Hotoil

This show seems to have been aimed at a more conventional crowd than Cleese, Chapman and Palin's work with Monty Python. In fact, it has very, very little of the subversive and hilarious wit they displayed in that comedy troupe. The premise doesn't give much room for anything but Cleese portraying an intentionally annoying character (a noisy father disrupting his TV-watching children, an overly considerate date, a loud middle-aged woman in a movie theater) and noticeably bothering a character usually portrayed by Michael Palin. The characters don't have anything very funny about them, they are very straighforward and do nothing but annoy or get annoyed in the exact way you would expect based on Cleese's narrated set-up. There aren't any twists. There are very few moments when you get any hint of how brilliant these guys could be on their television shows and movies as Monty Python. In fact, it's kind of annoying seeing such talented men wasting away in such an unfunny piece of work - even if you're a Python fan, theres nothing really necessary about 'How To Irritate People', though the dedicated will inevitably check it out since theres almost always a copy by the Flying Circus videos at any rental store.

A very drab, poorly made video on the art of pranks. I expected some colorful stories and footage of neat subversive pranks ... the packaging actually promised this. What I ended up renting was a really low-energy video that featured a few people talking briefly about some things they had done to shock people. A few seemed like intelligent and potentially interesting specimens, particularly the mechanic who liked to alter billboards and Karen Finley, who liked to create uncomfortable situations by playing on peoples gender preconceptions. But overall, even the interviews with somewhat intriguing people were dry, vague and extremely brief. Some other 'pranksters' - like the man who said he repressed his homicidal urges by strapping explosives to his body or biting the heads of rats in crowded places, or the 'punk rocker' who hung dead cats and dogs from his body when performing at shows - were just annoying to watch, even if the production itself wasn't as horrid as it is. A complete waste of time and video tape. I recommend checking out the book Billboard Liberation Front & Friends: THE ART & SCIENCE OF BILLBOARD IMPROVEMENT, though.

Honestly, this movie has a good heart. The puppetry is amazing. The underlying message is nice. But not even inventive special effects and good themes can save this movie from being ...bland. Yes, I dare say the Dark Crystal, now a cult favorite and a work of the deservedly legendary Jim Henson - kind of failed for a reason.

First, it's far too scary for most children. Too dark to be a kids movie. And for older audiences...it's likely to be a bore. Despite boasting it's share of top-rate eye candy (the puppetry and special effects are way ahead of their time, showing a remarkable amount of ingenuity and restraint!) - theres not much in the way of story and character development. The plot is rather conventional in form and clear from the beginning, offering absolutely no twists or turns along the way. The main character has absolutely no personality - this hurts it even more. A predictable story is bad enough, but a bland star makes it difficult to sit through. The best scenes take place with him out of the picture.

It's not a total washout though. The visuals alone are enough to make many people sit through it without any problems, they are that good. And there are some choice sequences that hit all the right notes (mostly near the beginning). The overall theme has many parallels with our own world, and some good insight into the relationship between good and evil. There are also quite a few laughs, some of which are intentional.

But damn, if they had done a little more work on making the story more original and rewarding to follow - and made the lead character more than an empty shell with which to stitch together the plot - it could have been the masterpiece it sometimes appears to be.

Obviously, this film was rushed out to cash in on the success of the original. But the worst part is that the filmmakers do a horrible job of disguising this fact...

Most of it looks to have been filmed in front of a blue screen, in a studio. Few or no outdoor scenes actually shot outdoors or on a nicely crafted set...just actors doing their work in front of a blue screen so they can quickly paint in scenery and props with a computer and capitalize on the popularity of the first SPY KIDS movie as soon as possible. This just makes the whole thing look cheap. That, and the computer animation (which there is a lot of) is awful...I've seen much better in movies much older than this, which is another sign that little care was taken in order to get the movie out fast.

But the ultimate sign of how empty this affair is would have to be the script, which is unoriginal and unimaginative. It takes a Jurassic Park type story, recycles some elements of the first movie, and throws in a sitcomish plot involving the Spy Kids grandparents.

This will probably entertain young children, but its fairly bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment.

Adds many unique elements to the classic Mario scenario. A great sequel to Mario 64. Controls are familiar to those who know the previous adventure on Nintendo64, though slightly enhanced. What can I say? It's addictive and a must-play for GameCube owners, and it gives most video game addicts a reason to rent or own a Gamecube.

This is an awful movie. The first 2/3 of it are just frantic, cheesy hospital jokes, and near the end it becomes an awkward mix between true romance/drama and slapstick comedy. Don't be fooled by the long list of popular TV actors and actresses here...I'm not even sure this movie made it to theatres, it's so bad, and theres a reason it's never on television. Not recommended unless you are very easily amused, or just like watching bad movies.

This series began pretty interesting, but has been gradually declining in quality since the first season. Just because it's filled with lots of graphic violence, nudity and uncensored language doesn't make it gritty & realistic - the dialogue, for one, sucks. It just tries to be too poetic and uses the same 'voice' for just about every character, and few of the actors on the show are capable of rising above this flaw. Many of the stories are interesting, but the way they are presented is rather weak. And now I hear they are about to do a musical episode? I think this show is going on too long, and falling into the same creative pitfalls of your average network series.

Why do members of great comedy troupes tend to participate in mostly crap when their group's disband, no matter how funny and intelligent they are?

Eric Idle of Monty Python recently starred in the awful sitcom "Suddenly Susan". Python's John Cleese is doing the rounds in every sitcom, Hollywood comedy or commercial that comes calling as well. David Cross of the brilliant HBO series Mr. Show can now be seen in wretched films like "Scary Movie 2" or in guest spots on the bland sitcom "Just Shoot Me". Former Kids in the Hall cast members have ended up in lame comedys, sitcoms & even Saturday Night Live.

Kevin McDonald, once a hilarious 'Kid In The Hall' himself, is now doing schlock like The Godson. It is sad. He's a funny guy - most of the time, but the key is moderation, restraint and timing. This movie exhibits none, and McDonald's hyperactive and insecure character is just totally out of control. Does't help that he's surrounded by horrible jokes.

So Kevin McDonald continues to the tradition of great sketch comedians who don't seem to give a damn when it comes to working outside of their element. Unfortunately, anybody who first comes upon the Kids in the Hall AFTER seeing him in this may have grown to hate him.

What can I say? This is a groundbreaking comedy. Howard F. Howard is obsessed with the Three Stooges - not only do we get classic clips of the Stooges, but hilarious all-new adventures featuring a bunch of Stooge obsessives and impersonators. It's not only funny, but you learn something...about yourself. Should have been an Oscar contender but god forbid they recognize slapstick comedy as the vital art it is. Bravo!

I gave up on this show shortly into it's second season, when it began to get very repetitive and boring - the jokes were relying on the same gags and swear words, and each plot was about the town being attacked by some supernatural force.

But after catching the movie & the bulk of the show's 5th season this year, I must say it seems to have bounched back. It's actually become a very clever satire - this season episodes dealt with Sex Education in Public Schools, the war on terrorism, gays in the boy scouts, the media scandals of Gary Condit, the Ramsy's and O.J. Simpson - all better than anything else on television. Yes, it's also raunchier than ever, but it's well-timed and usually goes for much more than mere shock value.

Seeing the Simpsons has lost much of it's satarical edge over the years and become little more than 30-minutes of badly-timed animated slapstick, the reinvigorated South Park is quite a blessing for those of us who hunger for society and pop culture to be brutally and tastelessly ripped apart.

Most of the material here was tweaked, perfected, and featured on the special/DVD/album "You Are All Diseased". And there is a compilation at the beginning of his earlier work, but it's quick and not very cohesive. So this special isn't really necessary anymore, but for some reason HBO runs it every so often. Carlin obsessives will want to check it out for the smidgen of material he performs here exclusively. It is funny, just after hearing the more developed versions of these bits made it less interesting.

Honestly. This is not a particularly smart or clever comedy - it's a one liner that goes on way too long. It begins mildly amusing, begins to get mildly boring, and ends too ridiculous to even care about. De Niro generates a couple smiles for his send-up of his most famous role - mob strongman - but he's a little too jokey, and even awkward at times. Billy Crystal is a pretty yawn-inducing straight-man, until the end where he slips into the old, SNL-era 'Billy Crystal: comedian' mode, whereby he simply gets lame. Sure, the limp script - which aims to get by on the concept alone - is mostly to blame, but nobody is trying too hard to bail it out. Far too superficial. This would make an passable short film, but it's not movie material. And of course later that year the Sopranos came around and showed us what actually could be done with the premise, both in comedy and dramatic senses, making it more than disappointing, but totally irrelevant. I doubt this same team will be able to pull off the planned sequel, Analyze That (no joking, it's in the works). There really is no need to, and I think they were lucky to coast by as moderately succesful the first time around.

I too cannot believe all the positive reviews for this movie. My theory is it's so bad most people didn't even bother commenting on it. It's just so poorly constructed, from the weak & predictable humor to the sloppy editing that plagues every other scene (someone will be standing there holding something, then it will disappear at a different angle, then the camera angle switches again and they'll be missing an arm or something. Seems like even the editor couldn't even stand to concentrate on it).

Yes, Washington is this corrupt. In some ways the cartoonish depiction is well-done, but the mostly it's just a device for lame jokes. Eddie Murphy had lost all his youthful charm by this time this came out, and he's simply pretentious. This whole thing is so cheeeessssyyyy. Feels like an uncensored TV movie.

Not recommended.

This movie just bounced between embarrisingly lame & cliche to simply boring. There have been better movies dealing with homophobia, coming out (seeing as 80% of mainstream gay movies are about coming out), and lesbian romance. This movie sails through as if it's the first to deal with either three topics, with thin stereotypes for characters that make the slapstick comedy easy but the dramatic moments quite unengaging. Apart from the lead role, which is played well, the rest of the talent has a hard time not playing as if they are in a sitcom, which this script would be far better suited for minus the poor attempts at fleshed out drama and social commentary.

Spike Lee presents some on-target moments here, and for the most part you can see what he is trying to get at. But his movie as a whole, is awful. It mixes one-dimensional satire with attempts at fleshed-out drama, which gets awkward and eventually kills both. He also neglects the films core idea by taking on every target he can possibly think of, but few of them very well. He may as well have just gotten on camera and ranted for a while, because it would have done better than illustrating it through this ill-conceived story. In fact, he stinks at satire because he actually steps out of it to make his points through frank dialogue (and elsewhere to propel the film with dramatic elements). For someone who constantly relays the definition of the word 'satire' in his movie, he doesn't really have the hang of it.

But despite it's flaws, it can at least be interesting. It's subject matter is ripe. And at times, it is thought provoking. But it's not a good movie at all, and fails far more than it succeeds.

This movie is most notable as the film where Al Jolson plays the lead role in black face, which - in case you don't know - was the way any black lead role was because black people weren't allowed to have starring roles in Hollywood. Of course, if you can beyond the disgusting display of a white actor playing an over-the-top black stereotype...well, it's a pretty bad movie anyway.

This movie is funny. Whereas the first had a vision - campy flick in which a small town falling apart at the seams is brought together when Gremlins attack - this one is just an hour and a half of having fun with the crazy little puppets that were never really exercised to their fullest potential the first time around. The first film focused on the people, not the Gremlins. This one is all about the Gremlins. It doesn't have the horror edge, but it's very amusing. Stupid, but amusing. And to be honest, I thought the first one stunk.

Well, Dude Where's My Car might be at least a novelty as one of few Hollywood films that seems to have been written, cast, filmed & edited in less than a day. I honestly can't believe this got made (or that I allowed my friends to make me sit through the entire thing). The jokes are too stupid and predictable to be "dumb-funny", and the actors involved don't seem like they would be capable of pulling off any kind of funny had the script actually provided it. Oddly enough, unlike most mindless slapstick comedies, this movie actually has TOO MUCH plot - every scene seems to introduce a new moronic and uninteresting subplot. Of course, they were obviously going for moronic, but it doesn't work on any level whatsoever...There is only one aspect of this film I enjoyed: Donkeylips from the old Nickalodean show "Salute Your Shorts" has a very small role. This is the role that will turn him into the next Richard Gere though, you just watch...

I found this to be a lousy documentary. That despite the fact that I like Woody Harrelson and have been fascinated by our backwards-ass drug laws for a long time now.

I do not smoke pot. Sure, I have (who hasn't?), but I did not enjoy it and prefer to be "in control".

Still, the criminalization of marijuana makes me want fill my backyard with the damn plant in protest of such corrupt and unfounded domestic policy.

Of course, we know why marijuana is illegal - partly because some folks like to regulate morality (the same ones pushing sodomy laws); but mostly because it benefits the powers that be. Such a large scale "war on drugs" stirs up the economy, politicians make money on kickbacks & organized crime has a field day! Meanwhile the drugs get more dangerous, the streets get more dangerous, and the Government gets richer while gradually breaking down our rights.

That said, "Grass" doesn't paint the picture well. It relies too much on eye candy and distracting comic relief while it meanders around the juicy stuff - the criminalization of marijuana! I don't know why the filmmakers thought they needed to spice things up with cartoons, and an endless stream of old anti-drug reels (at first they are amusing but after a while it's just repetitive and detracts from the flow of things); the story itself is very intriguing & could have carried more screen time. Not only that, but some of the more interesting, deeper motives of the drug war are not explored whatsoever. It's a very superficial look at the drug war; only slightly informative and entertaining at times, but hardly what it could be. Perhaps your meant to watch it high, because clean & sober I found it boring and unfocused...

There are great scenes in this film, most of them thanks to Bjork's brilliant performance. But they - and Bjork herself - are trapped in a flawed film.

It's an agony flick. The depressing aspect is not just an element of the film's drama but rather the very make-up of it's story - like a formula. It feels like a tug at the viewer's emotions that refuses to stop until the credits roll. It can feel manipulative.

So can the deliberately alternative way the filmmaker chose to present the majority of the movie (the non-musical portions, to be exact). Most of the film is shot in a blurry, hand-held fashion, but the musical numbers kick it into full color and steady camera shots. Cinematography is important but should never command the scene, just capture it in an effective way. Neither the musical scenes or the dramatic portions are captured in a fitting fashion, just a painfully calculated one.

But there are some damn good scenes, and an element of the story to be respected. But I can't get into many of the positives because it would ruin them for potential viewers. Perhaps that itself is insight to the way the movie works, and how it succeeds...

It's a mixed bag. A must for Bjork fans, though.

This could have been a funny and effective short film, stopping at about the ten or twenty minute mark. But the joke - essentially showing people how odd the dating habits we take for granted really are - isn't very novel or funny by the end of a 90-minute mockumentary. It's really a comedy sketch that drags on far too long. There are funny parts, they're just too few and far between and they stop before the halfway mark (oh, and some sex scenes that don't seem to belong in a comedy).

There was a time when every popular sitcom had it's own Saturday Morning Cartoon. And even though they were on their way out, "Mork & Mindy", "Larverne & Shirly" & "Happy Days" were no exception to the trend in the early eighties.

This hour-long block was actually two series. The first was a cartoon version of "Mork & Mindy" in which the main characters were teenagers. The second was "Laverne & Shirley with the Fonz", which was really just the second season of "Laverne & Shirley in the Army" with Fonzie (and his dog Mr. Cool) thrown into the mix.

Needless to say, both shows were awful and the whole thing was canceled after the first season. It is an interesting piece of TV history, even though it was just another poorly-animated attempt to cash on on popular culture by animation giant Hanna-Barbera.

What better example of all style, no substance? And it helps that this is as abstract a movie as most of it's likely audience is to have ever seen. I'm sure this movie wouldn't have gone over very well at all if not for Ewen being such a charming b****rd & some of the goofy, slapstick moments being so crowd pleasing. Still, it's little more than a hyperactive sitcom in the beginning, and a conventional romance in the end. The only thing that sets it apart from the other crap in Hollywood is it's distracting presentation. DISTRACTING at best, never uniquely artistic (as it seems to want you to believe). If you enjoy it, all power to you - but you're likely to see right through it.

Where's the follow-up? This film documents, quite well, only the immediate period following the release of their smash hit "Nevermind" album. It is very nicely done, but it leaves fans thirsty for more in the way of a video release, especially in the advent of the DVD. Something from the In Utero tour? An uncut presentation of the landmark "Unplugged" performance (the bootleg doesn't cut it)? Aside from a very brief snippet of "Rape Me" playing in the background in one part, most of this is from the NEVERMIND record with a few cuts from BLEACH and INCESTICIDE sprinkled around. That was the plan though, I suppose, seeing as it's main objective is to cover the insane over-hype that followed the success of "Smells Like Teen Spirit".

This is a must for Nirvana fans but more is due. Suppose the powers that be want to let an after-the-storm quiet ensue, though, so that the marketing machine can go full-throttle again when the post-grunge backlash fades away, and Nirvana is once again a profitable iconic entity. yay.

How could this movie work as a factual representation or artistic vision?

1) it comes at the height of an anti-Castro obsession this country had and in many ways, still does (see, the US liked the harshly oppressive Cuban Government that preceded Castro, because we were allowed to profit from it's fascism). The very tagline of the movie shows one of it's main objectives - to paint Castro or at least his economic model as cartoonish villainy.

2) The Hollywood of the time not wanting to go to the risk of having actual Cubans or even people of closely related nationalities in the leading roles, we have very American leading men doing laughable Cuban impressions. Jack Palance as Fidel Castro? Thankfully this tradition has broken so we never saw Nicholas Cage as Malcom X.

3) Facts are of no concern to the filmmakers.

It does, however, have my recommendation - as a spectacle (it is an interesting one), but hardly as a decent piece of cinema.