Minstrelman

When I first heard this title advertised, I had a VERY skeptical response. But as the film neared its premiere I began to get more and more curious. And once I found out that Tim Burton was producing, and I saw a few previews, I had to see it.

As expected, the special effects were great. The 3-D was particularly good. The story was exciting and kept my attention. I also thought the make-up effects were very good (Mary Todd didn't age well, but Lincoln was awesome). But I found my mind wandering so much, that I had trouble just enjoying the movie.

The problem I have is that I have always been critical of "historical" films. They are NEVER accurate, and it drives me crazy. Now, I know that this is not a historical film, but I found myself thinking through my knowledge, as limited as it is, of the history around the story--and I was being critical! I kept having to remind myself that this was FICTION!!! Well, this was my loss--I was unable to enjoy this movie, even with the exciting action and story. I think it may have been a better story with a less recognizable historical personality--but then the story wouldn't have been the same at all. Catch 22.

I finally got to see this film. I thought I would be bored with it, and I am a little disgusted with Polanski as a person. I know, I shouldn't let my personal feelings about actors, directors, or Hollywood in general effect how I view a film, but it does sometimes. That didn't happen here.

Not only is the acting amazing, but the cinematography, the realistic sets, the physical appearance of Brody, the cruelty and disregard by the Nazis--it all made me feel like I was actually there. I was especially impressed with the technique of allowing us to see through the eyes of Szpilman. At times, I felt like I could feel his heartbeat and fear. It was so palpable that my wife couldn't watch the entire film. She had to leave because of the overwhelming emotions she was feeling.

It is so engaging. I highly recommend it.

I haven't seen "Slumdog", "Frost/Nixon", "Benjamin Button", "Milk", or "The Reader" yet, but they must be amazing for this movie to not be nominated for Best Picture!

When this film was over I just sat staring at the credits. I'm usually already looking for my next activity when a movie is over--food, email, sleep, whatever. This one left me numb. I couldn't get away from it. I started watching the special feature documentaries just to get more answers. I wanted to feel better about what had happened. The funny thing is I saw the outcome about 10 minutes before the end, but I still couldn't believe it ended that way. It was "bound to happen," but I didn't want it to be true. I kept thinking, "Something will stop this," but it didn't.

The script, the research behind the story, the strength of the two young leads, the adult supporting actors, the paradox of joviality and cruelty in the same house... it all made for an amazing piece of film. I highly recommend this for any serious film junkie.

This movie was really different--part comedy, part documentary, part character study. I loved the quick cuts--it was what kept me watching. The acting was stiff, but it was supposed to be stylized like a 5th grade play (or at least I assume it was).

The cameos actually took away from the film a little bit for me. They were fun, but they took me out of the moment. They were too "clever" for the rest of the film. I was more interested in the strange circumstances that caused these guys to first become acquaintances, then reluctant roommates, and eventually, friends. So the cameos were a little distracting. (I have to admit, though, that the Kevin Bacon cameo alluding to "6 degrees" was really funny).

Overall, I enjoyed the 90 minutes or so of this experience. In other words, I was entertained, and that's all that really matters, right?

"You have been activate." Sounds scary, but I've heard it before. "What are you doing, Dave?" Ring any bells? Or how about, "You can not be trusted with your own survival." From HAL to V.I.K.I. this is definitely not something new. A smooth, calm computerized voice predicting the doom and destruction of humanity as if it were announcing the time and date of a Wimbledon tennis match. But the action and thrills were very entertaining--almost enough to keep my mind off of all the "homages" in this film. Spielberg even managed to steal from himself with the water moat around the computer bringing up memories of "Minority Report."

My 15 year old son who is not as familiar with these movies seemed to fair fine with the continuous adrenaline ride. I actually found some of the action a little too realistic and hard to see on the screen because of the constant jerking and moving of the camera, but it was not boring.

Because this was indeed entertaining, I gave it a 6. Imagine if it had been boring?

There are some movies I just put in when I want to be entertained but not have to think too much. I love this movie for that purpose! Not to say that it doesn't cause some cerebral response, but it's just fun to watch! Frank just keeps slipping through all the nooses, and Tom Hanks' portrayal of Carl Hanratty is probably one of the most overlooked performances of his career while being one of his best (and he has some pretty good ones out there).

One of my favorite things about this movie is the opening credits. It's unbelievable that anyone would like the opening credits, but it brings back memories of my early adolescence when I learned to love movies watching the late night showings of Martin and Lewis on Fridays and Saturdays on my local network affiliates. The 60's styling during the opening credits just creates a wave of nostalgia that causes me to really enjoy. And I love the score. It's perfect for this type of intrigue.

The only negative thing that I saw in the movie is the stretch of age that DiCaprio has to pull off. I think he does so on an emotional level, but, physically, it's hard to believe him as a 14 year old at the beginning of the film.

If you haven't seen this one, it's worth the purchase price of the special edition DVD. Grab it before it gets away!

Pleasantly surprised! Of course, Rocky is one of the great characters of American cinema, so it's always heartwarming to see him on screen. But this is definitely one of the best films of the series and a good capper to the story.

When I first heard about this film, I had visions of the joke from Airplane II (you know, the poster in the airport of Rocky XXXIII). But I loved this movie! It's at least as good as Rocky II and almost as good as the original. Burt Young is great as usual and Stallone gives his best performance in a while.

This one is worth the time. It's warm, entertaining, and flows well. All together now... ROCKY!! ROCKY!! ROCKY!!

I have been an M. Night Shyamalan apologist for a while now. Everyone loved "The Sixth Sense." Most people loved "Unbreakable." Then it starts to slip. I loved "Signs" and really loved "The Village" (that one's theme of "the good old days" hit close to home for me), but some didn't. I didn't like "Lady and in the Water," but my wife did. I figured it just wasn't my cup of tea (the whole fairy tale thing), and I thought Night had too big a part (he's not a terribly good actor). But it had a good concept and some quality actors and some very good performances so there was some forgiveness from me. With this movie, I am no longer coming to his defense. OK. I know he doesn't need me to, but I'm looking for much better from him next time out.

I was a little generous and gave this title a 5 out of 10 because the first half of the movie was actually pretty good! The first 30-45 minutes were tense and kept me on edge as any good suspense movie should. It built in some questions as to what was causing the "happening," and caused me to jump in my seat a few times. There were some okay performances from Wahlberg and Deschanel and a couple of great performances from Leguizamo and Buckley (she reminded me of Kathy Bates in Misery a little with her out-of-touch intensity). I was also very impressed by the performance from Jeremy Strong as Private Auster, and Spencer Breslin caused a disagreement between myself and my wife--it was hard to recognize him since he grew up some and did not overact as usual! But the second half of the movie just fizzled. There were very few tense moments since we knew what was coming every time the wind blew and someone stared into space and took 2 steps backwards. And the explanation for the cause came too early in the film so the questioning pretty much ended. There was no real climax in the story. Two people standing in a wind-blown field is not very exciting (and their romance was even more boring). It would have been acceptable for the pre-attack warning to be wind-blown grass for a low budget, independent film, but Night used ILM for his special effects. ILM!! And wind blowing through the trees was the best they could do? Then in the end it was just a long, "green" environmentalist guilt trip. Now, maybe my right-leaning political viewpoint taints my feelings a little, but who wants to sit in a movie theater and be guilt-ed by a suspenseful thriller--especially when there was very little suspense or thrill? (By the way, it takes a lot of electrical energy, fuel, and petroleum-based film to make a movie, but that's an entry for a different type of website.) And the worst thing? I sometimes use my watch to time the actual running time (without credits) of a film. It felt like hours and it was only 86 minutes! Unbelievable from Night--I'm usually riveted throughout any of his movies.

Night, you're my boy, but you really missed bad with this one!

In order to be fair, I first have a disclaimer: I am a literal Bible believing, literal 7-day, young earth Creationist. Of course that made the material in the movie easier for me to accept without having a reason to reject the movie out of hand. If the tables were reversed, I would probably be less inclined to see the movie, and if I did see it, I would probably not be very objective. So I understand some of the anger and response. When you are convinced or "converted" to a mindset, it is very difficult to be objective about ideas that challenge that paradigm.

But keep in mind even in this case, I would have some difficulties with some of the ID folks, especially the ones who are apologists for a "God directed" evolutionary process or the "aliens seeded us" ideas. So I wasn't necessarily thrilled with all of the intellectual contents of the movie. I actually thought it would be more about the arguments on each side of the issue when it was really intended to show the dangers of suppressing valid theories, ideas, and discourse in a classroom and/or teaching setting. Keeping that in mind, I believe the movie did exactly what it was intended to do, not what I was expecting it to do, and did it well.

Remember, this is a movie review! In this case, the movie is a documentary, but, still, it is a movie. Whether or not you agree with the purpose or obvious intention, I thought it did a good job of putting forth its premise and eventually coming to its conclusion in an entertaining fashion. I enjoyed the music, the use of historic footage, and I thought the emotions that it stirred made it effective as well.

I also thought that Ben Stein did a really good job at the interviews by remaining, for the most part, objective and challenging people on both sides of the issues on their own agendas. Ben Stein also allowed those individuals to follow their own line of thinking in their answers, culminating with Richard Dawkins "hanging himself" with his own words by allowing the possibility that life started as an alien seeding. Of course, I thoroughly enjoyed watching him squirm in that moment in the film considering my own prejudices in this matter, but I thought Ben also acted fairly by challenging the Creation Institute folks as well and their own religious agendas. It was also impressive and effective to me that he started with a Darwinian biologist that has been ostracized not because of what he believes but because he allowed the discussion of the alternative in his publication at the Smithsonian.

Of course one of the objectives of this film was to show what could happen if this situation of the suppression of ideas remains unchecked in academia. The idea that Darwinian theory helped the cause of both fascism and communism should not be in question. I was taught in college (many moons ago, as my grandfather would say) that "social Darwinism" was a major contributor to the philosophies of the Nazis and the dictatorial powers of the Soviet Union and other communist and fascist countries. In those cases, we see the extremes of that argument not only in the elimination (murdering) of those that are the "weakest" in society but also in the elimination of those that oppose the "party line." But extremes are what we are talking about here. Ben Stein is not saying that we will become a fascist nation, but he is merely pointing to one of the historic results of this line of evolutionary thinking. Most Germans would not have believed themselves capable of participating in a regime like Hitler's 20 years before many of them did just that.

When an academic line of thought that is not proved by evidence becomes so dominant that any challenging theory is not only dismissed but banned from discussion, you get into the danger zone of following the same paths as the Nazis or other radical organizations. We don't do this in most other areas of academic study. For example, we live in the United States under a democratic republic unlike most others in the world. However, all government and political science study courses that I know of routinely discuss the attributes and the pros and cons of all other forms of government including dictatorships, monarchies, communism, and parliamentary democracy, most of which are unacceptable alternatives to us. It is an open discussion examining the results and histories of all of these types of governments. Even mathematics and physics, academic areas generally ruled by absolutes based on proved, accepted and sometimes pre-supposed facts, have areas of discipline based on imaginary numbers, inductive reasoning, string theory, quantum theories, black holes, and other theoretically based ideas, all of which are unprovable at our current state of understanding.

There is evidence that supports the ideas behind Darwin's belief system concerning the origin of species, but the conclusions (knowing a little bit about Darwin himself) are based on the beginning supposition that there is no creator. The same is true of ID or Creationism; there are suppositions in those thoughts as well. Any logical argument must begin with accepted truths. In other words, if "a=b" and "a=c" then the truth of "b=c" can only be accepted if we know for certain the value of "a," the point where we began. For both Darwinian evolution and for creationism the value of "a" is actually assumed and unable to be known for certain at this point of our knowledge. The point to Ben Stein's thought process and the movie is just this: let's keep the discussion and debate open at least until the truth of "a" can be determined for sure. It's right and fair for everyone!

Well, many have said this was an awful picture, but I have to totally disagree. I was absolutely entertained and intrigued with this picture. It was not as frightening as Night's other films, but the theme of the picture was something that we have all thought about--the good old days.

Simpler times is something that in our over-active, over-worked and over-materialized world we have all wanted. But it may come with a price.

That's all I better say without giving away too much, but I will leave you with one last thing--it is well worth the viewing.

Can you believe that there is a successful movie that has none of the major Hollywood tried and true methods to create a lasting memory? This film is a major triumph that still creates a stir in me every time I see it. It's power is not in the visual images created, (although much of the cinematography is imaginative, especially the last shot from the coat closet, even with the challenge of one major room), but in the drama created by the tension of men coming together from all walks of lives to judge another human being. They bring their prejudices, their fear, their life experiences, their lack of interest, and their anonymity into a room to make a decision--that's when the real story starts.

We all think about the possibility of having to face that day--some relish the opportunity while others fear making a bad decision. It's one reason this film resonates with so many people. It's a common experience that brings out different emotions in different people. The remake, although not as effective because of the lack of originality, is also good and brings in other points of view, including racial issues. Both lack one thing--a female's point of view! But that creates even more tension. After all, men don't want to deal with their emotions the same way women do. Besides, we would have to change the title! :o)

I originally saw this film when it came out on video in 2001, and I was very disappointed. But I couldn't figure out why. Initially I thought it was just that old nagging nostalgia that plagues us all. But I am not a huge fan of animated film, so this didn't seem to fit since I never really liked the cartoon version that well in the first place. It hit me while watching the 1951 version of "Scrooge" starring Alastair Sim. This version has little redemption!

The back story created to fill time in this version ends up (possibly unintentionally) blaming the Whos for the Grinch's general grouchiness and meanness. But deep inside we all want a truly evil creature (someone evil for no particular reason) to be redeemable. It helps us feel that we are also redeemable. This version of the story takes the typical Western "politically correct" position that no one is bad for no particular reason--that someone besides the perpetrator is responsible for the actions of the perpetrator. But even Dr. Seuss seems to think that some people are bad for no particular reason as evidenced by the original version.

Christmas is a time for redemption. The whole reason for the celebration is the redemption of mankind. And deep inside we all know that we need to be redeemed, even if we aren't as bad as the Grinch.

This one was a lot of fun to watch. Not a particularly relevant movie, but what is entertainment for anyway? And it's not the kind of sophomoric, crude humor that can make you feel embarrassed about enjoying it.

I particular enjoyed Billy Bob Thornton. He is a master thespian. He brings you on a ride into the psyche of any of the characters that he creates, and it is usually a fun trip. Bruce Willis is solid as usual and doesn't get in the way of the story.

I thought the twist at the end was just a little too unbelievable, but it was (again to overuse the word) fun! This movie is definitely worth a couple of hours to watch.

Well, this film is entertaining. It is well thought out. It is well written. It is well directed. And it is well acted. However, it did not come up to my expectations. Maybe this is because I had really high expectations. At any event, I was a little disappointed with the final outcome.

I think that one of the reasons is that there was so much time watching Detective Anderton going through the recorded images of the Pre-Cogs, waving his hands around with his fingers sticking out, or watching him jump from vehicle to vehicle on the magnetic car highway, or the wall projected images from the "PC" in Anderton's home. This seemed to me to be more about Spielberg's image of the future than about a very good crime drama. I think that's where the film lost me. I also thought the CGI images weren't very good. I would have expected better.

Maybe a second viewing will change my mind, but this one is worth seeing at a matinee, not at a full price showing.

Fast Eddie Felson is one of the all-time great anti-heroes. He is a drifter who is arrogant and has used many people in his life to get where he is. But when where he is is nowhere, he grows up. He learns the value of lost opportunity, and he gains integrity at a high price. It is worth a look for anyone who wants to see the redemption of a lovable curmudgeon.

Well, this one is a nice ride, but there is very little there. The director's cut (DVD)is definitely better, in my opinion, than the theatrical release was. The romance was definitely intriguing, and I especially appreciated that it was not about sex! (Too much of that in movies anyway.) The comedy was well done, and most of the acting was very good, if not excellent. Once again, though, it seems that Meg Ryan is playing.....Meg Ryan. A good role, but overdone. I haven't seen "Signs of Life" yet, so that may change my mind.

The main problem I had was in the continuity of the film. James Mangold says in the commentary on the DVD that he did not want to confuse the audience with the Sci-Fi aspects of time travel, so he didn't spend a lot of time trying to explain it. That's all well and good, but you need to think through it yourself before putting it into a movie. It is central to the plot of the movie! Without the time travel, Kate and Leopold never meet. If they never meet, then there is no story! How can Kate be in pictures taken by Stuart if she doesn't arrive in the past until after Stuart leaves the past????? Why would a nurse risk her job and let Stuart out of the hospital over his dog and rainbow speech???? It was pretty lame (imaginative but not very coherent).

Even if he didn't want to explain every nuance of time travel to his audience, Mr. Mangold should have thought through the specifics himself. Maybe he didn't try to explain because he didn't get it himself?

Anyway, a good romantic rental, but don't expect too much.

This one kept me on the edge wondering how it would all get tied together in the end. It felt like it would leave me with a sense of awe at the solution to the puzzle. And, BOY, it did not disappoint. Although for me it tied together well, it is one of those films that allows the viewer the luxury of watching it again and seeing many more layers and possible solutions to the puzzle laid before you. The acting was great, with the possible exception of Penelope Cruz in a few scenes. (I felt she played a little too much on her foreign intrigue rather than true acting skill in a couple of spots [Just a very few spots]).

One of the players that I feel may have gotten overlooked was Cameron Diaz. She was TOTALLY believable, even when she seemed to flip from playful to deadly serious in the blink of an eye--and she did evil very well. Tom Cruise is one of the most overlooked actors in Hollywood, in my opinion. He is always solid and is much more than a pretty face. Unfortunately, he is usually surrounded by bundles of talent (Jerry Maguire, Rainman) and oftens get overlooked. This is probably his best delivery in his career as of yet. And Jason Lee holds his own. He is not over-powered by the "beautiful" people he is surrounded by.

Cameron Crowe is a masterful storyteller, and I am glad he does not just go for the easy quick Hollywood fix. Too many movies today are just predictable--entertaining the first time you watch, but nothing to go back for later. Vanilla Sky definitely makes you want to go back for seconds.

This is in response to the review that david-345 wrote: Don't take yourself too seriously! My wife and I homeschool our little boy, and he was having trouble learning to read. He was just not interested enough to put in the effort to really learn. My sister-in-law, a first-grade public school teacher, suggested that we begin watching "Between the Lions." She uses the show in her classroom sometimes.

After we began watching it, my little boy began to become much more interested in reading. He began to see the value in reading. He went from a beginning reading level to reading at 2nd grade level in less than 6 months. He especially related to the "boy" lion, Lionel. He even asked for a Lionel stuffed toy recently. This seems to be because he enjoyed the show! He was very entertained by the skits, and the repetition allowed him to learn more quickly.

I think it is arrogance to view a child's television program with the same type of standards as that of an adult. Often children like things that are "obnoxious" to adults. And in this case, I personally find many of the characters entertaining. The "Chicken Jane" clips are a great parody of the old "Dick and Jane" series. And, although annoying to me, my little boy loves the Cliffhanger character.

It's also great how they introduce other cultural aspects from around the world to children, and they usually stray away from the trap of many shows that preach political correctness to indoctrinate children.

In short, the show is effective, and entertaining to children. Therefore, it is a great show.

One of my all-time favorite romantic movies. It's filled with a wonderful story of a love coming a little late for a lady who thinks love won't be coming at all. The story is also to the background of a wonderful culture within New York in the Italian-American community. This plus the Dean Martin music makes for a most romantic and comic tale that is sure to warm the heart.

I was very surprised at this movie. Not only did it contain some big names, but most of the actors turned in good, if not great, performances. It was a much better production than last years "Omega Code" movie, although the special effects were not as good. The script was compelling and easy to follow. The story was gripping. Kirk Cameron surprised me with his performance, and I felt that Clarence Gilyard Jr. gave an excellent, convincing performance as the preacher who became aware that he was a fraud. His heartfelt confession and request for forgiveness made me think. I look forward to more movies in the series, and I may even read the books!

Although not a great example of cohesive film making, this film is a great example of what can be done when fun is included in the making of a piece of entertainment. This is also a great platform for Jim Varney's great talent for range and voices. He plays almost every character, and it is great fun to watch him go from the bumbling Ernest to Uncle Lloyd, the meanest man in the world, to the dozen or so characters he does as Corporal Davey Worrell. Come on, it's just for fun. If you find it, rent it, and prepare to belly laugh. Jim Varney will be missed. We need more of that silliness in Hollywood today.

Although a musical, Fiddler is not just another "cutesy" musical. It is an in depth look at a man dealing with his traditions in changing times in pre-Communist Russia where he is persecuted as a Jew. Others in the story are also dealing with duty and expectations while trying to deal with the changes around them. The musical format unfortunately has had a bad rap in recent years, but it helps to make the story less harsh and more palatable. In the end, Fiddler leaves viewers, who take the time to listen and watch, asking questions about themselves, such as their own ability to be tolerant of others and their ability to hold on to their identity in the midst of chaos. Fiddler is a real entertaining and intellectually challenging few hours that are well worth it.