Reviews

15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
The weakest of the three to date
12 October 2005
The Prisoner of Azkaban tries to dazzle us with action, suspense, and special effects. These elements, I believe, take away from the character development that made the first two Harry Potter movies worth watching. This one feels a bit more like a video game than a movie, trying to cram as much excitement in as little space as possible. This is probably a great movie for children, but it fails to draw in discriminating adults the way the previous installments had. In the next installments, I can only hope the director reduces the tempo and pays more attention to the individual characters. I know this is difficult considering the length of the books they are drawing from. Nevertheless, cutting vast sections of the book's plot may make for a stronger, more intelligent film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Eddie at his almost best
9 February 2004
I never meant to become an addict, but somehow the compulsive need to quote Eddie Izzard developed gradually after seeing Dress to Kill for the first time a few years ago. There is a cult following of Mr. Izzard, and it is really distressing to see GenXers quoting his every joke to death. It's not only distressing--but it's annoying, too. The problem is, I'm as guilty as anybody else.

He sucks you in. You watch it once and you laugh. You watch it again and you nod and laugh hysterically. The third, fourth, fifth time you watch it, you start saying his jokes along with him--and you STILL laugh. After a while, you start playing the CD or DVD out of habit, or when friends come over. Before you know it, you're busting a gut every time you see a squirrel eating a grapefr-- I mean a nut.

But as much as I hate to criticize other Eddie Izzard fans, I think there is an actual problem when we call him an intellectual. I don't mean to be elitist, but Mr. Izzard is far from the intellegencia! A critic once commented that Izzard's strength is not his depth of knowledge, but rather his breadth. Just be careful when you comment on how intellectual his comedy is. You really risk sounding kind of--sorry, but--unlearned.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
New Nightmare (1994)
6/10
Better than most, but not nearly as good as the first
23 July 2003
Everyone who posts reviews on The Nightmare series will say the same thing about Freddy: he was scary in the first movie, but became a lame one-liner as the series progressed. The New Nightmare, however, let Freddy be as frightening as he had ever been. In fact, he was probably a darker figure than he had been even in the first installment. The frightening villain coupled with a rather outstanding plot made this movie very watchable. Sadly, however, the script was weak in too many areas to mention and the directing made it feel more like a USA Special than a big time horror movie. Also, Wes seemed to be a sort of omniscent observer, especially towards the end of the movie, and that just didn't work. It was too hokey to work into a movie that suposedly took place in the real world.

But if you loved the first Nightmare and rue the day the others were made, see watch this movie and enjoy. Just don't expect too much and you'll be sufficiantly spooked at bed time. -Joshua White
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hamlet (II) (2000 TV Movie)
9/10
My Favorite Hamlet
18 July 2003
My mother found this movie in a discount bin at Wal-Mart and, knowing I'm an English major, sent it to me from Maine to Arkansas. I picked it up in my mailbox and brought it with me to my Shakespeare class. My professor got a kick out of it, 'cause Shakespeare is his concentration and he'd never heard of this adaptation. He made fun of it a bit, calling it my "Hallmark Hamlet." We all teased the innocent movie for a while and I tucked it away while we went on discussing King Lear.

Well, I didn't have a TV or VCR in the dorms, so I tucked it away for a while; I knew full well that there was no way my girlfriend was going to let me use her VCR (which I had actually leant to her) to watch a Shakespeare film other than A Midsummer Night's Dream. But when I finally did get my own place and took my VCR back, the first thing I did was put in my Hallmark Hamlet and press play.

At first I couldn't help but make fun of the campy acting, but the more I watched, the more I bought the lines they spoke. There is something very odd about this adaptation which I haven't found in any other Shakespeare movies: the acting is totally phony and yet paradoxically believable at the same time. The expressions on the actors faces along with the varying tones in their speech (except a dreadful Laertes) really spoonfeeds the viewer the material without dumbing down the language.

Most people will admit, I think, that Shakespeare was never really a plot man. Most of his plots were actually driven by some goofy storylines. It was his dialogue that made him the legend that he is. Most Shakespeare films I've seen are so interested in making the acting as fluent and realistic as possible that they neglect the actual lines. They fly through verse after verse the way we would in modern conversation without giving the language time to marinate in our gooey gray matter. Campbell Scott's Hamlet really does slow everything down to a pace that actually allows meditation on the lines.

Other comments about the movie--the anachronisms (spelling?) work well and I loved Hamilton's Ophelia. When she sings her little lunatic song, it really breaks your heart. They really shouldn't have cut as many of her lines as they did. Oh, but I've got to say the second Ghost scene was more annoying than intense. I didn't really understand why the ghost would want to put his son through the pain he himself suffered, and the high pitched ringing drove me insane. That said, the idea of having the hand come up from below when they were swearing the oath, that was just cool. But anyway, I need to get back to my book. I was hoping to finish The Life and Death of King John acts 1 and 2 by the time my girlfriend got home. Later!
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hamlet (1948)
If this is as good as Olivier gets...
20 April 2003
This is the first film I have seen featuring Laurence Olivier and, I hate to say, I wasn't impressed. He seemed stiff as Hamlet; he is reluctant to commit to the insanity which Hamlet fakes at first from which he ultimately suffers. Unless I simply missed it, the Gildenstern and Rosencrantz scene was omitted and what a shame! If it was included and I missed it, that just shows how little weight they gave it. Also they failed to acknowledge the cruelty with which Hamlet regards the murder of Polonius. I'm no great critic, but I thought Olivier missed the boat. If this is as good as Olivier gets, I'm surprised he's as well regarded as he is.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not a horrible movie
6 March 2003
I am an English major working towards graduate school with concentrations on Milton, Donne, and Hawthorne. I think my comments on the movie should hold a little water. The truth is, the movie isn't that bad. The acting is okay and so is the setting and music. The only major problem with this movie is the title. I feel naming it after Hawthorne's novel is somewhat offensive. But on it's own, it's really not that bad.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hamlet (1996)
Was This Really Hamlet?
1 March 2003
I will admit that I have not seen this movie--only a couple scenes. I'm an English major studying Shakespeare and my professor brought the movie in for us to see. Dr. Pastoor seems to think the depiction of Hamlet himself was great, but I thought it was silly. Hamlet is methodical, thoughtful, and above all things slow. In this adaptation he seemed to bounce off the walls like a sort of manic psychiatric patient (and I have known my share of them). This may sound silly, but I picture David Schwimmer (mind my spelling) as the perfect Hamlet. Think about that for a bit and you might see what I mean. But then again, like I said, I've never seen the movie. -Joshua White
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystery Men (1999)
8/10
Anyone Remember "The State" on MTV?
9 February 2003
The other night, my girlfriend and I were watching some old clips from MTV's "The State." I was busting a gut at all those characters that I had watched back in High School. But sketch after sketch, Becky just stared at the screen with something between a wince and a smile weighing down her face.

Mystery Men is the same way. It is not only a parody of superhero movies; it is a parody of all movies that take themselves too seriously. The utterly human dialogue is a deadpan riot in the midst of Burton-esque backdrops and a Hollywood story.

To rank a movie, you have to judge the difficulty of the genre and then decide how well the movie accomplished the goals of that genre. Mystery Men was not trying to be Sling Blade, so it can't be rated as highly as an Oscar producing flick. But what it does, it does well. 7.5 out of 10.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rocky IV (1985)
7/10
Underrated
2 February 2003
This movie is painfully underrated. Maybe people don't like it because the hero of a decade has fallen. But Rocky did not belong in a mansion. He belonged in his old neighborhood. Didn't we all know that? Didn't we all wince when Rock "became civilized"? Rocky V brings Rocky back to his old haunts; he even wears some of his old clothes. Granted, it is probably the most painful Rocky movie to watch, but this is only pathos--not flaws in the film.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Family Ties (1982–1989)
The Generation Gap
17 January 2003
The generation gap between the flower children and the gen-xers makes is roughly equal to the gap in letterman's teeth to the fiftieth power. Dennis Miller once said something along the lines of "it's no wonder generation x feels short changed. They showed up at the party and all that's left is some sausages and a half empty Zima." Well, that's where Alex came in. Granted, he's an early x-er, but an x-er through and through. He, like many people coming of age in the eighties, felt the responsibility of stepping up the the plate after his parents refused to bat. Sometimes his character went too far, but usually he was one with whom most could identify. We all remember that episode where his buddy dies in a car crash and he goes to the shrink? How could anybody forget that? And the one where he gets hooked on the pills? I think that was where he first showed who was going to make the show a hit. The other characters in the show were great, too. Malarie, Jennifer, Alise and Steven all had a truly rare chemistry. But Malarie and Jennifer (and later Andrew) never really developed any depth of character. In fact, Alex and Alise were the only ones who were fully dynamic. Perhaps that is why they played off each other so well. They gave their all every time they shared the stage and we could feel the pain when they hurt--the comfort when they hugged. But I'm rambling, I know. One more thing...I never cried so during a last episode the way I did at the final Family Ties.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Today's Special (1981–1987)
Gertrude
12 January 2003
Anyone else remember this song?

Gertrude ol' girl My hearts in a whirl 'Cause these goodbyes Are hard to combine. I'll try not to cry As we say goodbye.

Sam and Jody sang that at the car dealership when Sam was trading in his old car for a newer model. The dealer rolled his eyes, but for Sam and the kids at home, this was serious trauma! I guess that's why I still remember it. Oh, but it ended happily. Sam got the new car and Jody bought back the old one.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great movie
12 January 2003
I'm really surprised at how little respect people have for this movie. I could be wrong, but it seems to be the ideal movie for any Vietnam vet looking for an outlet to his frustration. The government used Rambo the way many soldiers must have felt used. If this movie is nothing more than a tiny way of saying "we're sorry you had to go through that," then the movie deserves all the respect we can muster.
73 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pleasantville (1998)
7/10
My goodness...
15 December 2002
Pleasantville is morally reprehensible and builds its theme around false dichotomies. They create a world in which abstinence is bland and promiscuity is exciting. Maybe this is the way some or most people feel these days. Some people, however, feel that traditional morality isn't diametrically opposed to variety, love, and passion. This movie tries to make conservatives into an unruly mob; it is truly offensive. Men are stereotyped to a negative extreme--well, all but one. The one man who isn't wicked sleeps with another man's wife. This movie is post-modern to an evil extreme and I wince every time I think of it. But this is where our culture is going. But what can ya do, right? Just love 'em.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Yeah, it's good. But...
22 November 2002
The books were great. So was the movie. I loved every minute of it. But that's the problem. We are so ready to give this movie an 8, 9, or even 10 because the movie gave us exactly what we wanted at every turn. It was that pandering to the world that made me think twice about two-dimentional praise. The Godfather, Fight Club, Full Metal Jacket--these are movies that demand something from the viewer. They require one to make an educated evaluation of conflicts presented. There is very little room for personal interpretation in The Fellowship of the Ring. The cinematography and casting, however, were excellent and I don't think I've seen a more thoroughly enjoyable film since Willow. Let me put it as simply as possible: The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) is to To Kill a Mockingbird (movie) as The Fellowship of the Ring (book) is to To Kill a Mockingbird (book). With just relativity, I can hardly give The Fellowship higher than 6/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Just rent it!
23 March 2002
I remember renting this movie with my roommate a few years back. We were just looking for a cheap slasher film to go along with a few beers. By the end of the movie, my roommate was disgusted with the horrible acting and pathetic cinematography. I, on the other hand, couldn't stop laughing! It was so bad that I'd recommend it to everyone just to get a good laugh. And the end...I won't tell you what happens...but OH MY GOODNESS that was cheesey! Cheesey, but worth seeing. -Joshua White
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed