Reviews

14 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Hilarious show, best on ESPN
17 February 2004
ESPN doesn't have a whole lot of great programming. SportsCenter is great, but it's just a news show. This show is going to be classic. The Sklar brothers are hilarious, you may have seen their comedy specials.

This show is very much like Mystery Science Fiction Theater, but instead of two robots and a guy watching bad movies it is two comedians watching classic old sporting events and make fun of them. The funniest I've seen was an episode which they were ripping on a 1980 wresting match between the Iron Sheik and Kerry von Erik. The show is very funny, tune into ESPN sometime and check it out.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Fugitive (1993)
10/10
One of the BEST movies of the 90's
17 February 2004
Rarely do we see a classic TV series brought to life so well on the big screen. Even though McHales Navy, The Brady Bunch, and Lost In Space were not very good shows, the film adaptations of them were even worse. The Fugitive was a very good TV show, full of great plot, drama, and suspense, but the film version is even better.

Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones, need I say more? These two actors brought more intensity, feeling, and flat out great acting to The Fugitive than no other two actors could have hoped to. The plot of the film is fantastic: A doctor (Harrison Ford) is framed for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death, he escapes during a train wreck and is pursued by an obsessed U.S. Marshall (Tommy Lee Jones) as the good doctor works to prove that the one armed man, and not himself, is guilty of his wifes murder.

While Harrison Ford is great, and very believable, Tommy Lee Jones steals the show as the man who will stop at nothing to catch Dr. Richard Kimball. You can feel the fear of Dr. Kimball as he runs for his life, and fears capture every day, as do you feel the need for the U.S. Marshalls to catch this man. The chemistry between Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford in the scenes that they do share could never be re-created. The suspense is very intense. I would rate this film as one of the 10 best films of all time, it unfolds before you so beautifully, and the ending is excellent. If you've never seen it, then you should steal a car, go rent it, then blame it on the one-armed man.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Compleat Beatles (1982 Video)
Not bad, Not bad
9 February 2004
This was the film that introduced me to the Beatles. I was 14 at the time, and my girlfriend showed it to me, and at the time I thought the Beatles were just some mop top 60's cheese act. I had never heard Abbey Road, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper, or the White Album. I never knew they had strayed from the no collar suits and love songs. So when I first saw this film it really changed my perspective of the band. Within a year I went from not owning a single album to owning all of them.

This film is a rushed short version of the Beatles History. It captures all of their history in 2 hours. The hardcore Beatles fan would be more interested in the Anthology films, as well as the brilliant Anthology albums. This film takes on the difficult task of cramming the Beatles into 2 hours, and doesn't do too bad. It is wonderfully edited, in fact I think one of the greatest visuals of the Beatles I have is the end credits of this film. It is a montage of various Beatles performances and footage set to the beautiful Paul McCartney song Blackbird.

In closing, just as you are shown "The Young Persons Guide To The Symphony" in your first college music appreciation course, so should every prospective Beatles fan be shown "The Compleat Beatles". It is a brilliant band with a brilliant career shoved into a quick survey.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scream (1996)
7/10
Not Bad
17 January 2004
I don't like most of the actors, I don't like any of the sequels, but I do like the original. Scream is a great film. Scream 2 was bad, Scream 3 was worse, Friends is bad, Neve Campbell is worse, Skeet is a nobody, but still Scream is cool. I gave Scream 7/10. It has a great script, great characters, great atmosphere, and what every great horror film needs, plot twists. I beg all of you to buy Scream and watch it, and then rent Scream 2&3 and before you watch them burn them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (2003–2010)
Hilarious and Informative
16 January 2004
When I say this is hilarious and informative, I mean it informs you of how stupid some people are. Penn and Teller do such a good job with this show, and do an even better job of de-bunking con-artists. Everything from Feng Shue to Magnet Medicine and these people who communicate with the dead (such as John Edward) are de-bunked. I just watched an episode where Penn and Teller got people to try out a "Mucas Mask". This was a supposed be a beauty treatment/facial massage in which people actually let somebody put snails all over their faces. You then see these people who have faces covered with nasty slime giving testimonials on how much better their wrinkles looked and how relaxed their face felt. This was something P&T set up just to show that these testimonials for other cons are not reliable. People can be so stupid, and Penn and Teller do a hilarious job of pointing out how gullible some people are. I reccomend this show to anybody.
53 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good. Long and didn't have to be.
30 November 2003
I just got back from seing this film, and I really liked it. Visually it is a beautiful film, the locations are breathtaking and the camerawork excellent. The characters are good and develop, which is difficult to do when you have so many of them. The action is great and the story was very good. The only problem was the length, I don't mind long films, but when they don't have to be long is when I get mad. There were so many scenes in this film that really didn't do anything for the story, they were just there. A scene that should only take 30 seconds drags on for 2 minutes. This movie could have been just as good and over in 90-100 instead of the rear-end numbing 138 minutes. Don't let the length keep you from seeing this film, and do see it in the theatres so you get the full effect of the special effects. What has surprised me the most about this film are the great reviews it has recieved, from the type of critics who usually only rave about sensative dramas like The Hours or any other Julianne Moore film, and usually bash anything with good action in it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why is this film compared with Ferris Bueller?
30 November 2003
I keep seeing this film compared to Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and I don't see why. The plots have nothing in common, and the characters are not at all similar. Ferris Bueller's Day Off is about a very cool and clever kid who fools his parents into thinking he is sick, and goes on an adventure in the city. Morgan Stewart's Coming Home is more of a family story. A not so cool kid (Cryer) who was shipped off to boarding school at a young age is brought home to help with his fathers campaign to be elected to the senate and tries to win the affection of his very cold mother and dim-witted father. So why are these two films compared to one another? I see some of the comparison comes from the idea that this film was sold to the public as a Bueller-esque film, but it wasn't. I remember the commercials for this film from way back in the day, and they in no way tried to capitalize on the success of Ferris Bueller. This film is it's own film, as good or bad as it may be. It isn't a Ferris Bueller rip off. Morgan Stewart's Coming Home has it's moments, but it is more suited to a younger audience.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dreamcatcher (2003)
8/10
Reminded me of IT, but very good
1 November 2003
I see this film has received amazing reviews on this site, but I liked it. I've never read the book, but I did read IT, and many other Stephen King books, and this story has elements of many King books, but mostly IT. It wasn't a copy though, the story is very good, and original. I think what hangs people up on this the fact that you have to use your imagination a little, something that nobody had a problem doing with IT. The acting was very good I thought, Morgan Freeman's character wasn't very well developed, but he was excellent, Damian Lewis and the guy who played Mickey Mantle in 61* (I forget his name) both did great jobs. Tom Sizemore turns in his usual performance, no matter how many different characters he plays, it's always the same character. Anyway, I'm sure most Stephen King fans will love this film.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you like Mr. Show, you'll hate this
21 October 2003
I am one of the biggest Mr. Show fans on Earth, I watched the first episode when it originally aired, and every episode after that. I've bought the 1st through 3rd season DVD's, and I'm convinced it is the funniest show ever. So when you know the comedy potential of Bob and David, then you see this movie, you wonder what they were thinking. Even now if you visit their site they will tell you themselves it was a horrible movie. You are just left wondering, how can these two hilarious guys not make a hilarious movie? I loved the Ronnie Dobbs segments on Mr. Show, but even when I heard they were going to turn it into a movie long ago, I couldn't imagine how they planned to stretch it out into a full-length film. Having seen the film it's apparent they didn't know how to either. The funniest parts of the film we've already seen in the Ronnie skits on Mr. Show. There were a few chuckles in the movie, but Mr. Show made me roll on the floor. There are a few Mr. Show characters in the film other than Ronnie and Terry, such as "Three Times One Minus One" the reporter Tim McCracken, and possibly a few others, I forget. The funniest part of the movie was Jack Black and his musical number, but it had nothing to do with the plot of the film itself, and this wasn't even one of Jack's best performances.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Phantasm (1979)
Could have been Great, but it is good
21 October 2003
I just saw this movie for the first time, and while I was impressed, I felt this movie could have been so much more. It had all of the makings of a classic. Even though it is apparently low budget, the acting isn't that bad. The A. Michael Baldwin kid was very good, the older brother wasn't bad. This movie has enough suspense that I actually found myself grinding my teeth at one point. One thing that really impressed me, especially for a low-budget 80's horror flick, is that they don't rely on cheap scares like most of todays films do. No cats jumping out and scaring the character, etc. The scares come from suspense, and the very creepy looking "Tall Man" and his minions who are kind of like evil Jawas. The soundtrack also adds to the scary feel of the film, it's kind of like the Halloween theme, only jazzed up a bit. The only flaw in this film is the storytelling. I often found myself asking, what just happened? There are times when it feels like they are just telling you to swallow this explanation, just because they said so. And the plot really doesn't develop until one scene near the end when you find out what the "Tall Man" is up to, and then it is just explained in one line, then it's back to the running around. And don't even get me started on the ending. It's not that you won't understand it, but you'll just be asking yourself, Why? It's a cult classic, and I know many people love it, I liked it myself, but the story is pretty flawed.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Samantha (1991)
8/10
Interesting film, I liked it
29 September 2003
This wasn't a bad movie, and a premise I've yet to see. It's about a young lady who finds out on her 21st Birthday (I might be wrong on the age) that she is adopted. The bulk of the film deals with her multiple identity crisis's that may have been the inspiration for the South Park episode in which Cartman goes through the same situation in finding out who his father is. There isn't much of a flowing story line, but the characters are interesting, and develop well throughout the film. I wouldn't nominate it for an oscar or anything, but it's hardly a bad film. If you see it's coming on television, check it out, or maybe even rent it. You won't feel ripped off.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Adults will laugh, but it's for kids
27 September 2003
A lot of people were kind of thrown by this move, they claim it was a waste of their time, etc. They were expecting the old Dana Carvey from Saturday Night Live, or Wayne's World. But this movie isn't really for those people, it's for the kids. Like many childrens films these days there are jokes and references that only the older audience will appreciate, but overall the film is for you little ones. And they love it. I saw Carvey do an interview around the time of the release and he said he wanted to do a movie for his kids. He felt that all of the stuff he had done in the past he really didn't want kids to see, until they were older. My nephews and all of their friends love Master of Disguise and watch it all the time. Their constant impressions of the turtle guy and the slapping dummy midget get annoying sometimes, but they enjoy it. While it is a kid flick, there are plenty of jokes that adults will enjoy, as this is a film that highlights his ability to do impressions. Impressions of Pacino in Scarface, Quint the guy from Jaws, Bob Ross, George W. Bush, and others are very funny. I see it as a kid flick I can watch with kids and actually be entertained a bit.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very Funny, better than the others.
1 August 2003
Less Kevin, no Oz, more Stifler, and more of a less annoying Finch makes for a great conclusion to the American Pie series. More importantly, this movie does not follow the same framework as the fist two films, two films which I am not a big fan of, but could tolerate. I couldn't help but feel that they were the same movie, only with different scenery and a slight change in the situations. This movie is different though. And for a change, Jim is not the focus of the film. While he is the catalyst for the plot of the film, it seems like the movie is more about Stifler and Finch, mostly Stifler. In this film the Stiff-meister actually develops as a character, something that I thought was impossible. This film does not rely on potty humor as heavily as the previous films, but more so on the humorous changes to the Stifler character, and his constant conflict with Finch. Mr. Sensative Oz isn't in the film, and the constantly whining character of Kevin is barely a factor, he probably had 10 lines total. And when the film is not focusing on Finch and Stiffler, it is showing the hilarious steps that Jim takes trying to prove to Michelle's parents that he is worthy of taking care of her, which in true Jim fashion always turns out badly. This is by far the best of the series, and probably the funniest movie I have seen in a while.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm with Busey (2003– )
Didn't get it at first
18 July 2003
I don't know why I was actually expecting this to be a reality show, after Comedy Central had fooled me with their first "reality show" Contest Searchlight, which all turned out to be a hoax, but it wasn't really apparent to me until the end of that show. I was looking forward to the first episode of I'm With Busey, the premise seemed so great. Mr. Tough Guy actor, a little on the odd side, mentoring a young Comedy Central writer, who is a little on the wussie side. The first episode left me wanting something better, and just left me thinking that Gary Busey is either a complete idiot, or a complete psycho. But as I saw a few more episodes it dawned on me that even though Busey may be a bit nuts, he is just acting. It really became apparent that he was acting in the episode where he took Adam to the electronics store and was trying to convince him that all technology were weapons (such as a camera that will blow his mothers face off when she tries to take a picture) Also when he thought that the wax figure of John Wayne was talking to him. The Magic Indian was priceless as well. This show isn't gold, but it is entertaining. It leaves me wanting to ask Gary 2 questions. 1.) Exactly how does one play "Name That Smell?" 2.) Exactly how does a clown on the way to the electric chair behave?
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed