has too many slow moments.The main actors here, Estevez, Russo and Hopkins (on screen for about 8 minutes total time and third billed) seem like musicians trying to act in a film.Meanwhile, the only good performances come from musicians, Mick Jagger (first dramatic role since 'Performance 22 years earlier) and David Johansen.It's ironic that, these two rock singers out act Anthony Hopkins and company!I can not recommend this but I enjoyed moments of it.

The Three Stooges (2000 TV Movie)

A bit rushed!

[7/10 · 24 April 2000]

I thought the film was trying to put way too much into 2 hours.Michael Chicklis was amazing as Curly Howard and deserves an Emmy for it.Besides that, the film was ok entertainment but not spectacular!It would be a good film for people who do not know much about the Stooge's history.Stooge fans will catch a few mistakes here and there!

Can't Hardly Wait (1998)

*Spoilers* Fun but a bit disturbing! (Possible Spoilers Ahead!)

[21 April 2000]

I happened to see this film, for the second time, tonight on cable.The film is a bit of Hollywood teen fluff but, has many funny moments.Jennifer Love Hewitt is beautiful as always and, Seth Green steals the show as the wannabe gangsta.What I did find very odd about the screenplay is that the central character Preston (Ethan Embrey) seems to be fixated on Love Hewitt's character and part of the plot hinges on an obsessive letter he has written her about watching her for years and being fixated on her.In real life, not only is this behavior passive but alarming.If most men left such a letter for a woman they hardly knew, they would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a restraining order.They certainly would not be rewarded for such behavior.This is what I find totally unbelievable about this film.I hate to say it but some people see things in films and believe that this the proper way to behave.I did enjoy it for the most part though!

The Audrey Hepburn Story (2000 TV Movie)

It was fine!

[8/10 · 28 March 2000]

Jennifer Love Hewitt, after withstanding months of derisive comments from those who cast judgment on her portrayal with out ever having seen it, emerges tonight as a true actress for a dignified sensitive performance as Audrey Hepburn.Love Hewitt was able to handle the role with poise and charm.At points in the film her performance was actually quite uncanny.I would recommend this film to anyone.This was not the bubble head from 'Can't Hardly Wait' this was Audrey Hepburn.

The Audrey Hepburn Story (2000 TV Movie)

She did it!

[8/10 · 27 March 2000]

Jennifer Love Hewitt, after months of derisive comments from those who cast judgment on her portrayal with out ever having seen it, emerges tonight as a true actress for a dignified sensitive performance as Audrey Hepburn.Love Hewitt was able to handle the role with poise and charm.At points in the film her performance was actually quite uncanny.I would recommend this film to anyone.This was not the bubble head from 'Can't Hardly Wait' this was Audrey Hepburn.