Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Pollock (2000)
5/10
An exercise in boredom
21 July 2011
Sitting through Pollock will test the limits of your patience. I admire Ed Harris for taking on the persona of such a complicated individual, but all I saw throughout the entire film was Ed Harris acting drunk and dripping paint. First, Harris was far too old at 49/50 to be playing a man we are supposed to believe is in his 30s and early 40s. Harris' performance was so overshadowed by his admiration for Pollock and his art that it marred the entire film. Marcia Gay Harden certainly deserved her Oscar for her performance as Lee Krasner--the most developed character in the film--but again, the actress was too old for the role. It is two hour biopic that barely touched the surface of a man's extremely complicated relationship with his family, friends, and the art world. A very disappointing film overall.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Worst Simpsons movie ever!
9 July 2008
I have the lingering taste of a chutney Squishee in my mouth.

One look at the writing credits for this film and it's plainly obvious why it stinks. Too many writers, too much "let's throw in another gag for no apparent reason". Subplots were inexplicably abandoned, gags became unbearable visual references, a la "Family Guy", and the overall plot became incredibly outrageous, even for "The Simpsons". And, I hated that Marge used inappropriate language; it simply wasn't funny.

Perhaps the film is a better experience if you chew peyote, listen to Johnny Cash, and dream of your favorite "Treehouse of Horror" episode while trying to forget that you're watching the WORST SIMPSONS MOVIE EVER! There, I said it. Put that on a t-shirt M.G. and I'll buy it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chicago (2002)
1/10
A dog
20 October 2003
How anyone could find anything of merit in this piece of celluloid tripe is beyond comprehension. Why it won the Academy Award for Best Picture is a complete mystery. The music is incredibly dated, the acting is flat, and not one sympathetic moment can be offered to a single character. It's generally a bad idea to make a film from a stage musical, it's even worse to make a film from a BAD stage musical. Let's all pray that this dog of a movie isn't responsible for the resurrection of the film musical genre.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Yawn!
27 May 2003
What an amazingly boring piece of tripe! Isn't it sad when the most interesting characters in a movie aren't the main characters? With Lawrence Fishburne looking more and more like Marlon Brando every year, it's not surprising that he didn't have many physical scenes in the film (just imagine how much special effects to get his fat butt moving would cost!). I can't say much about the chemistry between Neo and Trinity either--maybe that's because there isn't any! The fight scene with the multiple Mr. Smiths was interesting for the first 5 minutes...the last 20 minutes of this fight scene were, well...boring as hell. The truly sad thing about this film is that I actually got interested in it about 30 minutes before it ended. I wish I had been able to see (and pay for) that much of the film. I want my $5 back!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why, oh, Why?
18 June 2001
Take an infinite number of monkeys, give them an infinite number of typewriters and and infinite amount of time and one of them will write Hamlet. Yet it took five monkeys to write this GARBAGE!

An impossibly bad plot with no explanation of what the "Illuminati" intend to do with the infinite power of time once it's in their control. Action sequences shot with such confusion that at several points I was hoping one of the millions of fired bullets would leap out of the screen and put me out of my misery.

A terrible movie and a great disappointment.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Matrix (1999)
7/10
Digital wretching for the masses.
5 November 1999
Special effects do not make a movie (proof: ID4, The Lost World, Lost in Space, etc., etc. ad nauseum). The Matrix is proof that you don't need a good script or decent actors to have a movie as long as you get shots--digitally or traditionally--which no one else has ever used. The plot is dense and the acting appalling. Nice soundtrack and exceptional digital sound effects made the movie tolerable. Forget the hype with this one and save yourself some money.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Food for the soul.
5 November 1999
In this age of megabudgets, digital wizardry, and mindnumbingly bad plots, A Feast at Midnight stands out as a refreshing alternative.

The story is one that anyone can relate to whether or not you ever attended a British public school. Friendship, love, and the desire to break out of "establishment" boundaries make this film so much fun to watch for children and adults. It's also nice to see Christopher Lee playing a charming villain.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Siege (1998)
6/10
Predictable tripe.
18 November 1998
Once again, Hollywood has given us the product of a meatgrinder industry. With characters and a plot so predictable, I felt as if the audience was under siege by the implausibility of the whole story. Granted, the director and writers did take great care not to stereotype all Islamic Arabs as "bad guys" and that was refreshing. The hasty, contrived ending destroyed any credibility the movie had.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed