noahk

Despite John Travolta's statements in interviews that this was his favorite role of his career, "Be Cool" proves to be a disappointing sequel to 1995's witty and clever "Get Shorty."

Travolta delivers a pleasant enough performance in this mildly entertaining film, but ultimately the movie falls flat due to an underdeveloped plot, unlikeable characters, and a surprising lack of chemistry between leads Travolta and Uma Thurman. Although there are some laughs, this unfunny dialog example (which appeared frequently in the trailers) kind of says it all: Thurman: Do you dance? Travolta: Hey, I'm from Brooklyn.

The film suggests that everyone in the entertainment business is a gangster or aspires to be one, likening it to organized crime. In "Get Shorty," the premise of a gangster "going legitimate" by getting into movies was a clever fish-out-of water idea, but in "Be Cool," it seems the biz has entirely gone crooked since then.

The film is interestingly casted and the absolute highlight is a "monolgue" delivered by The Rock, whose character is an aspiring actor as well as a goon, where he reenacts a scene between Gabrielle Union and Kirsten Dunst from "Bring It On." Vince Vaughan's character thinks he's black and he's often seen dressed as a pimp-- this was quite funny in the first scene that introduces him and gets tired and embarrassing almost immediately afterward.

Overall, "Be Cool" may be worth a rental for John Travolta die-hards (of which I am one), but you may want to keep your finger close to the fast forward button to get through it without feeling that you wasted too much time. Fans of "Get Shorty" may actually wish to avoid this, as the sequel is devoid of most things that made that one a winner. I rate this movie an admittedly harsh 4/10.

Keeping your expectations low is the key to this cute but silly film. The extraneous plot is razor thin and even almost unnecessary as it's merely a joy to watch Keenan Thompson as a live action Fat Albert. This is a pleasant watch throughout, although somewhat underdone if anything. Examples: the film's villain is not very evil, the Bill Cosby cameo is tacked on, and the fish out of water timepiece is not explored for long. I also felt that they didn't concentrate any effort on characterizing the Cosby Kids other than Fat Albert himself. Rudy, for example, in the cartoon was a smart aleck who was the least likable of the gang but in the film, he's a sweet kid who simply dresses like Rudy. Although easy to criticize, the film can't help but be charming and likable without any pretensions. What's more, it's a good choice for children-- I can't think of anything objectionable here that my three-year-old couldn't watch. Rating: 6/10

I couldn't resist watching this film once it came to Cinemax, after it had generated so much press last year. Although I sensed it wouldn't be an entertaining film, I hadn't realized that it would be so predictable and derivative of other movies.

To summarize the "plot" quickly, Tracey, a 13-year old girl from a broken family in a lower class neighborhood of Los Angeles, aspires to be in the popular clique in her middle school. Once she quickly realizes that dream, she leaves her old friends behind and falls under the spell of her classmate, Evie, who is very troubled herself and brings Tracey's world into a quick downward spiral when she essentially moves into Tracey's home. Tracey's mother is well meaning but unable to assume control due to her own alcoholism and goal to remain a friend to Tracey and gives her the benefit of the doubt in all situations. Tracey's dad is a deadbeat who is late on his alimony and visitations. Does all this sound familiar?

The acting is very good in the film, but the writing is not. Every sort of trouble you fear a teenage girl could get into these days that can be thrown in for shock value is: drugs, drinking, smoking, stealing, experimenting with other girls, experimenting with guys, experimenting with group sex, cutting, it's all there and it's all very predictable. The white trash existence of Tracey's family is an absolute cliche as well. I think the film is trying to shock you into wondering what your adolescent is up to, but it's just too far fetched to be believable in that regard-- one or two of the aforementioned issues would have been fine, but not all of them (especially when we're talking about a 13 year old). Some will claim this is what a seventh grader's life is like, but if this was the rule rather than the exception, why would it be worth making a movie about it?

Watching the film play out isn't very enjoyable either. It's designed to be uncomfortable throughout and while it succeeds in that regard, the disjointed style of filming, the weak plot, and the fact that the characters are so dislikable keeps any entertainment value down a bare minimum. And it's all been done before-- it borrows heavily from the films, "Kids" and "Poison Ivy," among others. Rating: 4/10

Yesterday, I came accross this film while I was lying down flipping channels, looking for something to put on TV in the background so I could take a nap. I had rejected the movie in the past, as it looked like a reworking of Julia Roberts' "Sleeping with the Enemy." Well, although I was not wrong on that point, I quickly got sucked into this film and suffice it to say, did not take that nap.

The movie was very tense, I found my heart beating throughout-- the filmmakers were doing something right to make me feel that way, particularly since nothing was terribly shocking and most of the film was somewhat predictable (especially having seen "Sleeping with the Enemy"). I was so intrigued that I had to watch clear through to the ending to see how things played out and to watch the climactic revenge sequence. It didn't disappoint in the least.

Part of the intrigue was that the husband/antagonist played by Bill Campbell was just so loathesome, I was determined to see him suffer. He was arguably even more evil than the awful husband in "Sleeping with the Enemy" (possibly because there was a child involved here), although the character was somewhat less realistic. The husband in SWTE was an obsessive compulsive, psychotic control freak, while it was hard to pinpoint Campbell's motives for the abuse-- he just was that way and he knew it and didn't care.

Overall, this is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it does deliver on a number of levels, if you're in the mood for such a film. I rate a 6/10.

I had long been looking forward to finally finding the "lost View Askew" film, "Drawing Flies," only to realize what a total waste of my time it was to watch it. I am a fan of Kevin Smith's films, especially "Mallrats," and it seemed encouraging that so much of its cast was in this film, although I'm scratching my head at what I just saw.

I think it was meant to be a comedy, but there was no obvious humor (or subtle, for that matter). I would imagine most viewers would be at least as indifferent to the plot and characters as I was-- and I was inclined to like the film, having been searching for so long. The acting, directing, and writing were all really lousy, although the same actors did a good job in "Mallrats," leading me to believe that the blame is more squarely in the lap of the filmmakers. Some of the intellectual pontification present in Smith's films can be heard here as well, but it just seems laboured and extraneous. My last complaint (although if I had the time I could continue indefinitely) was that although we were often reminded that it was set in British Columbia, there was only one character that sounded remotely Canadian-- in fact, Jason Mewes sounded as New Jersey-esque as always, down to the "youse."

My overall rating: not even for View Askew die-hards. Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier introduce the DVD, which seems like a nice touch, until they ramble on long enough without really saying anything at all (they may have been were drunk or high). Smith says what a fine film this is but I guess you have to listen to the commentary to see why he feels this way because he doesn't elaborate well in the introduction. I don't think I can put myself through another watching to hear the commentary. I'll give it a generous three out of ten.

This is an ambitious film that tries to say things about relationships, dysfunctional families, and striving for normalcy, among other things, but really does not deliver on any level. The characters are rather dull and unlikeable; some of them are rather unrealistic and others you don't care at all about. These things really kept me from getting drawn in. A very forced scene with women kissing seemed terribly forced and in general, the movie is surprisingly unerotic and not even good at depicting sleaze, despite its obvious attempts. Frances McDormand, while seemingly too young to play the role of mom to Christian Bale, delivers a good performance although she has little in the way of script to work with.

Interestingly, of three of the principal characters, two of them are British actors playing American characters, and one is an American actor playing a Brit. That's some creative casting for you.

Overall, this is a mildly interesting film that is unsatisfying for the most part. I would rate it a rather harsh 4/10 and would not recommend spending money (or time) to view it.

A lot of care was taken in creating a cute 1962 time piece in terms of sets, costumes, etc. (using films such as "Pillow Talk" as a blueprint), but it's not enough to save the film. Feeling at least 20 minutes too long at an hour and forty minutes, the writing is too weak to even bother nitpicking, but suffice it to say that the plot is very silly, bordering upon ridiculous. Although clearly a comedy, I don't recall there being any actual laughs. I'm generously giving this one a 5/10, solely based on the nicely done 1960's parody.

While watching this film, I really enjoyed it. I especially liked that Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy both reminded of old after years and years of mostly terrible roles in subpar material. However, this movie is so very light that I forgot it almost within seconds of leaving the theater. It was very odd-- never before have I liked a movie so much that stayed with me so little. The fact that nothing about it etched into my memory may be a testimony that it is not the fine film that the fine performances of Murphy and Martin suggest it should be. 6/10

Despite another likeable performance from Reese Witherspoon and a couple of fun moments, this sequel fails to capture the winning formula of the original. The premise is unbelievable, utterly ridiculous, and feels very forced. It is just so silly that it doesn't pan out as the mindless entertainment that it is meant to be. The fact that there was almost no audible laughter in the theater during the film could be considered testimony that it simply wasn't that funny. My recommendation is that if you bother with this one, you can certainly wait for it to come out on video.

Well, here's something that you don't see everyday-- a movie about curling. The movie scores points for the unique premise alone. However, weak acting/writing, vague characterizations, and the fact that curling is just not very exciting for the masses to watch after the initial novelty wears off (except for those who participate) flaw this pleasant, light hearted film. What would have worked better would have been if this was more of a parody of sports films in general; this may have actually been intended, but if so, it was a bit too subtle to tell (which suggests another flaw).

On the plus side, the scenery is nice in the film-- you really feel like you're there at times. Even better, the soundtrack is wonderful and is easily the best part of the movie. The Tragically Hip contribute three songs and make a cameo for about one second as a curling team from Kingston! Overall, I'm waivering between a 5 or a 6 out of ten on this film.. I will be generous and go with a 6 because of the great music and the new subject matter.

After reading so many reviews about what a hilarious film this is, I'm wondering if someone at the video store switched DVD on me as a practical joke. This unknown comedy troupe called Broken Lizard, who has been compared to Kids in the Hall and Monty Python (I can't imagine a bigger insult to those two talented groups) put together a poorly acted & scripted, rather disjointed film without *any* laughs whatsoever that left me wondering how such a film was ever made. Playing a group of unlikable police officers, the jokes were weak and underwhelming, and made me nostalgic for the days of the "Police Academy" films- even the weakest sequel of those was funnier than this movie was (and don't get me wrong, I did not find the sequels to be funny). The best thing I can say about this one is that it had pleasant moments here and there but it's hard to justify spending $4 and an hour and a half watching this. Score: a rather generous 2/10

This is certainly an interesting film. The plusses of it are the fascinating Newfoundland landscape and the good effort of Julianne Moore to emulate a Newfie accent. Unfortunately, the dark, depressing element of the film is not balanced by characters that you care about or are explored in any thoughtful way. The film seems to fail in what it tries to accomplish: to paint an interesting character study of an unusual man. It's unclear what drives the characters, and really hard to care anyway. Not recommended, but I'm giving it a generous 5/10 for effort and cinematography.

Oh my! "Opportunity Knocks" and "Clean Slate" were not exactly film classics, although compared to this movie, they may as well have been works of Shakespeare. Arguably the dumbest movie I have ever paid money to see in theatre (thanks to "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" being sold out), this does not fit in the dumb but funny category of most of Adam Sandler's or Chris Farley's films, but in the jaw-droppingly dumb category. My wife and I often gazed at each other in amazement during this movie, unable to exactly process that something this truly silly and dumb was made (much less by Dana Carvey and Adam Sandler) and even stranger that others in the crowded theatre were laughing their heads off! We were excited to see Dana Carvey back in the movies, but there was good reason why this movie was not screened for review ahead of time.

To continue, I should say we had misgivings about seeing the film after the TV trailers that kept showing the "turtle" sequence, but decided that part was just silly fun and there's no way the rest of the movie could be so unclever and dumb. To our amazement, that was easily the most intelligent and serious part of the film! Think carefully before wasting your time with this one.. I score it a generous 3/10.

Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).

Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent!

This is one of the silliest and lightest films you might ever see. Not nearly as funny as the VH-1 skits that inspired it (included on the DVD), at less than an hour and a half, it plays like they carried the joke too long. Still, it is certainly amusing-- it's hard not to enjoy Ben Stiller (although I would have expected better from him) and Owen Wilson in their roles and it's easy to see that everyone involved is having fun. Overall, a 5 out of 10- worth considering as a rental.

This was a perfectly pleasant little film, but I can describe it best with the word "underwhelming." The film was very short and had lots of potential, but for some reason failed to make the most of the many interesting cameos and most importantly, Jack Black. Black was barely used in the film, yet he so easily could have stolen the show. In fact two moments from the trailer that were shockingly cut from the final edit of the film (Black telling Hanks "you've got to make love to them- how's it going, Stanford?" and Black playing tug of war with a mangy dog over a hot dog) looked better than anything that remained in the film. A lot of comic talent was sadly wasted, but nonetheless it was a pleasant and mildly entertaining way to spend an hour and twenty minutes. Rating: 6/10

I was surprised to see such a low rating on IMDB for this film, which I feel is Crystal's masterpiece. While watching it, it becomes clear quickly that making this movie is a real labour of love for Crystal. He really displays his entire range in this surprising drama about a rather complex Vaudeville-esque comedian (whose character Buddy Young Jr. was introduced years before during Crystal's unforgettable stint on the 1984-5 Saturday Night Live season). Perhaps I was just in the mood for a sentimental film while I was watching it, but I was really compelled by the film, which also featured an unbelievable performance by David Paymer as Crystal's brother. The flashback sequences were fabulous-- I just can't say enough good about this film. Just don't set your expectations for a comedy, remember this is a rather long, sentimental (yet never sappy) drama with comic elements and enjoy! (rating 9/10)

Sitting through this film made me rethink how I view movies in general. Although this is a bold statement, I don't mean it as praise for this film. Quite simply, I found it so horrible to watch, it made me realize that I generally go to movies primarily to be entertained. Sure, sometimes I might be in the mood for something thought provoking, rather than outright entertaining, but "Leaving Las Vegas," was neither as far as I'm concerned.

The story essentially is about a man (Nicholas Cage) who, despite success in his career, has seemingly lost his family due to his drinking, and he has made a decision to go to Las Vegas and spend the rest of his money as he intends to kill himself drinking. In Las Vegas, he meets an unlikely kindred spirit in a hooker (Elisabeth Shue), and they embark on a rather untraditional relationship with nothing positive to be gained as a result of it.

The initial problem for me was, I didn't like either the characters or the premise. I found Cage to be without any value whatsoever and the movie would have been much better (and shorter, albeit entirely unnecessary) if he had just killed himself immediately and spared the audience from having to watch it. I had no empathy for him and the sad situation he had gotten himself into. Shue was slightly less pathetic, I suppose, but I still didn't find myself caring what happened to her. I'm not sure what about Cage's performance made it worthy of an Oscar-- he just acted like himself but a little bit dopier.. big stretch!

Overall, I found it an extremely unpleasant film to watch (to put it mildly) and I resented having wasted $10 on tickets and over two hours of my life suffering through it. I have never hated a movie with a passion as much as this one. Not recommended for anybody, as I fail to see what one could derive from such a movie. Rating: 1/10

I saw this one in the theater when it came out in 1981.. I was 10 or 11 years old and I just loved it. Although I don't think I had seen it since, as a big fan of Cheech and Chong, I ordered the DVD from Columbia House to fulfill my membership obligation, since it was the only Cheech & Chong movie they had available.

Well it did not quite match what I remembered, I'm sorry to say. It was rather unpolished and unfocused, making the classic "Up in Smoke" seem like an Oscar winner in comparison. Despite an unforgettable performance from Pee Wee Herman and some laughs (if you're already a fan of C&C), this is one you can probably skip.

Another cleverly done example of backwards story telling, from the Pulp Fiction school.. Unlike Pulp Fiction, the backwards element got annoying and tiresome fast in this film. It certainly was a creepy film, maybe even affecting (time will tell, since I just watched it), but I didn't find it all that enjoyable. The ending was unsatisfying for me, after sitting through the previous hour and fifty minutes (yes, I found myself watching the clock to count down when it would wrap up). I suppose I could get a bit more out of it with repeated watchings, but I don't really care enough to bother with that. I would give this one a 5/10, although few of you will probably agree with me so let the flames begin!

I've been looking forward to the release of this movie since I first heard the concept two years ago, and I was not disappointed. I won't bother summarizing the story since everyone else has, but I will say that it was just plain entertaining throughout. The performances were great, as was the music, and the main characters were likeable.

My only complaints are: (1) the story was definitely lacking; the movie wrapped up very abruptly- in fact the writing became pretty lax in the second half, as though the writers weren't sure what to do with the plot. Since the plot wasn't nearly as important as the music and the action, this didn't really affect the entertainment value of the film, so this is not as major a complaint as it would seem.

(2) This is really nitpicky, but the music that the characters in the movie were listening to was sometimes dated after 1985, when the movie was set. INXS' Devil Inside was from 1987 and AC/DC's Are You Ready was from 1990, among other mistakes. This bothers me a bit, since they obviously went to lengths to make a good period piece, they could have checked the copyright date on these songs to make sure they were 1985 or earlier. Again, not a big deal.

Oh, I thought of something else that was strange. The Steel Dragon band members were supposed to be English, but for some reason Dokken bassist Jeff Pilson and Ozzy guitarist Zakk Wylde played band members, and they each had a couple of speaking lines in AMERICAN accents. That was kind of lazy also, but it was still cool to see actual musicians playing musicians, so I will forgive that as well.

I could probably nitpick all day, but I don't want to give the impression that this wasn't a super entertaining movie. I will probably buy the DVD when it comes out, and I will certainly buy the soundtrack CD simply for the six Steel Dragon songs (some of which were sung by the singer from the band Steelheart, if you remember them!). The highlight of the film was possibly a great outtake where Mark Wahlberg is lipsynching to a rock song on stage and suddenly someone plays "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. The surprised look of Mark's face is priceless. Classic rock and roll flick! Score: 8/10 due to extreme entertainment

I don't have much to add to what has already been said about this film, but I'll submit my comments anyway. It was mildly entertaining, but it was hard to get past the fact that the filmmakers essentially copied the formula of "When Harry Met Sally."

However, the chemistry didn't really seem there between Freddie Prinze and Claire Forlani's characters and the attraction wasn't terribly believable (other than they were both good looking). The movie wasn't funny at all, save for a few moments of comic relief from Jason Biggs. The dialogue was fairly lame and the plot was entirely predictable; I should have counted the number of times Freddie Prinze uttered the phrase "I don't know"-- it might have set a movie record! As for Claire Forlani, she's appealing enough, but she seemed kind of old for the role and although she gives an American accent a good try (a bit better than her dialect in "Mallrats"), her British accent still is noticeable.

Some of the film felt very forced, like the soapy dance club scene and the lesbian kiss (are women over the age of 11 really ever that cuddly?). Nonetheless, for all its flaws, it's watchable and just entertaining enough to warrant a 5/10.

After loving Clerks and Mallrats, I considered my self a Kevin Smith fan, and was able to forgive him for Chasing Amy, which I found pretty awful. I enjoyed Dogma, but upon watching it a second time, I realized that I only enjoyed Jay & Silent Bob's presence; the story itself did absolutely nothing for me.

So I am happy to report that Smith is back on the right track with Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back. Give the people what they want, after all! He has pretty much dispensed with the "intelligent" nature of the other films, and cut right to the jokes. For pure entertainment value, it really works. I find it funny practically every time Jay opens his mouth, so since Jay was the star here, it was hard to go wrong. Almost every character from Smith's previous four movies returns, with the notable exceptions of Jeremy London and Claire Forlani. If you haven't seen (or enjoyed) Smith's other films, you likely won't get much out of this one, however. 8/10

I just rented this film, although I remember considering seeing it in the theater when it came out. What a waste of money that would have been!

This has got to be one of the worst films that I have ever seen. Since there are plenty of other plot descriptions posted, I will just give my opinions: the film was "icky," for lack of a better term. It paints Dallas women as pretty pathetic and somehow in need of WEEKLY gynecologist appointments (!). The film was hard to follow in terms of the dialogue, because of the odd way in which it was filmed with a lot of background mumbling brought to the forefront, which in itself kind of removes the possible enjoyability factor (although I doubt many people would be inclined to enjoy this). The character sketches were extremely vague and it was hard to like or care about any of the characters. Nothing really gets resolved in the film, anyway (the bizarre ending is one I care to forget). What did the filmmakers hope to accomplish with this one? It was rather unclear. It was surprising that such a good cast agreed to do a film this strange and pointless.

I thought this picture was categorized as a "comedy," but I couldn't see anything funny about it (unless awkward conversation between a gynecologist and crazy women being examined could be considered humor). If I have saved one person from watching this film, I feel I have done a service!

Despite likable performances from stars Jason Biggs and Mena Suvari, I did not find this to be an enjoyable watch and found myself actually fast forwarding in parts when it became too awful. The growing relationship between the stars was cute enough to watch, but not enough to salvage this film. Hard to know what the writers and filmmakers were thinking when they thought that slipping "ruffies" to college girls made for a light hearted comedy (won't give any details so I won't spoil it for those who still wish to see this). This seemed to be labeled a comedy, but I didn't laugh once. Not recommended, but I'm feeling charitable enough to give it a 2/10.