LMRusso-1

Along with Animal House, Ghostbusters & Groundhog Day, this is one of the best comedies to come from the Second City talent pool. The idea that it's IMDB avg rating is below 7 is absurd. This film is a solid 9 if not a 10.

It seems these reviews now require 600 characters so I'm going to continue writing. Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, John Candy, Joe Flaherty and other SCTV people come together in this film directed by Ivan Reitman and co-written by Ramis. From beginning to end it's hilarious with a smart, tongue in cheek style humor that never disappoints. Warren Oats is excellent as the Sgt Hulka and the perfect score by Elmer Bernstein rounds out a movie you will enjoy watching over and over.

"Mind Games" is the old "Mission Impossible" with a soft, mushy heart and a helping of humorous lunacy.

I don't mind the mushy heart or humorous lunacy. What needs to be fixed is the setup & believability of the schemes employed and their eventual conclusion. With "Mission Impossible" the plans were very straightforward, understandable & clear, A+B=C. Problems would come up, and they'd have to adjust (just like in 'Mind Games'). The difference is Zahns character is so manic and all over the place one gets the sense his inspirations are founded perhaps less in logic and more in THC. In order for me to properly get engaged in the plot and suspense, I need to be able to believe in it. I think this can be fixed with a little better/longer setup of the initial plans.

The characters are interesting & good looking, the acting is good, direction is decent (didn't like the circular merry go round camera shot in the second episode) & Chicago is a great setting. The team aspect is a big attraction to me. Like the original "Mission Impossible" (not the Tom Cruise versions) having a group of different people covertly work together to passionately achieve ethical goals just makes me feel good.

The greatest asset going for this show is its theme of scientifically manipulating human behavior to achieve a goal. "Mind Games" is intelligent, identifiable and lends itself to interesting, compelling introspection. I hope the show improves and succeeds.

"Batman Begins" is my favorite superhero movie ever. "The Dark Knight Rises" is clearly a huge hit, and I really wanted to like it- but it left me with indigestion.

Nolan is a master craftsman, the imagery, the (very loud) sounds, the performances are all top notch (opening scene is awesome). The problem I have is that often there's just too much going on and not all of it manages to make sense. I think there's enough in this film for two regular movies- and having it all squeezed into two and a half hours is almost like watching a movie in fast forward mode- where you can pick up bits and pieces of what's going on, but rarely dwell long enough on one thing to allow the story to feel real and sink in. "Batman Begins" also had a lot going on, yet it all seemed to fit and come together, with the Dark Knight Rises some of the plot twists and goings on simply don't pan out and work in a congruent way.

I remember reading an interview with Nolan where he described his wish with "Batman Begins" as wanting to create a story where you could actually believe the main character could truly do the things he's doing in the real world environment- to bring superhero fantasy down to real world believability (and with his first Batman movie, he did it with flying colors). But with this third installment all that went out the window for me, simple stuff like (spoiler alert) when the police force is left underground for weeks- yet when they emerge they look as fresh and well fed as when they first arrived, or how Catwoman manages to master the bat cycle instantaneously, or how commissioner Gordon is hunted at first, only to be left free to roam the city for weeks afterwards (plus I never bought into how Bruce was willing to push Alfred away so easily during their argument). The fight scenes between Batman and Bane are admirable, but border on cartoonish compared to the fight scenes in "Batman Begins".

Am I nitpicking? Yes. "The Dark Knight Rises" is a good superhero movie and worth seeing (wear earplugs if you go to the Imax showing, I couldn't hear for two hours afterwards). But when you challenge an audience to keep up with such fast paced sequences, you take on a responsibility to make it worth their while. Coming from Nolan's earlier works, he set a standard that IMHO this film didn't meet.

Nolan is a master chef, but this latest soup wasn't cooked long enough and has too many ingredients that don't sit together well in the stomach.

Ferrell and Galifianakis are both two wonderfully talented comedians and this movie has it's moments, but overall it fell flat to me. There weren't enough really good gags or laughs, Akroyd & Lithgow seem to phone it in and the whole movie felt like it was pushed through an assembly line.

Towards the end of the movie, some of the characters suddenly have a serious change of heart- the problem with this is that they've been portrayed as cartoons throughout the film- and when the story suddenly takes a turn and tries to get us to accept the serious tone- it just doesn't digest well.

It's not a bad movie, just not so great.

Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors. I was extremely excited at the prospect of Scott coming back to helm a new chapter in the "Alien" franchise.

I just came back from catching an 11pm show at my local theater and can't seem to make sense of it. Not the movie or plot points so much as the fact a man like Ridley Scott could have put his name on it. The script was not compelling, the performances one dimensional and the direction...surprisingly weak.

I saw the non-Imax 3D version. To me the 3D was more of a distraction than anything else. It didn't add to the visuals in any significant manner. Many of the 3D movies out today (like Prometheus) aren't truly 3D so much as they simply push the background away from you. It's more of a generated effect than something that makes you feel closer to what's happening on screen.

There was nothing established for me to care about- no threads to follow or objectives to reach for. The science crew seemed not the brightest... taking careless chances in unknown environments with not even the most basic of scientific precautions. Characters act in ways that just never made sense or brought me in enough to care about them.

There are a lot of allusions in the story towards religious and philosophical themes. One gets the sense screenwriter Lindelof was trying to make a cerebral epic along the lines of "2001 A Space Odyssey"- along with its flat performances (he even has Guy Pearce made up similarly to Keir Dullea at the end of "2001"). Unfortunately Lindelof forgot that even the most sophisticated of metaphors & plot themes require some minimal levels of storytelling structure, character development and logic.

Prometheus opens the door to more sequels/prequels/whatever- a prospect that years ago I might have have looked forward to. But as I watched the credits, I thought to myself, "when & if they do come out with a sequel... I'll just catch it on video".

The cinematography and imagery is beautiful to look at. Between the city of Barcelona and the 4 main characters, there's plenty of eye candy... so it does keep ones interest. Johansson and Hall don't put in the best of performances. Javier and Cruz do, and are responsible for giving the movie some depth. Cruz, in particular, is excellent in her very small, yet Oscar deserving role.

You can almost sum up the entire film with one word: Fling "Two attractive American girls go to Barcelona and have a fling with a studly Spanish artist." OK... and? "And he's got a crazy-fiery Spanish former lover." and then? "Then they go back home. The End." Now, some will argue the point of the movie is bigger... that it's really about trying to find happiness and contentment within the confines of standard social relationships. Hall is afraid to pursue her lusts while Johansson goes for it only to learn it's not what she wants. There are pitfalls of wanting vs. having and perhaps we can never truly be satiated.

Perhaps an interesting theme. But IMHO not interesting enough (or meaty enough) as expressed in VCB to keep interest for over 90 minutes worth of screen time.

Unless, of course, you fill it with lots of eye candy-

I love Steve Carell (and felt he was a great choice for the role), Alan Arkin is a great comedic actor, Anne Hathaway is wonderful eye candy and director Peter Segal proved his mettle in "Tommy Boy"... yet this movie was hugely disappointing.

The script simply isn't funny, the jokes/gags are lame and unimaginative (save for one scene of a mother berating her son in a car) and the direction seemed sub-par. Not sure if it was the editing/direction or acting, but even the few halfway decent jokes in the movie were delivered with poor timing. Also, the casting of James Caan as a George Dubya-style US President seemed completely out of place. Although some of the cameos were nice to see, even they (Leonard Stern, Bernie Kopell) came off as disjointed.

Honestly I'm at a loss to understand how this movie, with all the talent behind it, seemed to fall so flat. One gets the sense this was the product of some Hollywood production assembly line.

It's a shame, but whatever the reasons are, none of the feature versions of "Get Smart" have managed to ever come close to the humor of the original series.

Being that "The Apartment" won the "Best Picture" Oscar (in a year where "Spartacus" wasn't even nominated), I was really expecting something exceptional. I bought the DVD on Amazon after watching a documentary on Billy Wilder. I wanted to see Wilder's work and figured I'd start out with one of his Oscar winners.

Honestly, after spending over two hours watching the movie... I was left relatively unsatisfied. The only aspect of the film that really kept me going was Jack Lemmon. In my eyes, Lemmon is one of the greatest actors Hollywood has ever seen.

It's a decent film, and perhaps I was expecting too much- but it certainly doesn't seem to warrant the accolades attributed to it. I believe that in the year "The Apartment" was made (1959-60) it broke certain cinematic mores with it's relatively open perspective on sexuality. I get the sense this novelty had something to do with it's appeal at the time. In today's world (except for Jack Lemmon's great performance), IMHO this movie comes off more like a mediocre made for TV movie.

I caught this on HBO flipping channels and expecting little. When I caught on to the theme of the movie it was a wonderful breath of fresh air.

The movie depicts what life would be like in an America filled exclusively with pablum devouring, Porn-Addicted, Consumerist, FOX News watching morons. Political commentary? Social commentary? Corporate commentary? Yes, yes & yes.

The fact that FOX clearly tried to bury this title is a testament to it's striking a nerve amongst FOX Entertainment's executives. I just ordered the DVD from Amazon and look forward to a "Director's Cut" version to buy in the future. "Idiocracy" deserves to be seen and heard.

I can't comment on the entire film, I came across it on cable as I was flipping channels and just caught about the last half of it...

when I first tuned in, I didn't know what I was watching- it seemed like a documentary from the look and style. Then, as the scenes progressed I saw it couldn't be a documentary because of the camera positioning. Still though, the performances were so amazingly real I was having a hard time believing they were acting and/or using a script.

Then I realized the director was using the kind of style of films like Nick Gomez's "Laws of Gravity", except... maybe because of the British accents-it just seemed even more real to me.

The movie overall kept my attention and was fairly gripping- again, as I only saw half of it I can't properly comment. However, the direction, cinematography and performances (especially Stephen Graham's) were first rate, brilliant and absolutely refreshing.

THIS won for best picture?? Scorsese is a great director -and I'm glad he finally has a "Best Director" Oscar on his mantle- but IMHO this is not a worthy movie by any means.

For those who haven't seen "The Departed", here it is in a nutshell...

"I've got huge balls". "Are you a rat??!!". "Whaddaya having ya period?". "I think he's a rat". "Blow me". "Look, cocaine". "I'm not a rat!". "Bang, bang". "Look, tits". "Fuck you". "Fuck you, too". "You know what we do with rats, don't ya?". "Wanna sniff my ass?". "Fucking faggot". "Cunt". "I knew he was a rat". "Bang, bang ....... bang".

Say all this with a Hollywood-style Boston accent and you've just saved yourself two and a half hours.

Like most of the other comments for this film I remember seeing "Chosen Survivors" as a kid and being scared sh!tless. It was one of those creepy, apocalyptic, conspiracy types (sort of like "Alien", but done on the cheap).

Years ago I remember this and TV's "Trilogy of Terror" with Karen Black standing out as some of the scarier movies of the time. Since it's been over 30 years that I've seen it, I can't really say much else. I vaguely remember it not being the greatest movie- but certainly as a young kid in the theater it left an impression on me. Just thinking about it now conjures up some very creepy chills-

I'd love to see it again to compare my childhood memories of it to today (hope it eventually comes out on video).

I'd been meaning to see this movie since I can remember but never made it happen until it was on PBS last night. What makes this movie a classic is the message it conveys as well as the way it conveys it. The screenplay has many layers and makes it's points very subtlety-

As a first generation American of parents who were both concentration camp survivors, the message had particular meaning for me. It's a message especially poignant as Americans today better understand the pitfalls of confusing constructive political criticism/dissent with not being Patriotic -and putting political party before country.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", is a quote attributed to Edmund Burke- and is entirely what "Judgement at Nuremberg" is all about. What happened in Nazi Germany is not confined to the German people, it could happen in almost any country of the world, given the right circumstances. The defense "I was just following orders" is without merit.... -that is, if we are serious about wanting to live in a society we can be proud of.

Spencer Tracy is so good in this movie it's difficult to put into words. His role is a very delicate one and he pulls it off like few actors in history could ever hope to. Tracy's role is all the more impressive in the company of scores of Hollywood stars that grace this film.

There are weaknesses in the movie. I was surprised that, even given the subject matter, I found "Judgement at Nuremberg" too often melodramatic- the pacing and dialog often so slow that it bordered on comical. In this regard Director Stanley Kramer overdoes it IMHO.

Spoiler: The full weight of the story is brought to bear at the end when the guilty verdicts are given. Spencer Tracy, as the lead judge, pronounces the sentences on the Nazi government officials. Many of the accused officials are unrepentant and antagonistic to the idea of being judged by the American court, but Burt Lancaster plays the role of a German official who takes shame in his actions during the war.

Lancaster was a Nazi court Judge who allowed himself to take orders from party officials. His testimony shows that he did things against his better judgment and we see him as a relatively good man who got caught up in the political momentum and Nazi system.

When Tracy pronounces life sentences to the hard core Nazi's, he does so in a voice that betrays little emotion or anger. When he gets to Lancaster's character you're expecting Tracy to be more lenient on him, but instead he raises his voice in great anger and emotion as he also sentences him to life imprisonment. Tracy was angrier with him because he expected more from Lancaster -because he knew better yet didn't act.

In the last scene Lancaster is a broken man seeking some form of forgiveness from the man who sentenced him, and asks to see Tracy in his cell-room. Tracy obliges and takes his time to listen. Lancaster expresses his sorrow and pleads for the judge to understand that no one could have predicted the incredible evil that resulted from the Nazi regime... as the times were so chaotic it was impossible to not get caught up in it all. "I couldn't know".

As Lancaster is broken and repentant, one is tempted to forgive him for his actions. The camera goes to Spencer Tracy- he pauses and, with a soft voice, respectfully states... "you should have known as soon as you sentenced men to die who you knew were innocent". Understanding the point is inescapably true- Lancaster's face falls, Tracy leaves and the movie ends.

It's powerful stuff and a poignant lesson for all of us who like to think of ourselves as "good people".

As you might see from other reviews, "Fight Club" resonated strongly with a lot of people. To appreciate it fully one should really see it at least twice.

It's a smart, beautifully crafted work which breaks barriers of normal narrative Hollywood fare. It's not for everyone (most every frame is saturated with high-octane testosterone), but if you've ever had that feeling of dissatisfaction in your life... the sense that you held back and/or wished you pushed yourself further- "Fight Club" will likely hit a chord.

Like most of David Fincher's films, it's a very dark, violent and dreamlike movie, but "Fight Club" also has quite a lot of humor in it. Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are perfect in their mirrored characters as is Helena Carter as the edgy girlfriend/sex object. Amazingly, with all the darkness, blood and grittiness- it's somehow extremely refreshing to watch... mainly because of the very primal way it addresses human behavior.

Going into the theater, I didn't expect to like "Fight Club" all that much, but it quite simply blew me away. Although there are some very uncomfortable parallels to terrorist cells and destruction of buildings (it was made before 9/11), the main theme is wonderfully compelling.

For me it's all about what we often deal with in life (and a theme which many movies try to express) and that is- death. More specifically, the fear of death. As in one of my other favorite movies, "Defending Your Life", it addresses how fear can handicap our ability to truly enjoy the short time we have on earth- and how, when we allow ourselves to loosen the reigns, we worry less and live more fully. Whereas "Defending Your Life" expresses the point in a comedic way, "Fight Club" is right in your bloody f@*%ing face with it.

Fincher seems to do his finest work with Brad Pitt -as I think this and "Se7en" are his best films to date.

Forgive me, but after watching this festering pustule of a movie I've simply got to rant a bit. I normally don't trash films, but this one deserves it SO badly... I'm sorry.

Like watching grass grow, watching paint dry, etc.- this movie is "boring" defined. A chimp with a camcorder would shoot something more interesting -and I say that in all seriousness. I wish I could give it a negative rating but the pop-up menu only allows a "1" as the lowest. I can't remember a movie where a viewer's time is wasted any more thoroughly.

Maybe they ran out of money before being able to complete the movie they originally intended to make... because if not those who made this pitiful excuse for entertainment should be thrown off a boat somewhere as payback for the time they caused everyone to waste watching this stinking dung heap. There were points where I considered just turning it off, but thought perhaps there must be some method to the boredom... that something would eventually happen to explain the painfully slow pace ... I mean, nothing could be THIS bad, right? I waited... and waited... and... nothing.

This has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. Recently I was happy to see it on DVD which is a relief from watching the old, grainy VHS versions.

I hadn't seen it in years and watched it today to find myself amazed at how well the movie stands up to time. It's one of those rare, perfect storms of comedy where great writing (truly funny line after truly funny line) is paired with great direction and outstanding performances all at the same time.

Dudley Moore got an Oscar nomination for "Arthur" but lost (although John Gielgud won for best supporting actor). If Moore's performance in "Arthur" doesn't win a Best Actor Oscar -it's proof that no comedic actor could ever win the title (another example is Gene Wilder in "Young Frankenstein").

Steve Gordon crafts the film beautifully keeping true to each of the characters and the warm-hearted tone of the story. Quite simply, IMHO the movie is a rare gem. It's only sad that Steve Gordon passed away just a year after "Arthur" was released.

Regarding the DVD that is available as of 1/2007, it's so/so. Although the video quality is a leap over the old VHS copies, there is still no widescreen version available.

The DVD has a few extras that are nice but it's just not enough. One example is commentary from the Director stating how he greatly wished how certain deleted takes and scenes could have been included (because they were hysterical), but that he had to make tough choices for a final edit. The DVD, being the perfect format to include such material, certainly should have offered it as well.

This, the original "Arthur", is a classic comedy that is one for the books.

James Brooks' humor and narrative is never simple.

This movie is about the male vs. female psyche. It's not just a story about an obsessive compulsive guy with a gay, destitute neighbor who falls in love with a NY waitress.

It's about the battle men have with themselves as their organized, logical minds are forced to function in a world of feelings and human female interaction. I can't help but think of the episode of Star Trek where Kirk is separated into a "Nice" Kirk and an "Evil" Kirk.

Men are for the most part- logical, straightforward, goal oriented beings. The Jack Nicholson character represents the male mind in it's most raw and blunt form. It's this very same form that is forced to re-mold itself as something less straightforward in order to obtain what its ultimate goal is... namely, the love of a good woman.

To me, the title "As Good As it Gets" refers to the idea that compromises need to be made from our default manner of thinking if we're ever going to find the love we so desperately seem to need. There's no such thing as a perfect relationship... it takes work and sacrifice. It's as good as it gets- yet absolutely worth going after.

As for the production characteristics- the movie is a gem. Helen Hunt & Jack Nicholson are sublime in the way they make their characters rich and real to an unprecedented extent in movie history. There's a scene between the two at dinner where Nicholson compliments Hunt at her request that is pure gold. The writing, performances and directing throughout the film is of the highest caliber to be found anywhere.

I wasn't a big fan when I saw it years ago. Now I realize why there was a big deal made of it at the time. You need to read between the lines in this one- to see how beautiful of a walk through humankind it is.

This is a very dark film (thematically as well as visually) whose imagery is, at times, hypnotic. Set in the director's home town of Split, it portrays the city in an extremely shadowy, surreal and drug-induced tone (a fact that may potentially put off some viewers). Nevertheless, the incredible strengths of the work cannot be ignored.

After coming out of the theater I found myself constantly thinking back to the poignant, elegant & graceful imagery of the movie. Some of the shots are so masterfully crafted, for a moment it seemed as though I was watching a Stanley Kubrick film. -Beautiful, moving crane and dolly shots that seem to know just where your eyes want to go- with lighting that stays artistically dramatic in the most visually compelling ways.

There are also some incredible performances, with most of the actors cast perfectly with faces to type. One that sticks out in particular is of a girl who turns to prostitution to pay for her drug habit. There's a scene where she breaks down after losing her chance to get a fix where I was transfixed by her performance. Her emotions were so genuine and natural it seemed almost like documentary footage rather than fiction.

With a very non-linear, "Memento" type of structure, the story keeps you guessing in many clever ways. Mr. Ostojic is clearly an extremely talented director who created a real work of art that is truly worthy viewing for any fans of Kubrick's early films.

As I work with short films I've seen quite a few, and this one is a true gem. I saw it years ago at some festival and remember thinking to myself that the people who put it together clearly exhibited some real talent.

Stylistically it's almost perfect in recreating the perspective of a young man, drunk, horny and out on the town (if you live in NYC, it's even more identifiable). There's no real message, not much meaning- but a beautifully carved expression of something we've all experienced at some point in our lives.

It's perfect as a short film in this regard and, in my opinion, captures its mood so well that it borders on a cinematic work of art.

I've watched this movie over a dozen times and somehow still never manage to get tired of it. To me, it is a hugely underrated title.

It's not the type of film I'd have thought would be my favorite (it can be too sappy at times and the relationship between Streep & Brooks is never properly founded), but it has a wonderfully intelligent depth to it that is inescapable. The story takes on a few of lifes big questions and then answers them in truly inspiring fashion. Other movies may be considered more artistic in their expressions of life ('A Beautiful Mind', 'Citizen Kane' and 'Hannah & Her Sisters' to start the list...) but somehow, "DefendingYour Life" struck an unexpected chord in me. The overall cleverness, pacing and enchanting humor of the film just sucks me in every time.

Each character in the movie, no matter how minute, maintains an uncommon level of fullness & thought in casting, writing and performance. The main players seem to represent different characteristics that lie within each of us- hope, bravery, as well as cynicism and fear are all at the core of what this movie speaks. Through a screenplay that is as funny & heartwarming as it is poignant, "Defending Your Life" beautifully reminds us to live life to its fullest.

I remember watching Albert Brooks' short films on the old Saturday Night Live shows years ago. I never really took note of him at the time, but with this movie- I believe he's certainly proved himself to be a wonderful storyteller.