fairygirl411

This is, well, a silly movie. The script is terrible, even if you look at it as a movie for kids. And that's another thing -- it's geared towards kids, and yet I'm not sure this is a movie I'd show to kids. It's extremely violent and concerns a highly traumatic situation involving young children -- not to mention that the hero is a juvenile delinquent (NOT the misunderstood kind) who wins out by playing all sorts of illegal tricks. In fact, his actions are very much glorified by the fact that he can "mastermind" the "real" criminals, as well as by his constant, triumphant little asides. Oh -- and if you're only interested in this movie because you're a Vincent Kartheiser fan, don't bother. This is not what I'd call one of his best performances.

I was surprised. I hated AI, and I thought Spielberg was heading downhill into bad science fiction. Not Friday-Night-Movie-Funtime bad -- just bad. But this was good science fiction, because there was more to it than just science. Cool gismos and car-chases in space-age Lexuses don't hurt it any, but this movie really has something for everyone. A realistic Constitutional debate, philosophical questions of determinism and free-will, symbolism that avoids complete cheesiness, great comic relief, lots of fast-paced action, good casting. Setting it in a world that we can recognize made it almost disturbing in that it was all the more plausible. The very evident dark side of the hero gave it depth. I'd watch this again and again -- I bet I'd keep finding new angles, new things to think about. And the special effects are great.

I loved this movie -- sure it was silly and improbable and had a lot of gratuitous violence. But it's SUPPOSED to. It has no pretentions, and is just as it's advertised -- a roaring good time. It's hilariously funny, Will Smith has perfect comic timing, and the aliens are cool. And great music. Besides, it's worth it just to see Michael Jackson playing an alien.

Let's start with the continuity errors -- Road to Avonlea theoretically ended in 1912 after a 7 year run, Anne already having been gone for several years when it started. This one starts in 1915, and Gil and Anne have only been engaged 5 years? Plus they were supposedly already married at Marilla's funeral in RTA, to which Anne did not show up. I'm not convinced.

What's worse is the story and the script -- certainly nothing Lucy Maud Montgomery ever dreamed up. Brief overview: Anne and Gil move to New York, where they come head to head with dastardly American politics. They go home, get married, Gil is overwhelmed by his sense of duty and enlists. Lots of people die. Ever-determined Anne becomes a Red Cross volunteer in order to find her only true love. Instead she finds a shell-shocked Fred, and they trek across a war-torn Europe with a baby in tow. Anne becomes a spy and smuggles black-market jewels across the border dressed as a nun. She and her long-lost Gil are reunited and they live happily ever after (with the baby).

It's even dumber and more improbable than I can make it sound, if you can believe that. And real LMM fans don't want to watch a 30-year-old Anne speaking fluffy lines in every possible locale but Avonlea.

It's really tough to try to follow up a movie as spectacular and perfect as the first "Anne of Green Gables." However, as a purist, I must admit that the books were written as a series, and this is a necessary part of the story. And the film is well done. What's hard for real Anne fans to deal with in this movie is that it involves Anne moving past Avonlea. We all love Anne so much because, like her, we don't really want anything to change. We want to be Lost Children on our own island paradise forever, and once Anne grows up, we're forced to admit that we have too. This movie's actually pretty good -- and if I weren't complaining about my lost childhood, I'd be complaining that they never made a sequel. Overall I give this one a thumbs-up.

This film epitomizes "Anne of Green Gables" for me -- and I'd read every LMM book in print by the time I was 7. No one but Megan Follows could possibly capture Anne so well, and that goes for every other actor in the movie. I can't stop crying when I watch this movie, even now, because I want Green Gables and Avonlea to be my home too. Everything about the film is just so BEAUTIFUL, and the script/acting manages to capture LMM's quaint lyricism without sounding cheesy. One of my all-time favorite stories, one of my all-time favorite films -- 10/10!!!

I only watched this movie in the first place because I always kind of had a crush on Corey Haim. The plot didn't sound particularly interesting or original -- I didn't expect much. But this movie surprised me. It is without question messy -- it needs more time for character development, it goes right for a bunch of stereotypes that take away some of its credibility. But there's a lot in this film that's worth considering. The idea is half-"1984," half-"Lord of the Flies" -- a futuristic society where kids rule the world, yet there's less freedom or honesty than ever. It's a little scary in that thrilling way because it's something you can imagine, especially in light of recent history. And the constant use of iconography from the "Golden Age" of family values in American culture was stunning (an evil character named "Bullwinkle," an otherwise-bleak roller park with a giant record painted on the ground, Patricia Arquette's many costumes including cowgirl and sailorette). This is a movie that would do well to be remade a little more carefully. More focus on the obvious symbolism, more thought given to character. I'd like to see that, because I actually think this story has quite a bit to say to us today that might have seemed unimportant in 1991.

Like so many movies these days, this one's trying to be groundbreaking and provocative -- only it's all been done before. There's nothing new about this film. To add to that, the script is terrible -- it's the writing of an adolescent who thinks that she's being deep. The three young leads are fairly good, but they're not given much to work with. I was bored throughout the movie.

I've heard Jim Carrey's performance in this movie described as "semi-straight." Pardon me, but it's anything but. The movie's harmless by all counts -- a minimum of crude humour, cute story. But it's nothing more than an excuse for Jim Carrey to show off, once again. There is nothing moving or even accurate about the character of Charlie/Hank. And frankly, I didn't even find the film funny (it IS supposed to be a comedy). The gags are getting old.

Saying that this movie is "loosely based" on the Dostoevsky is like saying that Janet Reno is loosely based on Janet Jackson -- they have the same name, but not much else in common. The premise -- already a bit trite -- is hampered even further by the lame attempt at literary allusion. You keep expecting something you're not getting, and what you are getting isn't all that exciting. I felt like I was watching this movie underwater -- I could see and hear, but I wasn't sure what was going on. The characters are completely inconsistent, with the possible exception of Ellen Barkin. Vincent Kartheiser is a very good actor, with plenty of potential to be dark and ominous and creepy. But he wasn't -- his character's self-image/intentions were totally unclear. I'm unimpressed.

Thinly-cloaked retelling of the Garden-of-Eden story -- nothing new, nothing shocking, although I feel that that is what the filmmakers were going for. The idea is trite. Strong performance from Daisy Eagan, that's about it. I believed she was 13, and I was interested in her character. The rest left me cold.

Deliberately self-mocking, playing unashamedly and hilariously off of teen culture's many hypocrisies, I give this film four paws up! It's not just a chick-flick (although it does make for a great girlfriends-only night feature); it's got something for everyone. Unbelievable slapstick, cute outfits, and a fantastic cameo by Breckin Meyer, Seth Green, Donald Faison, and Alexander Martin as a boy-band. I was laughing the whole time.

This movie is so dumb. The James Caan parts of it are a lame excuse for soft-core porn and pseudo-gangster antics. The Kirsten Dunst/Vincent Kartheiser parts have the potential to be really, really good -- good dialogue building a truly interesting relationship. BUT. Kirsten's acting sucks -- it just sucks in every way possible. They have no chemistry.

The character of Lidda (Dunst) wasn't "bad" enough for me -- she wasn't much of anything, it was like she was reading her lines and had no clue what was going on. Vincent Kartheiser's Colonel was just about the only believable character -- I liked Colonel a lot. But it didn't help the film much.

I didn't appreciate the none-too-subtly cloaked symbolism (i.e. the "Second Chance Motel," the whole movie happening on and around Valentine's Day). The ending was also stupid -- it's supposed to be optimistic, a "fresh start," but PLEASE. You know she's going to keep smoking, and he's going to keep gambling, and they'll get sick of each other really fast and break up again. It didn't convince me.

This is one of the most disturbing, pessimistic, and overall depressing films I've ever seen -- naturally I loved it. It affected me powerfully. The camera work/artistic shot set-ups, along with the dark color quality set the tone for the whole movie. Not at all like the unappetizing "Kids," director Larry Clark's first feature, this movie is constantly shocking, but not just for the sake of shock value. It's unashamedly graphic in a way that most contemporary films avoid, making it cuttingly real. It also stands apart from most big heist movies, because it is character- rather than plot-driven.

James Woods is fantastic as always, and even Melanie Griffith (not one of my faves) is very well cast. The young Vincent Kartheiser, however, as a teen runaway turned junkie/petty criminal, steals the show. The camera loves him, and his adolescent volatility is painfully believable. I wasn't as much of a fan of Natasha Gregson Wagner, as Kartheiser's girlfriend, but even she surprised me with her dramatic final sequence.

WARNING: this movie is not for the faint of heart. I am personally a fan of anything that breaks new ground, or that defies convention. This film does both. But it is extremely graphic.

OK, so first off I think this was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen -- teen chick flick with no substance. That said, I'd watch it again anyway. In fact I rented it and watched it twice in a row -- it's kind of addictive. The fairly-awful script admittedly has its funny moments of deliberate self-mocking. But it also keeps trying to be serious when its anything but.

The cast: Gaby Hoffman drove me nuts throughout the film. Kirsten Dunst does a decent job, but her role is generic -- the same goes for "Welcome to the Dollhouse" nerd-goddess Heather Matarazzo and "Dawson's Creek" bad-girl Monica Keena. But there were some surprisingly nuanced turns -- Lynn Redgrave, who plays a militant yet sensitive headmistress is never anything short of sublime, and I particularly enjoyed the performance of Rachael Leigh Cook, whose snotty yet obviously insecure goody-two-shoes steals the show. I also liked Vincent Kartheiser in a rare turn as a not-so-bad-guy -- he made me laugh.

This movie is something to watch with your girlfriends when you're in the mood for fluff -- right up there with "10 Things I Hate About You." But it's not winning any awards for originality or depth.

I watched this movie because I'm a big fan of both its teen stars, Thora Birch and Vincent Kartheiser, not to mention anything starring Charlton Heston. Sorry, but not even they could save this cheesy and ridiculous family action movie and its indescribably bad script. It's not only completely unrealistic, but also predictable, saccharine, and trite. I was tempted to turn it off long before the end. This movie was too dumb even for the Disney Channel.