BSS

I have not read the book, but this movie is terrible. The plot was laughable and predictable. The acting was lame, as these performances made Steven Seagal look like Robert De Niro. Characterization was non-existent; it was extremely difficult to care about the characters because they were basically without personality. Surprisingly there was little effort to develop the characters and, as a result, they were extremely one-dimensional. As for the ending, it seems that the makers of this movie didn't really know what to do, so they just ended it! You'll find yourself asking, "Is that it?"

Normally my ratings are pretty close to IMDb users' assessments of movies, but this one was not even remotely close. A total waste of time and money. I cannot put into words how bad this movie was.

I own the PS2 version of this game, and it's pretty much the same as the previous version. Not that this is a terrible thing... 2K6 and 2K5 were great games, and this one continues the tradition. Just don't expect to see anything new.

The one big gripe I have with this one is that getting steals is much too easy. Also, when one player knocks the ball away, the player who picks it up gets credited with the steal, which technically is not correct. It was a nice option to add the ability to play the passing lanes, which came in the 2K6 version, but it's way too easy to get steals, sometimes just by pure luck. Moving the game sliders helps with this problem, though.

The legacy mode is deep and makes the game worth the purchase. The graphics are pretty much the same as 2K6, and the crowd, which was horrible in 2K5, still looks the same. The players pretty much look the same, as well.

Good game, but I have a "been there, done that, just with different rosters" feeling when I play it. 7/10

Dead Man on Campus is incredibly underrated. If you pick up the case in a movie store, or if you see the trailer, or perhaps if someone tells you the premise of the movie, it probably will not sound like a movie that is worth watching. Luckily I caught this on television once and got into it, because I doubt I ever would have watched it. I'm glad I did. I own the DVD and have watched it several times, and it doesn't get old. I typically do not rate comedies very high, but there are a few exceptions. I believe Office Space and American Pie are among the best comedies ever made, and I think Dead Man on Campus is just a notch below that level. Give this one a try. If you have a sense of humor, you certainly won't be disappointed. It starts a little slow, in my opinion, but give it some time. It's well worth it. 9/10.

I can't believe the Great Jack Nicholson read this script and thought, "Hey, this would be a great movie for me!" That cannot be how it went down.

I can suspend my disbelief as well as anyone, but this movie is ridiculously bad. Anyone who would classify the writing as "clever" or any other synonym of the word must be related to those who made this film, because the writing is horrible. Granted, there are many werewolf films and similar movies of the horror genre that are much less thoughtful with even worse writing, but that certainly does not mean that since this one is better that it is good.

The only thing that saves this movie is the acting. There are some good scenes. The interaction between Nicholson and Pfeiffer is good, as would be expected. The predictability of the plot combined with the poor writing, however, really hamper this movie's chances of being good. If you're a die-hard Nicholson fan, or if you want a werewolf flick that is a little different, then check this one out. If you want a good, well-written movie, look elsewhere.

This wasn't a bad movie at all. It was definitely typical Matlock, though. If you're looking for that one that breaks the formula, you won't find it here. This is worth checking out at least for Jeri Ryan, whether you're a Matlock fan or not. 5/10

The appeal of this movie is that it makes you feel the fear, excitement, and tension that the journalists covering the Gulf War had to have felt. There are many scenes that accomplish this very well, including the scenes where the journalists are in Kuwait investigating stories of Iraqi soldiers taking babies from incubators and leaving them for dead. The interview scene with Hussein is very well done; you can imagine the intimidation Wiener felt when he had to clip a microphone on Hussein's tie.

However, nothing in the movie brings out these emotions in the audience like the shots of the skies of Baghdad illuminated with bombs and anti-aircraft fire. The bravery shown by the journalists who covered this from their hotel room instead of taking shelter is amazing to me to this day, and the movie really communicates a sense of how they must have felt.

I probably wouldn't have been anywhere near Baghdad had I been in their shoes, but now I know how they must have felt.

It's hard to fit this man's whole story into a two-hour TV movie, but this is still a moving tribute to Jim Valvano, his lust for life, and his adherence to a "Don't ever give up" attitude. I would have liked to have seen a more complete picture of Valvano, especially more of the story behind the allegations of misconduct at NC State, but two hours isn't enough to cover everything, and I believe the picture accomplished everything it set out to do. 6 out of 10.

I thought Lawnmower Man 2 was the worst movie ever made, but this one might give it a run for its money. The ridiculous storyline is the perfect symbol for why WCW was so horrible in its final days under the Turner banner. I don't know what another reviewer of this movie was thinking when he/she wrote that it was a "parody" of wrestling fans, because it's not that at all. It is, however, horrible.

(NOTE: SOME MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD) When this movie starts, we find Billy (who claimed at the end of part one never to have been back to the Ozarks) returning from World War II to the home he said he had never been back to in part one when he's telling the story as a much older man. We never find out what became of Billy's parents from part one, as the only characters returning are Grandpa, Billy's sister Sara, and Rainie Pritchard, who has somehow become Billy's best friend. Even though Rainie saved Billy's life during the war (how sappy), the writer's fail to establish any believable friendship between the two young men. There is barely any reference to part one (which has its own problems), and Billy even goes as far as naming his new dogs Old Dan and Little Ann, the names from the dogs in part one. However, the writers in part two make the same mistake as the writer's in part one: they don't spend enough time developing the characters of the dogs to create sympathy for them. This is well done in Wilson Rawls' book (on which these characters are based), but not in the movie versions.

The movie is full of very lame melodramatic scenes, as well, and is very predictable in spots. (The spots that aren't predictable are even worse!) I won't give away things that happen at the end, but these things are so ridiculous that you'll probably watch from morbid curiosity. In fact, some of the movie is so ridiculous that it's probably best to just see it, as it speaks for itself.

In closing, if you like to watch really horrid movies to make fun of them, you'll love this one. If you're one of those people who doesn't like to waste a lot of your time, then leave this one on the shelf of your video store, if they're unfortunate enough to have it.

There are few movies that can hope to be as good as the great literature they are based on, but _The Outsiders_ comes close.

The cast is star-studded, to be sure, but the most impressive thing about the casting is how the stars match the characters from S.E. Hinton's novel. Matt Dillon plays the "elfish-looking" and dangerous Dallas Winston to perfection in what is probably the best performance of the movie. Patrick Swayze is a perfect fit for the brawny Darry Curtis; Ralph Macchio plays Johnny Cade, the "beaten puppy dog" of the Greasers very well; C. Thomas Howell has the toughest job, playing Ponyboy, the coming-of-age narrator of the story, and he comes through with a memorable performance. The list goes on and on... Emilio Estevez as Two-Bit; Rob Lowe as the handsome Sodapop Curtis... and so on.

Not only does the movie stay true to the book as far as characterization goes, but the movie's plot is also fairly close to the novel. It's nice to see Hollywood realizing that they can't outdo a great author's work, at least in this case.

Although the movie is not quite as good as the book, as is usually the case, _The Outsiders_ certainly does the book justice, and if you liked the book when you read it in school and you never got to see the movie, you should definitely check it out.

While the movie version of Where the Red Fern Grows is not quite as good as the book by Wilson Rawls, the film is still a quality family film and very much worth watching if you are a fan of the novel.

The changes in the plot for the movie version are minor, and most of the same themes Rawls intended for his readers can be found in the movie. However, one glaring difference is the fact that the characterization in the movie cannot touch the novel. The movie does little to build up Billy's "dog wanting" disease as well as Billy's dogged (pun intended) determination to secure himself some hunting hounds. This takes away from the reader's sympathy for and identification with the protagonist. Grandpa's character also does not come off as well as he does in the novel. In the novel, Grandpa is clearly a wise man despite his one irrational act; in the movie, he seems plain irrational, and there is no sign of his wisdom on the subjects of life and coon hunting. The extent to which the dogs are given characters and personalities in the book is not found in the movie, either. Billy's mother and father do translate fairly well from the book to the big screen, but the fact that the protagonist and his dogs do not is the major weakness of the film.

In closing, if you're a fan of the novel, then you should definitely watch this movie version, but don't expect it to be as good as the classic children's novel.

Robert Duvall's portrayal of E.F., Sonny, or whatever you would like to call him is simply amazing. Duvall has created an imperfect hero, a hero much easier to relate to because he has shortcomings and flaws. If you're looking for Billy Graham, you won't find him in this movie, but what you will find is a flawed hero with whom we other flawed human beings can relate to. If you don't watch another movie this year, at least watch _The Apostle_.