nunyerbiz

I know, I know... I'm sure I'm going to get destroyed over this review. Anything under eight stars for a Pixar movie is blasphemy! While I thought TS3 was an entertaining two hours... it just wasn't quite up to par with the first two entries from the trilogy.

The opening and ending dealing with Andy growing up and the toys outliving their usefulness to their owner was well done Pixar heartstring tugging... no complaints there. The middle act, which boiled down to a prison break movie, was a bit dull despite all the Pixar eye-candy trying to convince me otherwise. There were some gags to be had, a funny turn by Potato Head needing to use real vegetables, some thin and obvious (but still humorous) banter between Barbie and Ken and the now required shtick of Buzz Lightyear getting reset to various memory-wiped settings... but in general the middle 60 minutes of the film just seemed oddly disconnected from the rest. The end result was an odd sandwich effect, with the bread on either end actually being much more enjoyable then the meat in the middle.

While I'm certainly not trying to slag the movie, I don't think 7/10 is anything approaching a hatchet job, I found this one to be clearly a level below the two films that preceded it. Pixar didn't waste the magic they built up with TS1 / TS2... but they certainly didn't expand on it either.

Ohh... he likes Fellini! And speaks in an impossibly pretentious style that only "I'm smarter than you" 16 year olds even attempt to get away with... It's as if the screenwriter conformed to every rule in the "How to Make a Quirky Non-Conformist Teen Movie in Three Easy Steps!" handbook.

Things start out promising enough, the premise is hardly original, but it's presented with the right amount of deadpan flair that is required from these types of films. The narration from Cera is well delivered, the supporting cast gets some chuckles, all signs point to another 90 minutes of pseudo-intellectual, but enjoyable, Juno-like fluff.

Then the romance starts... and really... everything just goes downhill from here. Both Cera's and Doubleday's characters come across as manipulative, borderline sociopathic faux-hipsters. I had very little sympathy for either of them... but I'm well outside the age demographic that this movie was shooting for. I'm perfectly fine admitting that I can't relate to the pretentiousness of the romance presented.

There are some laughs to be had, some good one-liners delivered and some capable work from the supporting actors, but it's just not enough. This one just sort of lingers, seemingly lasting for much longer than the 90 minute running time. Characters and subplots sort of appear only to sputter out, which is a common flaw in movies drawn from books where the screenwriter feels compelled to touch on too many things without being able to properly develop them. In the end, everybody seems like stock characters from the Quirky Movie Playbook as the plot meanders to it's never-in-doubt conclusion. "Youth in Revolt" ultimately comes up short, while it hits all the quirky hipster landmarks, it just doesn't do it with nearly enough humor or focus.

Chimps get shot into space, adventure and self-discovery ensue... You really don't need to know too much more about the plot. Story wise, it's not nearly as fleshed out or satisfying as the "big budget" CGI movies everybody raves about... but it serves it's purpose for the most part. Protagonist learns a valuable lesson and/or sees the error of their ways, good guys come out on top, etc, etc... just the budget version of the same story Pixar has been telling for the last 15 years.

My three and a half year old enjoyed it just fine, it's not knocking Lightning McQueen or Buzz Lightyear of their pedestals... but he's seen this twice and was entertained both times. He asked me multiple questions about what was going on or why a character was doing something, and that's a surefire sign that he's into the movie and not simply zoning out in front of the boobtube.

From an animation standpoint, nothing here is making Pixar nervous... but I'm certainly not going to hold that against anybody. Looney Tunes weren't as technically well done as Fantasia, but Bugs Bunny still made me laugh. Once they get to the alien planet, things take a noticeable downturn... as if they didn't have enough budget to make these scenes to the same quality as the rest of the movie... While I knew this was a budget feature from the get-go, this obvious quality gap within the movie is jarring. The alien world and most of the aliens are just downright unappealing.

With the exception of Jeff Daniels, who seems woefully miscast as an over-the-top alien villain, the rest of the voice cast does their job well. While the dialog has it's share of misses throughout, Adam Sanberg delivers some generally funny lines and Cheryl Hines does capable work as the foil / romantic interest. Patrick Warburton seems to appear in 70% of all animated works lately, and while he's not given much to do, he delivers some gems as well. Outside of an almost unbearable Daniels, the voice work is unobjectionable.

I've sat through this once from start to finish and didn't feel burdened in the least. Sure, it's nothing to write home about... but this isn't horrible either. Three outta five stars for the kids... maybe slightly less for adults with sticks in their behinds...

A silly, juvenile but ultimately likable enough comedy. While it never goes too lowbrow for a cheap laugh, it never really nails anything uproariously funny either. The lead is some guy I've never heard of or seen before and he doesn't do a ton to make himself memorable... but it does feature Chris Walken... And even though he's just hanging around for a paycheck, he's always fun enough in ridiculous roles like the one that's presented here. James Hong also steals some scenes... he is a charter member of the "oh... I know THAT guy! He was great in suchandsuch" Hall of Fame. One of those character actors that you know will deliver capable comic support. Maggie Q is cute as a button and provides some great eye candy, if 85lb Asian chicks in tight workout clothing is your thing...

It's sort of loosely based on "Enter the Dragon" with Ping-Pong instead of Kung Fu... and some Karate Kid thrown in for good measure. Like I said, things never really hit any great comedic heights... But Balls of Fury is a harmless farce that has it's heart in the right place, never trying too hard to please... just enjoying it's lot as a ridiculous little time waster. It's perfectly worthy for an 11pm HBO viewing after you realized you shouldn't have had all that Mountain Dew caffeine with dinner.

Lars (Gosling) is an introvert. He can't connect with other people, unable to make meaningful relationships. After being shown a website for a sex doll, he orders one and kicks off a relationship. The doll can't make him feel uncomfortable and only thinks whatever he wants it to think. The film follows Lars' relationship with his doll and how those around him deal with the situation and eventually help him out of his shell.

Lars and the Real Girl is one of those pseudo-indie movies that get churned out every year for no other reason than Oscar buzz. That stamp is all over Lars and the Real Girl... From Ryan Gosling doing his own twist on a Forest Gump type character to a script that is trying to rip open your chest so it can tug at your heartstrings.

I know that opening sounds a bit condescending and it's probably not totally fair. Lars and the Real Girl does have a lot going for it. In general all of the performances are excellent. Ryan Gosling does a great job with the title role, even if his performance strays into little more than Gump-like mannerisms in many places. Paul Schneider and Emily Schneider are wonderful as the co-leads who must deal most intimately with Lars relationship "issues". The script starts off wonderfully, laying out the premise and introducing a lead character that you can both readily identify with and yet still find peculiar. There is a very heartwarming, if maybe slightly hard to swallow, aspect to how the townspeople all pitch in and do their part to help Lars. This really is a fairly typical "feel good" movie that's been kicked around and painted an off-color of gray in an attempt to gain some "indie cred".

The problems crop up after about 40 minutes of screen time. By then, the script has laid all it's cards on the table. The conclusion is never in question... and there are no twists or revelations to be found. It's just a matter of lumbering along for the next hour while the film hits all the required landmarks before delivering us to the final destination. We are asked to continue paying attention to a character, for scene after scene, that everybody has already completely solved by the midway point of the film. While Gosling is generally excellent in the lead role, the character he is playing just isn't interesting enough to carry the load for so long. Ultimately, the movie buckles under it's own weight well before the final credits roll.

This could have been an excellent short film, but there just wasn't enough script here to justify the feature length running time. I still enjoyed things for the most part... helped primarily by the excellent performances from the cast.

7/10

The premise should be familiar to anyone reading this, but just for the sake of being thorough: A television music composer, Peter Bretter (Segal) gets dumped by his longtime TV star girlfriend (Kristin Bell). This break-up is completely unexpected to Peter and in an effort to get over his failed relationship, he inexplicably winds up vacationing in the same Hawaiin resort as his ex and her new love interest. All is not lost for Peter, as an attractive employee at the resort might just be just what he needed.

Typical of most movies from the Apatow stable, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is somewhat crippled by a script that just can't decide what it wants to do... and ultimately throws everything up on the screen hoping that it all sticks. There is a story here that just about anybody who has ever been dumped can easily relate to, it's just too bad that the gloriously simple premise is under-minded by pointless cameos and subplots and general meanderings that hurt the pace while returning far few laughs. Even setting aside the Apatow stable of recurring actors, there are still a lot of scenes that just don't really go anywhere apart from giving Segal somebody new to talk to.. a bartender here, a chef there... Sometimes these scenes lead to a laugh and sometimes they don't... but they always succeed in making the movie feel somewhat aimless and confused. A few seconds later, and Peter is back in his room crying over Sarah. The editing and pacing is just all over the map.

First time screenwriter and leading man Segal does an admirable job when he sticks to the basics of his universal premise. Granted, the setup is nothing short of dumbfounding... As somehow he winds up at the same resort as his ex, and for reasons that nobody will ever properly explain, manages to score the best room in the place for free... but that is all a minor nitpick once the movie gets rolling. When the wheels really come off the train is when the usual stable of Apatow cronies elbow their way into unwarranted screen time. Paul Rudd and Johan Hill do little to justify their presence. I have nothing against those two in particular, and they have both done great work in other works from the Apatow posse... but here, they just distract from what could have been a much more well honed piece of work.

When the movie stays on point, you have a pretty respectable romantic comedy / breakup movie. Segal isn't going to be quitting his sitcom actor day job anytime soon, but he acquits himself pretty well in the leading role. His character is generally pathetic and self-loathing, but always in a "lovable loser" type of way that manages to keep the audience rooting for him despite the mess that he should only blame on himself. Kristen Bell frequently rises above the material, especially later in the film, giving what could be a typical "cheating ex" cliché of a character some decent depth. Mila Kunis is also surprising as the new love interest for Peter, as she shows some true chops that should make you forget about any "That 70's Show" typecasting. Last but not least is Russell Brand as "the other man". His character was so ripe for overdone parody, it's a credit to Brand that he pulled it off with such wonderful subtlety. With the few exceptions when he is actually performing his "music", he steals many scenes without ever appearing to try.

Overall, there is an enjoyable movie wedged in here... It's just too bad that it's so scatter-shot in it's execution. A solid 20 minutes of runtime could have gone to the cutting room floor and the pacing in general could have been much tighter. I had a good enough time seeing this one, as it did feature a decent chunk of legitimate laughs. It's just too bad that the days of a concise, character-driven comedy seem to be a thing of the past. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a lot going for it, but ultimately it's bloated running time and odd pacing make it a less enjoyable viewing than it could have been.

3/5

Through a series of 'forgettable spy movie clichés', a regular guy from the local electronic store gets all the secrets of the government downloaded into his subconscious. Of course, this brings interest from the unavoidable 'powerful government agency clichés'. The CIA agent (romantic interest) and the NSA agent (sorta pointless other guy) must sorta protect him while sorta trying to get information from him while sorta trying to make the audience laugh on occasion.

Based on the first two shows, Chuck is a muddled mess... but it can be amusing at times. In the title role, Zachary Levi is likable but he doesn't seem to know whether to play it straight or go for a laugh. When a legitimate laugh does appear, the "spy clichés" pop out and stop any momentum. I don't think it's much of a spoiler to say that Chuck probably isn't going to die or get brutally tortured. So when the show plays it's spy stuff with a relative straight face and tries to deliver tension, it's just a waste of time.

The writers might have something with Chuck and Sarah, as the actors appear to have potential for some chemistry... but the show needs to find a direction. Right now, it's some interesting ideas wrapped in a bunch of clunky spy games.

You know things aren't going well when the title character doesn't make an appearance in the 'sequel'. As much as I enjoyed Kal Penn in the first Van Wilder (and Harold and Kumar), he isn't given much to work with here.

The script is awful, just brutal. I think I laughed twice throughout the whole thing. I'm sure nobody is watching this type of movie for compelling characters and riveting plot, but when almost every single joke falls completely flat... every other blemish on the script becomes glaring. There are completely nonsensical subplots thrown about that reference secondary characters that you forgot were introduced in the first place, a silly competition that never makes any sense and an embarrassing turn by the bulldog that made his infamous scene from the first "Van Wilder" look like high art. If you sat a twelve year old in a room with a typewriter and told him to write "Revenge of the Nerds in England" he couldn't do much worse than what's given here. The worst part is that the movie gets consistently less funny as it goes on. The final 15 minutes or so is cringe inducing.

The direction isn't much better. The whole thing has a look of a made for cable TV movie you'd see on a kid's network. Not only is Kal Penn inconsistent with his accent from scene to scene, sometimes it's every other line. On a few occasions, I couldn't even make out the dialog. The actors clearly didn't give a clean read but it made through to the final cut anyways. I realize this was made on the cheap, but you can tell the folks behind the camera didn't put forth much effort. Either that or they didn't have the time. Regardless, it's not pretty to watch.

The only saving grace are the actors. Despite Kal Penn not bothering to hold his accent, everybody on screen appears to be having a good time. Even if everything else is awful, I can't hate a movie where it at least appears that the actors enjoyed their work. They all seemed determined to give their best despite what they all must have known was horrendous material. Kal and the female lead (Lauren Cohan) admirably build some chemistry with little help from their lines. Holly Davidson also steals a couple of scenes as the "cockney" member of the group.

While I didn't think this was a complete disaster, you'd be wise to avoid it.

Wouldn't it be great if you had a universal remote that you could use to pause, rewind and fast forward your life as you see fit? Skip past all the boring stuff, pause and rewind all the fun stuff. It would be a blast right? Then again, it does kind of sound like the typical "be careful what you wish for?" Hollywood movie.

Adam Sandler plays Michael Newman. He is your typical "Hollywood" middle class, white collar husband and father. Impossibly cute kids, impossibly gorgeous wife, seemingly great job as an architect... not many problems to be found on the surface. Of course, as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that our protagonist needs more time in each day to play the roles of father, husband and successful business man. Through some goofy circumstances Sandler bumps into mad-scientist Morty (played for a paycheck by Christopher Walken) and obtains the "universal remote". This remote seemingly answers all of Michael's problems. It gives him all the time he needs to become a bigshot at the office, after which he'll have all the time he wants to spend with his family. Of course, comic and dramatic hijinks ensue, eventually leading Sandler's character to realize what the true meaning of life is all about.

Click is highly formulaic and as such, highly predictable. If you don't see every major plot point coming way before it's delivered, then either you weren't paying much attention or you haven't seen that many movies. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with formulaic and nothing wrong with predictable. Movies succeed or fail far more on execution than originality. Hollywood rarely reinvents the wheel, it just churns out different variations. The only real problem with Click is that it gets lost in it's own message and is eventually drowned by the weight of it's dramatic second half.

Everything starts out great. The comedy is delivered at a pretty consistent pace without ever diving too far into low-brow areas that Sandler's early movies were known for. There are some great supporting performances from Nick Swardson, Jennifer Coolidge, Henry Winkler and especially David Hasselhoff. This is easily the best performance I ever recall seeing from ol' Dave. He comes so close to going over the top without ever getting there and steals just about every scene he's in. The plot is enjoyable and the characters are funny, but you just know the other foot is going to fall. Things just can't keep going smooth for Michael.

Once things turn south for our protagonist, so does the move itself. Michael realizes that the remote is not the silver bullet fix he thought it was and the script does everything it can to make sure we understand that. We end up with a plodding second act that meanders and quickly loses steam. Sandler is allowed to stretch some dramatic muscles and does an admirable job, it's just unfortunate that he is allowed to indulge. The plot is lost with far more views into the future than need be. Eventually the point of the story is beaten into the ground and everything devolves into little more than Rick Baker's makeup effects. By the time the inevitable "Tug at the heartstrings" moment arrives, it's impact is dulled by the ponderous journey it took to get there.

Overall, I admire Click for what it tried to accomplish. Sandler is really a better talent then he's ever been given credit for and his performance here is really solid. The problem is that Click should have left some of the second act on the cutting room floor instead of going out of it's way to play up Sandler's dramatic side. What could have been a truly enjoyable 90 minutes clocked in at a somewhat lumbering 107.

Click won't make you want to change the channel, but it probably won't make you rewind and watch again either.

5/10

I watched the entire movie without stopping and deleting it from the DVR. That's about the best thing I can say about "Totally Awesome".

The thing about spoofs is that they only work if they consistently satirize their targets. They need to find humor in parts of the original films that weren't "funny" and find humor in them. This is the biggest flaw of "Totally Awesome". The movie is just lame setups, horrendous overacting and a few interesting ideas that never quite hit the mark. There is very little actual satire. Mr. Miyagi got more laughs in the original Karate Kid than his "spoof" counterpart did during this entire train wreck of a movie. Dominique Swain is another big offender here. I'm sure she was directed to completely overact, but she completely blew past the line separating funny from downright annoying. With maybe one or two exceptions, I found her performance almost unbearable.

It's not all doom and gloom, after all I did get through the whole thing without deleting it. I'm not normally a huge Tracy Morgan fan, but he completely stole the show with the brief role he was given. Even by spoof standards Joey Kern might have been a bit too over-the-top as the nemesis, but he did get me to laugh more than once. There were also some laughs to be found in some of the dancing scenes and the lead actor looked eerily like C.Thomas Howell from "Soul Man" when in black-face.

I guess it's not a complete waste of 100 minutes, but it's not hard to realize why this script wound up as 'made for VH1' filler either. I have a sneaking suspicion that this was shot for theatrical release or possibly direct-to-DVD. The transfer is clearly cropped from some widescreen film format. It's pretty easy to see why it never made it that far. (Altho from what I hear, this is being released on DVD. Oh boy.) Anyways, this one misses far more than it hits. When you are constantly reminded how much superior the original 80's movies are instead of being inspired to laugh at their silliness, the makers of the spoof have dropped the ball.

Who thought the movie "Soul Man" was a good idea? Apparently the same folks that thought "Totally Awesome" was a good idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call this a great documentary, at least not as a view of baseball overall.

There is far too much concentration on New York and Boston during eras that warranted much more mention of Cubs, Athletics, Tigers, Cardinals and so on.

Burns also seems to get lost at times on the racial segregation issue, almost to the point of contradicting his own narration and inferring that baseball was somehow more racist than the country in general at the time. I am not trying to discount the plight of African-American ballplayers over the years, I just think Burns emphasized it to the point of distraction at times. Large chunks of the series revolve around nothing else but New York, Boston and segregation. Also, negative aspects about New York teams and players are glossed over. I don't recall any mention of lagging attendance as a defense for the Dodgers exodus to Los Angeles or the Giants to San Fran. Mention is made of Mickey Mantle constantly playing with pain. The fact that he brought much of that on himself by constantly abusing his body with carousing and alcohol is basically glossed over. I also don't recall the Yankees horrible history of introducing black players being included as the flip side of the Jackie Robinson story in Brooklyn.

With the exception of the dominant Yankee/Dodger teams of the 50's, the series is much more East Coast-centric than it need be. The fact that 1970 til present (well, 1994) was compacted into one volume is also a bit annoying. (As if anything in the post expansion era isn't 'romantic' enough for Burns' efforts.) The talking heads can also be a problem at times. I consider myself to be a sucker for the occasional 'tug at the heartstrings' poetic waxing, but some these people are too overblown. I found myself wincing on more than one occasion at the pretentiousness of some of the comments. The most interesting dichotomy of the series is seen by looking at the historical versus the modern talking head. The majority of the narrator driven historical readings emphasis baseball as a wonderful boys game played by men. It's only the modern day talking heads that manage to pervert it into some beautiful, unicorn, fluffy bunny, poetry-in-motion, analogy for the human condition slop.

I know it seems as if I'm slamming the series, but I really did enjoy it overall. I just don't think it's anything approaching a perfect documentary. You'll get the feelings that the game rarely left New York until the Giants and Dodgers did and that it existed purely as a vehicle to oppress the black man. Still, It's an entertaining watch and worthy of the time investment for casual baseball fans and history buffs alike.

7/10

Perhaps the most generic 'thriller' ever to make it's way to a large theatrical release, Swimfan is a thriller completely devoid of tension or thrills.

Ben Cronin (Bradford) is a high school swimmer with a checkered past who is close to turning his life around. If he does well at the next swim meet, he'll land the big scholarship and everything will be happily ever after. That's when Madison (Christensen) enters the scene, seduces Ben and becomes the run-of-the-mill pyscho stalker.

As boring as that sounded, the above paragraph is about 10 times as interesting as the actual movie. The by-the-numbers plot struggles to put 75 minutes of story onscreen. I think the screenwriters knew they had nothing and didn't care, the script reeks of laziness from beginning to end. There is not a single aspect of the story that isn't completely trite and predictable, not a single interesting or unique plot device or twist to be found. "Hey, I know we got nothing... but just put a bunch of good-looking twentysomethings in it... the teen audience will eat it up."

The actors all seem to be taking this project as serious professionals, but even they must have known this was garbage. Erika Christensen has talent, but she was clearly going through the motions here. The obligatory "stalker finally goes nuts" scene at the end of the movie was simply embarrassing. Jesse Bradford comes across as a poor man's version of Freddie Prinze Jr. He doesn't have much range or expression. He stumbles through the proceedings with the same blank, mouth-half-open look on his face.

A completely lackluster attempt by all involved.

3/10

I thought this TV movie was very well done. It was well directed, well written and the actors all did a great job. The story itself was pretty straightforward and predictable, but it was executed very well.

The emphasis of the story was obviously based around Suzanne Somers' contract disputes, but the story never focused on one area for too long. It was a well-balanced and enjoyable TV movie. Well cast and well shot, it was a truly enjoyable watch.

All the actors did a great job. Bret Anthony did a good job with John Ritter, even if he does look uncannily like a Kennedy. Melanie Moore was great as DeWitt, even if the voice wasn't quite there. Judy Tylor is one fine looking Somers, but she also showed great range in her performance. Gregg Brinkley seemed a little too young to play Don Knotts but he pulled off the voice and mannerisms perfectly. Brian Dennehy was great as usual in his "I appear in everything" character-actor role.

All in all, a surprisingly solid TV movie. Definately worth a viewing during the VH1 reruns.

7/10

The only problems (minor):

Suzanne Somers didn't start promoting the Thighmaster until the late 80's, this movie has you believe she started in the early 80's.

The clothing was pretty accurate for the main characters, but the network brass all wore suits that were nowhere near in-style during the 1970's. No crazy collars, no big, wide ties, no plaid, etc...

The sets weren't all that accurate when compared to the original show.

As everyone has said, no Larry.

The Daily Show has definately evolved over the years. When it started it was basically a show that revolved around Craig Kilborn. He was schmarmy, but he had a personality that lent itself to getting the most out of the "celebrity" guests, even if those "celebrities" were in the B crowd. The political angle wasn't very emphasized apart from using it to get a decent one-liner.

Craig left for greener pastures and they brought in Jon Stewart. Jon hadn't really done much of notice prior to this. That being said, both the show and the new host found their stride. The Daily Show scaled back the celebrity aspect and pushed the political satire twist. The show moved towards poking fun at politics and the mass media, as opposed to kissing B-list butt.

The Daily Show is currently in a great place. They know their strong points, namely, poking fun at the major news stories / mass media / politics while airing hilarious correspondant stories ala 20/20 or Dateline.

The only weak point of the show is the main holdover from the Kilborn era, the celebrity interview. Stewart doesn't have the chops when it comes to interviewing. Most of his celebrity interviews are somewhat awkward and most of his political interviews seem forced to get laughs. They should drop the 4 minute, B-list interview and throw in an extra Colbert/Rocca/etc piece. No offense, but most regular and casual viewers would probably rather see more Stephen Colbert than hear about the latest indie movie that Paul Rudd is starring in....

The show has some promise. Some of the prank calls are hilarious and actually compare well to some classic Jerky Boys calls.

That being said, the majority of the show is filler. Mediocre premises are beat into the ground repeatedly. You could make a pretty good hour long special from a season's worth of shows, but that's not really all that impressive.

As somebody else said, stick to the Jerky Boys CDs for your hilarious prank call fix. (Jerky Boys I and II are classics!)

Ok, I watched The State during their run on MTV back in the early/mid 90's. I remember them in the same way I remember most sketch comedy teams of the last ten years... (Mr. Show, Upright Citizens, SNL, Mad TV, Kids in the Hall, etc.) A couple of winning ideas surrounded by a bunch of overindulgence. Sketch comedy is a difficult thing to translate into a movie. With sketch comedy, you do your five minute sketch, if it works great... if not, you only wasted five minutes. In moviemaking, you have to have an idea of what works well and what doesn't work well. Then you have to balance it all into a storyline that somehow ties together. That's the problem with Wet Hot American Summer. It has some great lines, some memorable characters and some truly funny moments but these are momentary spikes. The movie itself slowly and continually sinks into near randomness.

If you know the background of the film makers, this shouldn't really bother you too much and you'll be quick to praise this movie. You are used to seeing The State as a sketch comedy group that never has to carry a bit for more than a few moments until it's onto the next one. Unfortunately, that's not how you make a good movie. What sinks WHAS is it's near total lack of cohesiveness. The editing is bad and the direction is worse. Scenes and ideas seemingly start and stop out of nowhere. Subplots are introduced and cast aside with equal measure.

Granted, that might have been the intention. The members of The State clearly aren't taking this seriously when in front of the camera, their tongues planted fimrly in cheek. It's almost jarring when the scenes shift back to Garofalo or Hyde Pierce, as they at least appear to be buying into their characters some of the time. The lack of direction here is obvious, as neither of these seasoned actors seem to know when to play it straight or when to go over the top like everyone else. If you want to make a spoof, then do it! If you want to make a comedy about summer camp, then do it! Don't go back and forth between the two and expect anything but a jumbled mess in the end!

I didn't hate this movie... I definately laughed and enjoyed myself for the most part. Still, I get the feeling they had 6 or 8 solid sketch ideas and instead of concentrating on their strengths, tried to tie them all together. That's where it fell apart. These people seem good at coming up with a handful of funny ideas, they are just not very good at making a "movie". If the members of The State ever want to make another movie, here's some advice from an average movie fan.... Come up with the funny parts, then hire a professional screenwriter and director to tie everything together.

5/10 on it's own merits

7/10 if you like The State (come on State fanboys, the material here isn't THAT great even compared to their MTV show...)

I understand the premise. Take an old chop socky movie from the 70's and re-dub / re-edit it with a new lead actor. The idea has alot of promise, unfortunately Kung Pow pretty much fails on every level.

There are a few parts where I chuckled. Steve Oedenkerk comes up with a few good one-liners here and there for his dubbed characters, but nothing up to level of an average Mystery Science Theatre episode. All the big set pieces fall flat. They run too long and quickly loose what little charm they had.

This is truly one of the worst comedies I've seen in a long time. I even got more laughs out of Saving Silverman. It might be worth a rental if you like kung-fu movies, but you should probably avoid this.

I give it a 3... as is $3 I wasted to rent this stinkbomb.

Ok, I went to Sweet Home Alabama with my fiance, but I actually wanted to see this movie. Oddly enough for a guy, I've always had a skeleton in my closet for romantic comedies. That being said, Sweet Home Alabama was neither romantic nor comedic, it was just sort of there.

There was the occasional laugh, but no more than your average drama gets during moments of "comic relief". I quickly caught on to what the writers were going for... Small town girl makes it in the big city and has a loving, handsome and rich boyfriend but nonetheless has a "soul mate" back home. They had a potential gold mine in the idea, just stumbled in the execution.

There was no real romantic chemistry between Witherspoon and either of her potential suitors, neither love story is very believable. While playing the role with understated dignity, Patrick Dempsey's character quickly falls into the "I know he's the nice-guy that's loosing in the end" pile. Josh Lucas does a good job as well with his good old boy character, but you're only given underdeveloped reasons as to why he and Melanie got married in the first place. Instead the movie took the classic "soul mate" cop-out to explain the relationship.

Holes in the script set aside, the movie is filled with solid performances throughout. Reese Witherspoon is a solid actress and simply stunning to look at. The supporting cast does a great job of injecting a southern feel without relying on cartoonish stereotypes. The only exception is Candice Bergman as the not-to-be-mother-in-law, she isn't terrible but a tad bit over the top.

Sweet Home Alabama is an odd movie, it's not very funny or romantic, yet somewhat enjoyable. Thanks in no small part to it's star and excellent supporting cast.

6/10

To start off, Carrot Top is actually a pretty funny prop-comic on stage. I went to one of his shows a few years back and it was one of the funnier stand-up gigs I've ever seen. Don't be fooled by the AT&T commercials, he is funnier and very much less annoying in his natural element.

That being said, Chairman of the Board tries to capture his crazy prop-building stand-up act and incorporate it into a movie. For the most part, it just doesn't work that well. I think the premise is great, but the script is pretty weak (just take a look at the resumes of the hacks that wrote it). The story is predictable, but not in anyway different than most movie comedies. The problem is that the story quickly falls into the common "fish out of water" premise. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, Adam Sandler has built an entire movie career around it. However, while Sandler movies have a guaranteed one or two belly laugh scenes (for the most part anyways), the script for Chairman of the Board just doesn't deliver that big knockout punch.

The actors all do a good job despite what they're given to work with. Larry Miller is funny playing, well, the same character he always plays. Courtney Thorne-Smith is at her best when she is playing the unassuming every-woman, and she turns in a decent job here when she could have easily mailed in her performance. Carrot Top himself also does a commendable job in front of the camera, never appearing too forced or uncomfortable. Even in the semi-romantic scenes with Thorne-Smith he seems relaxed and confident. Mind you, this is no De Niro-like performance, but from a non-actor, pretty respectable nonetheless.

While it's definitely not a good movie, I don't understand why everyone is bashing it so bad. This is a simple, light-hearted, root for the underdog comedy. It doesn't have any shining virtues or any glaring faults. Take it for what it is, and you won't be horribly disappointed.

4/10

The third installment of Austin Powers is hopefully the last. After seeing Goldmember over the weekend, it's pretty clear that Mike Myers and crew are running on empty.

The plot is pretty much non-existent. The movie even makes tongue-in-cheek references throughout pointing out the various plot holes. While the first two Austin Powers movies weren't exactly plot-centric, at least they had some semblance of a plot. In Goldmember you're just along for the ride from one comic setup to the next. If you try to keep up with where the plot is going and why, you'll end up with a migraine.

The additional characters added are weak. Goldmember is extremely annoying. I didn't find one scene he was in remotely funny. Myers seems to think that a foreign accent along with an outrageous costume / make-up job equals funny, it doesn't. Both Fat Bastard and Goldmember are one trick ponies and never come off as funny after the first time you see them (the one exception being Fat Bastard's appearance at the end of the movie). Foxy Cleopatra is also a pretty bland. The actress playing her does her best with what she's given... but that amounts to basically wearing skimpy outfits along with delivering the occasional blacksploitation one-liner.

The musical numbers and half-hearted attempts at the "father/son" relationship are truly cringe-worthy.

However, all is not lost, a lot of the sight gags work very well. The opening and closing sequences are very funny and really are the best part of the movie.

I laughed alot during Goldmember. But it was knee-jerk, "look at what just happened" laughs. Not the kind of enduring characters and one-liner laughs the first Austin Powers provided.

With this third installment, all of the charm from the original is gone. What we have left is Mike Myers jumping into four different costumes and doing his best to chew the scenery.

You'll come out of the theatre with a smile on your face, you won't feel ripped off for dropping $8.00... but you won't be eagerly anticipating the next Austin Powers installment either.

6.5/10

There is something about the two Star Wars prequels that I just now put my finger on after my first viewing of Episode 2: Attack of the Clones. To be blunt, these films just lack the charm of the original trilogy. The characters are all written and played very straight, almost to the point of becoming two-dimensional. There isn't any natural dynamic or tension between anybody you see on screen. Therefore, every instance of emotion, conflict and even humor come across as forced. The master/apprentice relationship between Anakin and Obi-Wan seemed somewhat plastic. My "exhibit B" for this argument is Jar Jar from Episode 1. It was obvious he was written as comic relief. He had no other legitimate reason to be there. When you know what the punchline is ahead of time, the joke usually falls flat.

That being said, on to the main course:

THE GOOD: 1) The plot worked and moved along well, only bogging down slightly in the middle of the film. Various loose ends from the previous film were tied down and you definately can see everything coming into place for a nice pseudo-conclusion in Episode Three. 2) The actors seem comfortable in their roles and deliver solid work despite the somewhat banal dialogue they have to work with. 3) The CGI sequences mesh very nicely with the story being told. Unlike in Phantom Menace, where the plot would stop for 10-15 minutes so we could be attacked by eye-candy. (Pod Race anyone?) 4) Yoda (trust me, see the flick just for him)

THE BAD: 1) The love story between Anakin and Padme just didn't convince me. I think the script was somewhat weak in this subplot. While doing their best with what they had, Christansen/Portman can't compete with Ford/Fisher in the "sophisticated girl falls for bad boy" department. 2) Sam Jackson just doesn't work well in toned down roles. Cast him as a bad guy, and you have a villian that instantly rivals Vader or the Emporer based on his charisma alone. Make him play a level headed good guy, and honestly, you're wasting his gift as an actor. 3) I have a couple of other minor gripes, but I don't want to post anything that would be a spoiler

CONCLUSION: Overall, Episode Two is a solid addition to the Star Wars saga. While it still feels stiff compared to the originals, I am looking forward to seeing it on the big screen at least one more time.

I really wish I could have reviewed this movie completely based on it's own merits. However, after growing up with Star Wars for as long as I can remember, that simply isn't possible. I drew comparisons and contrasts against the other Star Wars films long before my fingers hit the keyboard.

I've seen this film twice. Once in the theatre (thought it was REAL lame), once on tape (didn't think it was as bad, but far from good).

** possible minor spoilers **

You should know the plot by now, but a quick recap: Two friends set out to save the third member of their Niel Diamond tribute band from his femi-nazi girlfriend. Sounds like a barrel of comic opportunity, right? Well, it is, unfortunately the movie just doesn't deliver.

The story is uneven, most of the acting is sub-par, the supporting characters are way over the top (even for this type of flick), etc, etc. The movie features very little of it's title character (the Silverman from title) so you never really make much of a connection to him. The two friends doing the "Saving" are a lame, prat-falling, dumb-as-rocks, Laurel & Hardy rip-off. While both are good actors (Zahn and Black), they have such little to work with here that their schtick quickly becomes annoying. This wouldn't be so bad, except that 3/4 of the movie revolves COMPLETELY around them!! I was pretty much rooting for the Femi-nazi! (Peet). Mainly because she doesn't pull off her role that well and comes off as cartoonish more than evil or manipulative. The ending is equally unsatisfying with the "true love" girl, the football coach and Neil Diamond being thrown in just to tie up some mess of a "Happy" ending.

It's not all bad... I had a few laughs, unfortunately most of them were included in the TV commercials!!!

All in all, if you remember nothing of the TV commercials and are looking for a lightweight, goofball comedy... you could do worse than "Saving Silverman". But I guess that's not really saying much... is it?

4/10

I just got done watching this "special" about an hour ago. This "holiday" special is simply awful. I'll give you a real quick breakdown of the plot:

Chewbacca must get home to his family to celebrate "Lifeday".

There... that's it... that is 100% of the plot... everything else is just complete and pointless filler.

I agree with Lucas... all copies of this should be destroyed. Even the Star Wars pedigree and 70's camp value can't save this... therefore, the rest of my review will be simply thrown together, much like this "special".

Carrie Fisher TOTALLY hopped up on some type of foreign substance... (It looked as if the drugs from that floating-globe-needle thing from "A New Hope" finally took hold. Her half-open, bloodshot eyes make Cheech & Chong look sober.)

Mark Hamill with more makeup on than a Geisha girl.

Bea Arthur as the owner of the Cantina at Mos Eisley... complete with corny musical number and fellow 70's staple Harvey Korman...

Chewbacca's incredibly annoying family. Itchy and Lumpy?!? Why not just call them Grumpy and Sneezy!??! (I kept praying for the Imperials to open fire.)

Dianne Carroll as the twisted pre-cybersex fantasy of an elderly Wookiee (I guess that's why they call him "Itchy")

Jefferson Starship documenting the exact moment they became "Corporate Rock"

ON THE POSITIVE SIDE:

The little animated thingy that introduces Boba Fett was decent. Altho Han Solo looked like that odd orange bridge officer from the old Star Trek cartoon...

Some unused Darth Vader scenes from "A New Hope" are redubbed and used in the Holiday Special. While not really ground breaking, it is interesting to see original footage from 1977 that didn't make it's way into the movie.

All in all... this is 95% garbage... if you are one of those super anal die hard fans who must own everything relating to Star Wars... GET HELP!!! Don't waste your money on this... you will watch it once and then realize that not even Star Wars is perfect... oh wait.... Episode One proved that... :)

Ok.. When I first saw this in the theatre upon it's initial release, I really indentified with it. Upon viewing it seven years later, I realized what a whiny, early-twentysomething I was back then. This movie is incredibly pretentious and makes my generation look like a bunch of babies with dirty diapers. Unfortunately, in the mid 90's, that's exactly how most people my age acted. We felt we deserved the world on a silver platter... and cried when it wasn't handed to us.

The characters, by 2001 standards, are all horrible mid-90's stereotypes. Hawke, Ryder and Garofolo's characters are painfully self-absorbed. Especially Hakwe's character Troy, he is supposed to be "deep" and "intellectual", but after viewing the film in 2001, his "serious slacker" persona is almost comical. Lelaina (Ryder) is upset because she can't land her dream job immediately after college. (who does?!?) Vickie (Garofolo) is basically a slut who works at the Gap. She talks about AIDS tests as being a defining point of Gen X. This never happened and makes the film seem even more dated.

I won't go too much into the story, but it's basically a love triangle between Troy (Hawke), Lelaina (Ryder) and the nice-guy yuppie Michael (Stiller). The early-mid 90's stamp is all over the story, as Stiller's successful-nice guy character is dumped for the slacker with few redeeming qualities (Hawke). In 1994 I saw Michael as square and Troy seemed pretty damned slick and cool. In 2001, I think Michael would be vacationing on the French Riviera, while Troy would be selling used cars. Amazing the difference in attitude seven years make.

Technically, the movie is well done. Stiller does a pretty good job directing and gets admirable performances from his cast. Especially the supporting actors Kurtz, Mahoney and an underused Steve Zahn. The soundtrack is excellent and holds up to the test of time much better than the film or soundtracks from similar movies. (ie. Singles)

Overall, Reality Bites is an average love-triangle story with WAY to much mid-90's Gen-X slacker sentiment. IMHO, this movie did not age well and today, it seems like a self-parody with it's "angst/slacker" theme....

Ratings: In 1994: 7/10 In 2001: 4/10

I only recently saw the first film on DVD and was very pleasantly surprised. Despite it being tagged as a "Gross out sex comedy", I thought the plot, pacing, character development and emotional moments were all very well done. The story had a good premise (getting laid before prom) and the major male leads were all fleshed out very well. You had Jim (the confidence lacking nice guy), Oz (the sensitive GQ guy), Kevin (well rounded average guy) and Finch (the eccentric). Each of them had their own story line that progressed during the film and tied up somewhat neatly in the end.

This is where the major flaws of the sequel come glaring out. AP2 lacks pretty much all of the plot, pacing and character developement of the original. The paper thin plot is just filler to get from one joke setup to the next. The characters which really pulled you into the first one are pretty much abandoned. The only exception being Jim (Biggs) as the movie pretty much revolves around him. Finch gets stale rather quickly with his Tantric / Stifler's Mom routine. Kevin, Oz and all the returning female leads could have been left on the cutting room floor without making any impact on the movie. Although, it was nice to see some of the funnier bit players return for cameo type appearances (The Sherminator, The M.I.L.F guys, and despite being slightly annoying, Stifler's little brother)

On the bright side, two supporting characters from the first movie are given much bigger parts in the sequel. The "band camp" girl and Stifler are given alot more lines and screen time and both deliver! Pretty much every laugh in the film that didn't come from Jim came from those two!

While this review might seem negative, I really did enjoy AP2 for what it was, a silly sequel. I don't think that it compares very well to the original in most respects, but the big joke sequences all manage to deliver without feeling too forced. You'll have a good time if you don't expect too much. Despite the lame plot and about 10 characters too many, I was consistently laughing. I guess when the credits roll and the lights come on, that's all that matters....

7/10