Jeremy-124

The first time I saw this film was at an advance screening when I was a film student, and director Martin Ritt was there to speak and answer questions. I remember that he seemed like a very down-to-earth, nice guy. He patiently answered the students' questions and explained why the story attracted him. Maybe some of the affection I have for the film is because of that original positive experience, but I've probably seen it at least a dozen times and it hasn't worn thin.

Some people may find some of the characters and situations lacking in depth, but for me the movie is chiefly about Norma Rae's transformation as she becomes passionately devoted to unionizing the mill workers and, secondly, her interesting friendship with Reuben. It succeeds brilliantly on both counts, largely because of Sally Field's amazing performance. The scene where she stands on the table with the "union" sign is a classic, and it's Field's raw emotion that draws you in. Her fear and anger, and the power she feels when her coworkers show their support, are so apparent and so real that I'm always deeply moved.

I'm glad I took advantage of the opportunity to see this film on cable TV, but I wish I had seen it letterboxed. The cinematography was quite good and I'm sure it lost quite a bit in the pan-and-scan version.

This is a heartfelt film and a well-made one in many ways, but overall I found it rather tiring and melodramatic with some strong and memorable scenes here and there. Much has been said about the battle scenes being similar to the ones in "Saving Private Ryan." That in itself is OK, but -- although I'm not a huge fan of that film -- I thought SPR's battle scenes were more focused and involving. In this film, the mayhem just felt relentless and mind-numbing, which, I suppose, is what it can feel like when you're in a war. But for me it had a distancing effect after a while -- I simply got tired of the film. I also felt that the emotions were pitched too high and that the film could have benefited from more subtle writing and performances. For me, the most moving moments were the framing scenes at the beginning and end involving one of the characters as an old man. Those scenes had a quiet gravity that was missing elsewhere.

Besides the echoes of "Saving Private Ryan," I also felt the director was influenced by American war movies like "Platoon" and "The Deer Hunter." Again, all movies are influenced by earlier ones, but the fact that I was thinking about this while watching the film is an indication that I wasn't very involved in the plot or characters.

All in all, though, it was interesting to see a movie about a part of history that's mostly been ignored in films. And despite its shortcomings, the movie does at times capture the utter folly and sadness of war. I wish I could have liked it more overall, but maybe I'll give the letterboxed version another try someday.

I wasn't expecting too much from this movie, given the reviews it got. But how bad could a movie be with this cast? As it turns out, VERY bad. But I have to think that some plot and character development was lost on the cutting room floor.

The opening credit sequence is absolutely brilliant, with witty use of vintage '50s clips of housewives in their "miracle kitchens of the future" and that sort of thing. Deliberately choppy editing and occasionally speeded up action lend the sequence a mechanical feel on top of its satirical air. Too bad nothing else in the movie measures up to it.

I did think there were a couple of decent laughs, mainly when Glenn Close was on screen. Roger Bart, playing a gay stereotype we've seen too many times in recent movies, milks it for all its worth and earns some chuckles, too. But Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick often seem lost. Christopher Walken, Bette Midler and Jon Lovitz are all mostly boring here, hard as it is to believe.

I haven't seen the '70s version in ages, but I remember thinking it was OK but campier than it was meant to be. Upping the camp level was not a bad idea for the remake, but I don't know what happened with the screenplay. Paul Rudnick is no genius, but he's done far better.

I get the feeling that major scenes must have been cut out for some reason, as the plot development felt awkward especially in the early scenes. It might be worth renting the DVD for the deleted scenes.

Also, as others have stated, the movie is totally inconsistent on the point of whether the women are robots or have simply had their brains altered. It's as if they figured we wouldn't really be playing close attention, so what difference did it make?

My bottom line advice -- if you get a chance to see it without paying, watch the opening credits and then change the channel.

This movie is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!

Oh, did I mention that this movie is BAD?? In fact, it's wretched. It's devoid of coherence, logic, scariness, suspense or anything else remotely redeeming.

It's hard to know where to start, it's just so stupid. But I'll give one example. There's this kid who's deathly afraid of the dark. So what do the doctors do to cure him? They strap him down and stick him in a dark tube so that he'll have to face his fears! What is this, the dark ages? That would never happen.

The only good thing about this movie is that it is short. Don't watch it, even if it's free and the alternative is staring at a blank screen for 90 minutes.

I'm glad I saw this movie for one reason only, and that reason is a hysterically funny scene where Bruce (Jim Carrey) uses his powers to make his rival news

anchor (Steven Carell) babble like a crazy person on the air. I laughed so hard that tears were streaming down my face during that scene -- Carell steals the show here.

I think that Carrey is truly an original genius who is capable of sublime slapstick, and also of being very good in movies that offer more, like "The Truman Show." But just about everything about this movie feels tired and labored. The TV news stuff is bad satire (except for that one great scene) because it has no relation to reality whatsoever -- it's just silly without being funny. And the movie has a very irritating musical score (very similar to "Liar, Liar") that telegraphs everything, helping to spoil what little humor there is.

Morgan Freeman hits the perfect note as God, underplaying his role nicely.

Jennifer Aniston is OK, but the role is undeserving of her talents.

Worst of all, the movie goes sickeningly sentimental toward the end.

"Groundhog Day" conveyed a somewhat similar message in a much less

cloying way. I give this 4 out of 10.

This movie offers an abundance of everything we go the movies for -- action, drama, romance, humor, and scenic beauty. It's one of those movies that's even greater than the sum of its parts, making it hard to describe in a few words. I've seen it twice now, and both times certain scenes have given me chills and brought tears to my eyes because of their sheer cinematic brilliance. What impressed me most on a second viewing are the faces of the actors -- the longing on the face of Michelle Yeoh, the wise but sad face of Chow Yun-Fat, and the delicate yet fierce face of young Zhang Ziyi. The action scenes defy description -- this is as good as movies get.

When I'm really enjoying a movie, I'm usually not consciously aware of cinematic techniques. I might think about these elements in retrospect or on repeat viewings, but I feel for the most part that it's a movie's job to draw me into the story and make me forget about the technical stuff. With "Unbreakable," I found myself being much more entertained by the technical stuff than I was by the story -- much as I felt as I watched Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut."

The cinematography is brilliant in this movie. Every shot feels storyboarded and very carefully planned, which is not a bad thing if it's in support of a strong story and script. I found the writing to be thin -- like a short story dragged out to the point that it feels way too slow. Also, the evocative music seemed to signify something greater than what I was seeing.

Bruce Willis seems drugged and kind of stupid here. He was muted in "The Sixth Sense," but still seemed intelligent and full of emotion. Robin Wright Penn has a couple of nice scenes and gets to show some depth of emotion. Samuel L. Jackson is always interesting and adds some nice touches to an underwritten character.

There's no doubt that M. Night Shyamalan is a major talent with decades of strong filmmaking ahead of him. His sense of visual style and forboding atmosphere is second to none.

"The Perfect Storm" may not be quite perfect, but most of it is brilliant, rousing filmmaking. And all involved deserve great credit for making every effort to be respectful of the people portrayed in the story, and of the fishing industry itself.

The storm scenes are absolutely phenomenally real. You feel drawn into the action, and even though the outcome is never in doubt, there is strong suspense in many scenes. You care about the guys on the boat, and you want the inevitable to be delayed for as long as possible.

The performances are excellent. George Clooney is a believeable, slightly obsessed captain. Mark Wahlberg continues to impress as an actor, and John C. Reilly is the perfect likeable working guy. William Fichtner is good too, but his Gloucester accent is a bit in and out. The same is true for Diane Lane, who I like as an actor, but her accent is much broader in some scenes than others.

The opening and closing scenes are a bit overly schmaltzy, but there's enough genuine feeling to make it work.

The only other problem I have is with a couple of anachronisms in the script. Clooney makes a speech about why he loves being a sword boat captain, and he describes the areas the boat passes when leaving Gloucester Harbor. One thing he mentions is "waving to the lighthouse keeper's son on Thacher Island." There have been no lighthouse keepers on Thacher Island in 20 years, and no families there since long before that. And as the words are heard in the movie you see Eastern Point Lighthouse, not Thacher Island. Sorry, I can't help it -- I research and write about lighthouses for a living. Another anachronism -- Clooney says something to the crew about looking like they were "in a brawl in Scollay Square." The Scollay Square section of Boston hasn't existed in about 40 years; it seems unlikely that a Gloucester fisherman would make a remark like this. I know I'm being picky, but for the most part the movie pays such close attention to detail that these things stand out for me.

All in all this is a satisfying film and a worthy tribute to the generations of people who have worked and sacrificed in the fishing industry.

It's hard to believe how bad this movie is. Not only is it unfunny and annoying, but it accomplishes the incredible feats of making Will Smith unlikeable and making Kevin Kline seem boring. And besides that, it has something to offend just about everyone -- there are sexist jokes (LOTS of them), homophobic jokes, and jokes about the handicapped, for starters. There's also a scene where Jim West (Smith) barely escapes being hanged by Southern rednecks, played clumsily for laughs. This scene really made me uncomfortable -- if you're going to milk humor out of a black man being lynched, at least give it some kind of twist. Almost everything in the movie feels uninspired, like all involved were just going through the motions. Salma Hayek is no more than decoration. Kenneth Branagh is entertaining in a couple of scenes; at least he tries awfully hard. The giant mechanical spider is pretty neat, and one of Branagh's henchman, a metal man, should have been in the movie more. This heavy-handed mess doesn't hold a candle to "Men in Black," and "The Mummy" remains the action movie to see so far this summer.

This movie manages to be fun and likeable despite an uneven script. It's likeability is mostly due to the cast, especially Drew Barrymore, who has certainly found her stride as an actor. She's very sympathetic, as she was in "Ever After" and "The Wedding Singer." David Arquette is a big plus, too, and it's nice to see him back in a decent quirky role and not just AT & T commercials. Unfortunately, the movie is totally predictable, and not one detail in the newspaper room rings true (especially Garry Marshall as a tyrannical editor). Despite knowing exactly what was going to happen, I had a good time at this movie. See it, but don't think about it too much.

When I first saw "The Parallax View" around 20 years ago, I thought it was mostly boring and aimless. I just tried giving it another chance and watched it on AMC. It's even more boring than I remembered! There are a few tense scenes interspersed with lots of odd stuff that has nothing to do with the plot. Many individual scenes are dragged out painfully, and the long scene where Beatty is shown a weird film in some sort of testing at the Parallax Corporation is one of the strangest, most self-indulgent scenes ever in a major Hollywood movie. I'm afraid I wasn't a fan of Pakula's "Klute" either, but I do like "All the President's Men," which showed a much greater sense of economy and generated a true sense of paranoia. And to my mind, the political masterpiece of Beatty's career is "Bulworth."

Timothy Hutton and the cast of "Digging to China" deserve an "A" for effort and for having their hearts in the right place. Despite some awkward writing and a not entirely successful performance by Kevin Bacon, this film mostly succeeds by making you feel the deep need the characters have to connect with one another. Some scenes feel contrived, but the performances overcome this for the most part. Bacon is OK once you get used to him, but his performance feels a bit studied and overly mannered -- it doesn't flow as naturally as Leonardo DiCaprio's similar performance in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?"

This movie shares some plotting and themes with "Lawn Dogs" -- in both films an older man befriends a lonely and odd young girl; people misunderstand and violence results -- which to me was a better movie. But "Digging to China" certainly deserves more attention than its gotten. The performance of Evan Rachel Wood as Harriet is one of the most amazing performances by a young actor I've seen in ages.

I was a big fan of "Bound," so I knew the Wachowski brothers had a great sense of style and art direction, and also a sly, campy sense of humor. "The Matrix" has style to burn. It's one of the greatest looking science fiction movies in a long, long time, and the visual effects are cutting-edge miraculous. The performances are fine, and the sometimes-wooden Keanu Reeves is sympathetic and believable.

My biggest reservation is that the plot isn't exactly original. It's the old "the machines have taken over and a small band of humans is fighting back" idea that was used in the Terminator movies and various other sci-fi movies and books through the decades. Also, like in the Terminator films, the savior of the human race is, of course, a man, who succeeds partly because of a supportive woman. Why can't the savior be a woman for a change? Also, Reeves' character is supposed to be an accomplished computer hacker, but these skills are never utilized in his battle against the machines.

I don't mean to sound negative, because I really had a great time at this movie. It's easily one of the best of its type.

EdTV is a very entertaining movie with an excellent cast. It's impossible to avoid comparing it with "The Truman Show." That earlier film was stronger, I think -- more thought-provoking and resonant on many levels. EdTV seems to me to be mostly about our American obsession with celebrity. If you're on TV, you're a celebrity. And if you're a celebrity, you belong to the public.

Ron Howard is, as always, a reliable workmanlike director. And the cast is perfect. Ellen DeGeneres is very funny in a role that becomes more sympathetic as the movie goes along. Woody Harrelson has some hilarious scenes, and Martin Landau is wonderful -- and very funny. And it's great to see Rob Reiner in a major role.

All in all, a nice media satire with many memorable scenes, even if it doesn't top "The Truman Show."

This movie left me feeling empty. I didn't need to be taught that some men are controlling and abusive, or that some teens are troubled and emotionally fragile, and I didn't need to be taught that true faith in God, or goodness, is difficult in a violent world. Like most people, I knew these things already. This movie is so full of depressing tragedy that it desperately needed fully-developed, interesting characters to make us care, and I found the characters sketchy at best. Martha Plimpton is always interesting and it was nice to see her in a lead role, but she deserved a better script. A disappointment, and it's no wonder it didn't get much of a theatrical run.

This movie was unjustly dismissed when it came out. It's no classic, but has many genuinely funny moments. It has playful fun with sexual roles in our society, and its positive message seems to be that friendship and caring are more important than sex. Patrick Dempsey showed a real flair for physical comedy that hasn't been utilized since, and the supporting cast, especially Kirstie Alley and Carrie Fisher, seem to be having lots of fun. Worth a look!

I've been reading other people's comments about this movie, and I'm not surprised by how polarized opinions are. I saw it with an audience of maybe 100 people, and I'd say around 20 walked out early. I found myself very emotionally involved for most of the film, then bored and impatient with the last hour.

I agree with those who say the movie would have been stronger if the characters had been better differentiated. I wasn't always sure whose thoughts I was hearing in voice-over, and I also had trouble making out some of the words in the voice-overs. I felt that it would have been OK to have poetic, thoughtful voice-overs for one character, but they all blurred together after a while. What seemed poetic at first eventually seemed redundant.

Still, I was emotionally involved as the characters attempted to take control of a hill held by unseen Japanese. I loved the use of the camera moving through the tall grass from the soldiers' point of view. Maybe even more than "Saving Private Ryan," this film puts you right in the battle.

Jim Caviezel, who is unfamiliar to me, gives a memorable performance and is really the character we follow from beginning to end. He seems like an old soul -- like he sees beyond the madness around him and knows that there's something larger, more lasting. Caviezel was perfectly cast -- his eyes convey tremendous depth.

Sean Penn, Nick Nolte and Elias Koteas are the other actors that stand out in my mind. Of the "big name" actors in small parts, Woody Harrelson makes the largest impression and has one great scene.

Terrence Malick's "Days of Heaven" is one of my favorite movies. One of its strengths was an economy in its storytelling that is unfortunately lacking in "The Thin Red Line." Still, I'm very, very happy that this extraordinarily talented man is back making movies. I'll take a flawed "Thin Red Line" over 99% of the Hollywood schlock being churned out. I think this film will be discussed and debated for decades to come. He may have missed by a bit, but Malick aimed very high.

I never really believed a second of this movie -- it feels like contrived Hollywood schlock. But I enjoyed it anyway. Sharon Stone's performance is fun, and her wardrobe alone is worth the price of admission. There's also one of the best car chases I've seen in recent years.

This is one of the best movies of its type -- a stark, thoughtful morality tale about honesty, greed, friendship and family. We've all seen movies about what money and greed can do to people, but seldom has the story been told in such a gripping way. The movie makes you care about the characters -- you feel that they are basically good people doing bad things and getting in deeper and deeper. There are moments in this movie that actually gave me chills. Billy Bob Thornton's Jacob is a sad, tragic figure, similar in some ways to his "Sling Blade" character but much more complicated. Yes, the ending is a downer, but as far as I'm concerned that's a big plus over standard Hollywood fare. I've been a big Sam Raimi fan since his Evil Dead days, and I'm very pleased by his development as a mature director. Danny Elfman's jangly score is perfect, as is the cinematography. A classic.

No movie with Samuel L. Jackson, Kevin Spacey and the late great J.T. Walsh could be all bad, and "The Negotiator" is watchable largely because of its strong cast. But what could have been an excellent suspense film unfortunately is overlong and ends up feeling like a competent but forgettable TV movie with some bad language thrown in.

One of the biggest problems is a thundering, distracting musical score that sounds like every action movie you've seen in the past five years. And action scenes are milked for all they're worth -- there are endless shots of police cars, helicopters, cops running, etc. The movie would have benefitted greatly from a leaner script and more economical direction and editing.

Not a bad rental for a rainy or snowy day, but hardly as satisfying as it might have been.

I first saw this movie when I was at high school. I went back to see it about 10 times in theaters, and now I pull out the video when I'm in need of an emotional boost. This movie pulls off the unusual feat of being both cynical and optimistic at the same time. The satire is biting, but it makes you feel that Lindsay Anderson's take on humanity is more bemused than angry. Like 20001: A Space Odyssey, the ending leaves itself open to personal interpretation. For me it says, "Sure, life is rough, but you have to laugh anyway. We're all in it together -- we might as well have fun." By the way, the version that's available on video contains a couple of scenes that weren't in the American theatrical version, and the movie makes more sense intact.

This is, in my book, Keaton's greatest film -- even better than "The General," and that's saying a lot. It's hilarious and technically dazzling, especially when you consider the state of special effects when it was made. See it and understand why Buster Keaton has to be considered one of the geniuses of the 20th century.

This movie gradually builds in its emotional force, becoming quite gripping as it develops. It compares very favorably with similar films like "The Killing Fields" and "The Year of Living Dangerously." For me it may even top those films -- a moving, sober piece of work. I had tried not to pay much attention to the war in the former Yugoslavia, but this movie makes it all so personal that I now feel that I'd like to learn more about the past and present situation.

I feel like I saw a different movie than most critics and most of the people who have commented on the IMDB. I thought the first half was annoying and boring, with some of the most unfunny slapstick I've ever seen (and I'm a great fan of good slapstick). There were a few good moments in the prison camp scenes, but they weren't worth sitting through the rest of the film. In one scene, when a man put a hat on that had eggs in it, and the eggs broke on his head, a young couple in front of me went into convulsive spasms of laughter. If that's your idea of a big yuk, see this movie.

When it wasn't attempting to be funny, the movie was cloying and manipulative. If you want to see Roberto Benigni actually being funny, rent "Down by Law."

The cinematography and the music in this film are wonderful, and there is a great supporting performance from Ian McKellan. But while the story was a very emotional one I found myself unmoved. For me Vincent Perez' performance didn't work at all -- I couldn't see past his studied "wildness" and fake accent. And Rachel Weisz, as Amy, is such an enigma that I didn't feel much for her except for a couple of intense scenes. McKellan's Dr. Kennedy is the character I was drawn to. He brings depth and humanity to his role. It was a bit confusing, though -- I wasn't sure if we were supposed to think that Dr. Kennedy felt a homosexual love for Yanko (Perez). And I found the movie much too slow, especially the first half. It felt like a short story dragged out to feature length, which it was. This movie is worth renting, but for me it was ultimately forgettable.