Dave-330

Person of Interest has been on such a role lately as everything seemed to be going great and then last night's episode hit with a thud.

This may be harsh, but why change what is not broken and make the entire episode shaky camera ugliness without much of a coherent plot? The episode reminded me of Chris Fisher's "Rampage" movie which was virtually unwatchable as well. Fisher has directed three episodes of POI so far, yet this is the first time I felt his "style" come through the screen and smack me upside the head. At the end of the episode, all I was left with was a headache and confusion on what was presented.

The writing seemed a notch below the norm as well with the episode not even feeling like a Person of Interest, but instead like a bad "24" clone with a dose of "The Social Network" added in. The out of left field trip to Russia was completely unnecessary and ill-conceived.

I think there may have been more guest actors on this single episode than all of Season 1 combined. Why did they need so many new characters, while the police officer regulars did nothing notable in this episode?

The actor who played the lead in the episode did a fine job with his annoying character, but the choice to add over the top shaky cam work to a relatively weak script pretty much cemented this as the worst episode of Person of Interest that has been shown so far.

Michael Davis' third straight film with the same basic premise, is the worst of the three. The reason it just doesn't work is because 8 Days and 100 Girls did this earlier, better and more believably. It has it's moments (most involving the attractive Erinn Bartlett), but the problem is that it shifts from dramedy to just stupidity with Clint Howard. Also, most of the dialogue is lifted from the other two films, in some form or other.

Ignoring the existence of the first two films, Girl Fever (100 Women), trucks along in a weird state of being. The first half is not really funny and by the time you get to the heart of the story, it feels like you have wasted time getting there, BUT at the same time, the film is amazingly watchable in it's own "cuteness." This is a hard film to judge on it's own merit, which is not shocking to anyone who has seen it. I mean any film that goes from explaining how someone feels, to a nose-dual (don't ask), to a guy that gets screwed over and then forgets about it, all within such a short time-frame, is hard to really look at objectively. The entire plot is so hard to swallow and the lead's reaction to the plot-twist is so unreal, but at the same time it still is entertaining.

There are only two things that are clear: first, Eight Days a Week deserves a DVD release in the states, so I can purchase the BEST Davis movie AND more importantly, Erinn Bartlett is smoking hot and at some point will break-out in Hollywood. Her performance in this film makes you almost forget the bad parts of the movie... I said almost.

Wow, I have read several reviews on this site that compare this film to "Lock, Stock" and "Snatch.", and I believe those comparisons are lost on me. Though Guy Ritchie makes "cheeky" English comedy capers, that are direct rip-offs of Tarentino films, I do not see how this movie is in that same vein of films. This is a con film, and yes, it is boring in spots, but the sheer genius of performances by everyone except Mr. Burns dwarfs any boredom that one may experience. Hoffman is in rare form and I have not seen a better performance from him since "Rainman." The cast is all game for the film, and James Foley keeps them together. Foley's directorial pacing and several strange camera angles (people pass in front of the camera, yeah I get it, but they make the scene lose focus) are the only real gripes that I have about this film. I am going to buy this film on DVD, because Foley's films may not be the most entertaining pieces of work, but just like Glengarry Glen Ross, this film has amazing performances that should be treasured.

Wow, some movies are difficult to describe, others are a lot easier, and this falls into the second category. I rented "Adaptation" the last time I went to the video store and I did not like that movie much either, because it was overly slow, but there is one part that makes me laugh: Donald Kaufman creates a script where the kidnapper, the cop and the kidnappee are all actually the same person... SPOILERS BEGIN... this is that movie. Charles Kaufman was making an overly critical statement of what has come to be considered a good film, and this movie actually uses a script mirroring the over-the-top script used in "Adaptation". It is scary that a movie like this gets made in the first place. The problems I have are from the start. First it is clearly Cusack's voice on the phone with Molina's character explaining the past. It is clear that Molina supposedly started the "cure" on the phone with him, because how does the movie start without it, and if that is the case, why would you "cure" someone over the phone without having him properly watched in case something went wrong? Why does Molina's character not know which identity killed the people as a child, especially if one of those involved is a child? Did the child never come out and talk to Molina's character? Then how did that identity get invited to the motel? END SPOILER

I will throw the non-spoiler positives in the middle, between the criticisms. The cinematography and acting were pretty good. I am usually quite hard on Cusack, but he gave a good performance and wasn't overly "cute" in the way that makes me want to shut off his movies. This is his best performance since The Grifters and I enjoyed it.

Amanda Peet looks like a hooker, but that is what she was supposed to be and she too had a good performance. Of course, she always looks good (even as a hooker) which doesn't hurt.

Jake Busey should had been used more instead of playing "The Frighteners" role again. He is scary, but deserved more screen time instead of being just thrown into the story with little backstory.

The rest of the ensemble was fine, nothing great, but still over-achieving the script.

MORE SPOILERS Now the Liotta turn was so obvious from when he tried to call an ambulance, it just was clear he wasn't a cop. The scene where Cusack looks in the mirror was the best scene in the entire picture BUT let you too far into what was happening and then you stop caring about which characters survive because it doesn't matter anyway, because they are not real. The kid being the killer was VERY obvious when the mother dies, because the kid goes in to see her alone and go figure, she's dead. Having the kid die together with someone else was too obvious, "Gee the m.o. of the killer is to kill one at a time, and leave a key card for each, do you think anyone will notice when we conveniently give ourselves an out by 'killing' two characters at once? No of course not, we will have the bodies disappear, at that point and then let everyone know they are watching the thoughts of a serial killer and make no more references to the pesky keys until the end, plus we can 'shock' everyone by having the kid come back in the end because the audience will be too into the 'orange-growing feel good story of an obese man, believing himself to be a really hot woman' to notice." If you listen really closely, you can hear Charles Kaufman screaming at how awful the plot really sounds. END SPOILERS.

I rate this movie the following way: 1 for the Cusack performance, 1 for Amanda Peet and 1 for Jake Busey, but -1 for obviousness of the plot curves and lack of creativity which gives it a 2 out of 10.

Now I am not the type of person who writes a glowing review about any old movie, because usually those that I like get enough acclaim and more that I don't get too much acclaim. This is my exception to the rule. This movie is about as good as film gets. This is not your everyday run of the mill, same old, same old JLo film or something, this is an original, thoughtful, intelligent film. Those that have read or heard that it is "backward" or "confusing" pay attention while I explain the unexplainable: when the movie is in color, the plot is from the back and is progressing to the middle, thus the first five minutes of the film occur at the end of the sequence of events. Then the next five minutes are in black and white and are the beginning of the story arc (there are additional flashbacks of Leonard's memories, but those are fairly easy to follow). Then it goes back to the next color scene which is the one chronologically in front of the opening scene, then another black and white which is the next scene from the beginning. The film actually comes together with the final black and white scene becoming color and then there is the conclusion, but both parts are actually the middle: so scene 23, then 1, then 22, then 2, and so on.

Now to the actual merits of the film: Guy Pearce carried "LA Confidential" on his shoulders (with the help of some fine actors) and has amazingly gotten bigger shoulders because this is his film. Throughout the whole movie Pearce is front and center, the focal point. Everything revolves around him and he gives a great performance, without overacting once. The rest of the cast do a passable job.

Aside from Pearce's performance and the "gimmick", there is still an amazing script, cinematography, and director which I am going to lump together and label as "The Nolan factor." Nolan's other recent effort "Insomnia" has received lukewarm reviews, but I like his work. It is not style for the sake of style or to cover-up plot holes, it is style with substance and that is something few film-makers can achieve.

To tell you how engrossed I was with this film when I first saw it on cable (and I was sure I would hate it), I literally received a phone call about 30 minutes into the film that was from my mother and I was so into the film I realized she had been talking to me for a couple of minutes and was asking what was wrong, and all I could say was "Can I call you back in like an hour, I am watching this movie?" and as soon as she said "Yes." I hung up the phone, having not one time taken my eyes off of the television.

If you are up for it, it is an experience, but make sure you have a little over an hour and a half set aside and are ready to think... and you may think about unplugging the phone, so you can avoid a lecture about phone etiquette. This film is one of my 10 favorite films and deserves a 10 out of 10.

I have seen this film numerous times and for some reason I find it quite amusing. I enjoy the last two rooms the best, but actually the other two are not that bad. I did notice one thing that sticks out in my mind because it was the first time I noticed this and I need to find it on cable to confirm, but it seemed like the final room (Tarantino's) went a good 10 minutes without a single cut. If that is the case that shot is better than any of DePalma's continuous shots or Anderson's opening sweeping shot in Boogie Nights, because it isn't one short scene with people co-mingling with the star or the camera hitting the spot and having the actors start, this was all dialogue with the director in front of the camera delivering the lines. Given Tarantino's performance is quite wooden, but just think about that for a moment. That is very impressive.

Besides the amazing shot, Roth, Willis, and Banderas all shine with their parts. Alicia Witt gives the lone strong performance from the opening room. Roth carries the second room with help from Jennifer Beals. The entire cast from room 3 is excellent with Banderas and Roth standing out. The final room seems like a film exercise. I am pretty sure that the shot is continuous from when Roth opens the door until they show the magazine. Roth does his part again with help from an uncredited Willis and Beals again.

This movie is almost exactly the same tone and style of Pulp Fiction, only with more cheese and I think it is great for what it is. Those that like that style will enjoy this film, those that did not find Pulp Fiction to be funny will not. It's that simple.

I was reading through the numerous positive reviews for this film and I find it amazing that different people can watch the same movie and get totally different things from it. I will give you that it points out that Barney and such may have been started for a greater good but then get thrown into the gutter for profits, but I didn't need this movie to show me that, it is obvious. This movie has a stellar cast, a decent director with a track record, but fails miserably at being FUNNY. Yeah, I got a chuckle out of the step-dad song, but one chuckle does not make a movie.

Let's start with the positives. Edward Norton is Smoochy and surprisingly handles the role well. He seemed to take the character he played throughout Primal Fear and turned him into a guy who wants to change the world for the better.

Catherine Keener is the girl, who is all about the money until Smoochy walks into her life. I like Keener, who was wasted in her role, but did a good job with the part she was given.

There are your positives, now to the negatives (I don't think IMDB gives me enough space to truly handle them all, so I will condense them):

Jon Stewart's role was pathetic and his acting was as bad. The scene with Williams and him in the car was just disturbing, and he brought nothing to the table.

Danny Devito tried like always, but I don't know if it was a problem with directing himself, but his performance seemed flat and his direction...

Robin Williams tried TOO HARD TO BE FUNNY. His character was horribly written and lacked the depth that was necessary to create the illusion of caring for his down-on-his-luck Rainbow (unlike One Hour Photo, where his performance was perfect).

All the rest of the cast stunk up the joint, but I really don't think it was from lack of trying, I think the material just didn't merit this movie to be made. I mean the script has Irish mobsters, clowns, midgets, a drugged out hitman who was an ex-children's show host, a character named Rainbow, a character named Smoochy, a charity organization doing mob-like tactics, a retarded former prizefighter who rings a bell, and Nazis. It was not funny at all. It was not insightful, unless you didn't know that people (including those behind children's shows) try and make money. It smelled of a Shakes the Clown rip-off, and anyone who has seen that movie knows that a rip-off of that movie has to stink (especially Mr. Williams, who was in both).

I don't blame Mr. Devito, I think he directed a movie made with a horrible script as well as could be expected. His choice to take it very dark was the only way to salvage an absolute mess. It didn't work, but at least he tried.

The real problem for me is that Barney is ultra-annoying and should be an easy target to lampoon. This movie instead became as annoying as Barney and on top of that offensive to downright obscene in parts and it couldn't make me laugh. The entire ending ice-capades sequence was so over-the-top (not the credits one which was even MORE over-the-top, but the actual ice show) it just made you want to scream in disgust that someone greenlighted this piece of trash. Tack on the credits sequence which screamed "FILLER", and this movie just overstays it's welcome. Actually I think I should have just shut it off after the first half-hour because it wasn't going to get any better.

If you actually liked this drivel, Hollywood has a track-record of making these types of movies ten times more often than a really good movie, so you are in luck. I can't believe I agree with Roger Ebert, this movie was horrible and I am in shock that this movie is averaging a 6.6 on IMDB. That shows you how bad movies have become, but I gave this movie what it deserved: a 1 out of 10. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME, life is too short. If I can save one person from wasting time watching this film, this review has been worthwhile.

Following in the footsteps of "Panic Room" (see my review) and "Punch-Drunk Love" as critically praised pieces of trash, "The Ring" comes from underground to bore you to death at a theater near you. This is one of those movies that is off the charts STUPID, like "Blair Witch" STUPID, where anyone whose brain is in the "on" position realizes that this is nothing more than a lame fright film that has been done before a hundred times. It is far from scary and defies all logic from frame 1 to the end of the flick. This film may have the bells and whistles to entertain 11-14 year old kids, but anyone who is above the age of 20 should be embarrassed if they enjoyed this garbage.

The problems are mostly plot related and I don't feel like "spoiling" any of the logic defying twists and turns that nearly put me to sleep. Let me just tell you that if you like really slow movies that don't require a pesky plot, or continuity, this is your cup of tea.

It's a horror flick, so for the most part the acting is poor. The "acting" in the opening sequence is quite horrid, as if the untrained kids were reading their lines off of the script just beyond the camera. Brion Cox, who I have seen in other films, is quite scary in his delivery, as if he forgot that he has 30 years of film experience.

Naomi Watts is the one and only positive in this stinker. Her presence alone carries this movie, as in Mulhullond Dr. (another piece of junk) and she needs to learn how to say the word "pass" when she is offered fine fare such as this. She still manages to remain relatively unscathed as the entire movie crashes and burns around her and hopefully will star in something better soon.

If you think that "Jeepers Creepers" and "The Blair Witch Project" are five-star, grade-A films, this movie is made just for you. I think those movies are amazingly dumb and I felt stupid after I watched them, and felt even dumber after watching this film. I think "The Ring" actually symbolizes the large plot holes that are readily apparent if you are paying attention. If you are willing to check your brain at the door, you have a chance to not hate this movie, but I doubt it.

The line from the movie that I used as the summary, pretty much sums up this film. Jason X has a couple of cool looking kills (the ice face and the Supergirl with a shotgun) and has Kristi Angus who is amazingly hot, but other than those few positives, the rest of this movie was bad. It was a bad movie when compared to other "non-slasher" movies and even by handicapping this film against it's predecessors, it still is not well made. The cheesy effects that pepper the screen throughout, which are suppose to make the film futuristic, just come across corny and cheap. I will give the filmmakers a break on the make-up, because I realize that the film had to be cut for US release but splashes of blood instead of full-blown gore is not an adequate substitute. Why could Part 9 be released un-cut on video, yet the DVD of X is cut?

I liked the first ten minutes of the film, the reemergence of Jason while being examined, Ms. Angus and the kills outlined above. I hated the CGI, bad make-up, stupid plot, bad acting, poor direction, "uber-Jason", and the ending.

Note to New Line Cinema: veto any ideas for Jason going to Disneyland, Mars, Japan, Atlantis, or anywhere else besides Crystal Lake. In my opinion if this was the best idea that came out of the Cunningham braintrust, it may be time to pull the plug and have Freddy kill Jason and have Freddy continue onwards and upwards.

I think that this movie is better than Parts 5 and 8 and I think that Parts 7, 6, 9, and 4 are the best of the bunch because they bettered the ideas introduced by the first three. They are action-packed and half-way smart, while 10, 5, and 8 are far worse than the original three and nearly unwatchable.

This movie deserves 2 out of 10.

SPOILER: The best part of the DVD is that you can choose a death to jump to, so you should watch the first ten minutes (stop when they are frozen) and jump to the deaths of Andrienne and Jason 1 and then consider yourself lucky that I just saved you over an hour of bore. END SPOILER.

The reviews of this film seem to be mixed and I am confused on how that can be? This is one of my favorite movies ever and may be the best (not slapstick, Chris Farley-esque comedy, but smart) comedy. You must pay attention to this movie to get the jokes, because most of them are running (as in recurring) jokes that pick up on items that may have been just mentioned once ("Go you Huskies!") and again and again and again and then are explained later as a tag-on in the dialogue. This basic comedy technique works on an early Mel Brooks type level and makes for a movie that should be watched many times in order to pick up everything, but is still (maybe even more) enjoyable after each viewing.

The writing is unquestionably the best comedy screenplay since those early Brooks films. It's just funny, but you have to pay attention. If you aren't listening to every line of dialogue, you will miss jokes, it is that simple. Each line is crucial to the script either as a story/plot building device or as a joke building device or both. There is not one wasted word in the script.

The cast is classic. Rebecca Pidgeon, Mamet's wife, plays the matter-of-fact-talking girl perfectly. She is the heart of the film and deserves praise for being able to perform that well. The other person that deserves high praise is William H. Macy. His performance is on par with his Fargo performance. He emits this sense of control as everything falls apart around him and delivers some excellent lines.

Baldwin gives a better than average performance, as does Durning and Hoffman and the rest of the cast is quite good.

The direction is great. The movie seems to last 15 minutes because it is that interesting and fast paced. The perceived fast pace is created by the actors saying their lines so quickly and crisply. This can only occur with a director that knows the script but since the script was written by the director, the point becomes moot. Everything else also flows so well and the credit for that has to be given to Mamet's directing and writing ability.

I really like this film. I like the way "The Old Mill" mirrors the actions of the actual film and how deep the film goes. This is like one of those classic novels that can be dissected in every way for symbolism and thought, which is quite rare in today's cinema. The film may be too smart for it's own good and may have overshot the general movie audience, but makes for a gem of a movie to watch. Mamet pulls no punches making fun of Hollywood by comparing it to small town America or more importantly Hollywood "values" to small town American values. Watch this movie if you want to think and be entertained, and if that doesn't sound appealing, please go find another movie to watch.

SPOILERS EVERYWHERE (Like anyone will watch this movie anyway, after reading this review)

You know you are in for a treat when the movie opens with Chris Klein and some guy racing down a hill while lying on skateboards for a bet. When the other guy flies through a glass window (the only good effect in the whole movie) and the cops arrive, Klein gets picked up at the bottom of the hill by LL Cool J and suddenly forgets that he is owed money from the guy that went through the window. Klein then turns down an offer to be in Rollerball and then the movie throws the viewer 5 months ahead to Klein being the best player ever.

Why go into that much detail for this review? The answer to this question and the reason this movie fails miserably is all in the opening. Everything is rushed throughout the movie. It's like a race down the hill is not good enough, let's add skateboards, gambling, cheating, a wreck, cops, 30 people rooting them on the street, and introduce LL and Rollerball, all in the first five minutes.

The pacing is all wrong. They break your neck in the first five minutes, while none of it makes any sense, and then you are supposed to care about a game that they don't even bother to explain because it's "too complicated." Action, action, action, sex, action, action, action, action, it's like if you keep the camera on something moving maybe someone will care. Unfortunately, there is no way to even care at all, because no one in this film is likeable.

This is just garbage. The acting is as bad as anything a major studio has released in the last 20 years. Klein is miscast (duh?), and the rest are either wasted (LL), misused (Reno) or should not be in any film (everyone else).

The actors aren't the only ones to blame. It's hard to act when the dialogue is just grunting and occasional sentences that don't explain anything.

The basic direction of the film has to be questioned. Anyone who would shoot, and leave in, 10 minutes of "night-vision" film in all of it's multiple green-colored luster, should be blamed. That was quite possibly the worst shot sequence I have seen in a movie, and it was allowed 10 minutes of time? How is that possible? I have so many more questions that I would love to ask the director: How in the world is everything else in the movie so bright, yet the shots with night-vision so green and the shots of Ms. Stamos in the locker room so dark? I saw the "R-rated" version and I thought I was watching a "PG" film, because all of the violence and nudity were kept to brief flashes, but wasn't that the draw of this film? Where is the extreme violence, because it didn't look that bad to me? How hard is it to complete a simple shot without chopping it? I mean simple panning shots were chopped several times and I don't know why? Was it to cut down on time? Where'd the plot go? Did it get cut for time, too? Was it fun making the worst movie ever made? Why did this feel like a movie version of the XFL?

Obviously, this movie is horrible. Whether you are fan of any of the people involved, or not, don't bother wasting your time watching this junk. In my opinion, John McTiernan has now made the best (Die Hard) and worst (THIS) movies ever created. Everyone involved should be ashamed. What a terrible waste of time and money! They should had shelved this movie forever and everyone should had made sure Rollerball never saw the light of day.

I used to be a boxing fan, until Don King and Tyson killed whatever credibility the sport had left, but I really enjoyed this movie. The whole beginning of the film with Wayans and Jackson going back and forth and the idea for the big PPV draw, seemed straight out of an actual King and Tyson meeting. The plot is pretty straight forward and most of the "jokes" miss, but it is a SATIRE not a comedy, so that is forgivable.

Damon Wayans, Samuel Jackson, Cheech Marin, Peter Berg, and John Rynes-Davises, all give notable performances playing their characters well. The rest of the cast does a decent job of not taking the film too seriously with the notable exception being Jeff Goldblum, who tries so HARD not to make you laugh at him, that eventually you give up. It's like he was in his own film, trying to be so serious, but he is still able to help the film, but in a darker way than the rest.

I will be the first to admit that most of the "jokes" that seem to pepper the satire seem to have been thrown in to generate a wider audience and alienate the ones that actually want to watch the movie. It plays more like a documentary on "How to Market a Fight," then an actual movie, but I like the amount of small details that went into making the film. It is too bad no one figured out "How to Market a Successful Film with the Guy from 'Pulp Fiction'" because maybe more people would had seen it. Overall it is still a must-see for those who like boxing or those who used to.

I love how people can be short-sided. I am a fan of Wes Craven's "work" for the most part, but this movie is a retread of "The Horror Show". It makes me cringe to read the reviews for that movie which say that it lifted ideas from "Shocker" when "The Horror Show" was released 6 months before "Shocker" and the ideas are too identical to be coincidence. Unless Wes Craven is Alan Smithee on "The Horror Show", I can bet you money that the reason there was no sequel, besides the $16M lukewarm return, is that someone was sued. I'm not saying that Craven lifted the idea because I'm not going to pretend that I know what occurred, but why would two movies with nearly identical plots be made at nearly the same time? The saddest part is that the cheaper version is the better HORROR movie. Actually neither movie is "good" because they are both "B", but I have seen "The Horror Movie" a few times and I have labored through "Shocker" once. The only thing I remember about this film is that Peter Berg tries really hard in a truly horrible film. If you must watch a movie about a killer getting electrocuted, go watch Lance Hendricksen and Brion James (in a great performance) in "The Horror Show," but stay away from this clunker.

Let me start by writing that I don't usually write reviews for big-budget movies, with tons of reviews already out there, but I have made an exception for this movie:

This movie is very odd, because it seems to want to bring elements of "Home Alone" to an adult audience, while attempting to make a strong female character, and at the same time have said-character where a tank top which shows her constant cleavage. The strangest thing is that they are selling this as a "thriller," while really it seemed to me to be a "yawner," at least up until the first shot was fired. MAYBE A SPOILER Then it kicked it up a notch (from Neutral to 1st gear), and after the "ruse" from the intruders another notch (from 1st to 2nd). END SPOILER From there the movie just seemed unbelievable, but at the same time, amazingly watchable (not unlike a horror movie).

My problems with this movie are many. First, if you are going to try and tailor a movie to a female audience, why bring Fincher on board as the director? It doesn't make sense, because he is going to try to make the film dark and draw soon-to-be-disappointed males (like myself) into see the movie. It doesn't make sense, and while I brought "the great one" up, anyone else see his "Alien3" disaster? He needs a great script to shine, and this failed to have that.

Back to the target audience, if the movie is tailored to women, why have Jodie Foster run around with her breasts hanging halfway out her shirt for the first-half of the movie? I'm a guy, and would usually applaud such blatant T&A, but it's JODIE FOSTER, and I was looking for a plot, not her cleavage. Once the movie was over, the first thing I said to the two women I went with was, "Jodie Foster's breasts should have had top billing, because they were the only thing going for the first half of the movie."

On to the "missing" plot, I cannot believe you can rehash bits and pieces of different movies and expect it to work. Everything just seemed thrown together and then you have to suspend reality more times than should be expected. SPOILER "Hey look, Jodie was ten inches from the fire and didn't get burned, but Jared Leto did." C'mon, let a three-year old watch that part, and tell me if he believes that could happen. It's just stupid. That coupled with country music's hardest head, and now you've gone to far-fetched. END SPOILER Also, the fact that I went in thinking that the idea of a "Panic Room" seemed utterly stupid, and left feeling that the plot-device actually did NOT seem to hurt the film, means that Fincher should be congratulated on being able to sweep over the idea either quite well, or quick enough to not let the audience really think about it.

The actors all seemed to be acting in there own movies. Foster ran around enough that it was hard to tell how well she was "acting." I think she was doing her best "I Know What You Did Last Summer" impression by running around like mad and leaning over everything just to make sure you knew she was female. Leto played his part well, but unfortunately his character had the depth of a mud-puddle. Forest Whitaker brought his "every other movie" role to this, and just seemed TOO nice from the VERY beginning. Note: It is nice to have the character progress over the movie, instead of keeping him the same. Dwight Yoakam brought some much needed life to the movie, and progressed into what you figured he would be, but how hard is it to act in a ski-mask though? The girl played her part well, and was very realistic in most every scene. She shouldn't have ran circles around some of the other, more decorated actors the way she did.

If you "must-see" this movie, you will be fairly impressed with the cinematography, some of the acting and occasionally the direction. If you are a guy, you will probably find the plot too "sweet" and the action not up to par. If you are an avid film watcher, like myself, you will find most of the ideas have been recycled and that the acting and writing are not as good as they should be. Overall I was quite disappointed, but I'm not the target audience (but who really is?). I rate it a 3 out of 10.

Where to start really? Arquette trys really hard to not make this movie horribly bad, but unfortunately carries it even further down the hole. Whether by design (as a spoof) or on purpose (REAL drama (HA!)), this movie lacks really anything of... well anything. Arquette's voice-over work is the only thing even remotely entertaining, and that is because the soundtrack is actually NOT out of sync with the characters lips. It seemed like I was watching a Chinese film, or even worse a Godzilla movie, rather than a film done mostly in English. It becomes really annoying after about a minute, and makes the whole film seem even cheaper.

Oh yeah, plot! The characters are Arquette, his dog (who he refers to and speaks to like a person through the entire movie (AGHHHHH) and is the second main character in the whole production), Famke Jannsen, and the French girl. Basically Arquette is a car thief, so is the dog (sorta), and Jannsen is one as well. The French girl is just obligatory, so you don't have to watch Arquette speak and act to the dog for the whole ninety minutes.

The plot is that the two (three (four)) of them are supposed to steal a prototype car. Sounds cool right? Sorry, you are treated to bad chase scenes, a bad helicopter scene, dumb plot twists, cheesy dialogue, bad acting, Arquette panning to the camera at every second possible, AND NO REAL PLOT. Every scene just seems to outdo the last one for being amazingly bad. You don't believe me, here's an example SPOILER: Arquette happens to just end up pool side of the naked girl who's car he just stole, and the same car was stolen from him, and the girl is the former girlfriend of the guy funding the stealing spree. END SPOILER. Is that dumb or what? Come on, how many coincidences can you shove into a movie and just blow off.

I used to think that Congo was the worst movie ever made, now I may have to reconsider. The movie looks like it was made in the early 1980's, is dubbed like Godzilla, and has Hudson Hawk (which by the way I enjoyed)-type plot twists, but lacks the creativity to make them enjoyable, and has BAD acting. Heck, they couldn't even make the police car look like a US police car, instead they just marked Los Angeles on the side of a French police car. I don't see very many marked Yugos in the States.

Sorry, I got off on a rant... just don't bother viewing this, obviously very few people have and that is for the best.

"I just viewed this movie last night and I don't think I will ever think the same about any of the actors involved, because this movie will stick in the back of my mind."

The above statement can be thought of as a good or a bad thing. I mean every time I see Tom Cruise or Demi Moore in a movie, I think of "A Few Good Men" which is a good thing. Now, every time I see Ron Perlman or Kristy Swanson, I will think of "Tinseltown" which is a VERY bad thing.

I picked this up thinking that it might be something intelligent or at least make me chuckle and with Arye Gross and the aforementioned Swanson and Perlman, I thought that it at least wouldn't be bad. You could tell the movie was made on a budget the size of Wheeling, Indiana (Where? Exactly.), but maybe they used every dollar to make a good movie. WRONG.

This movie is NOT funny or entertaining in any sense of either word. It is just there and lasts for 84 excruciating slow minutes.

The characters are paper-thin. You almost care about NONE of the characters, and since the leads are two struggling Hollywood writers with a dream that is all the two struggling writers with a dream who wrote this need you to know about them. Okay, the two REAL writers know all about there onscreen versions of themselves, so they figure so does the audience. They don't even think about character development, except for trying to tie there story back to "Gilligan's Island".

The plot is unoriginal. Two guys live in a storage center, where one of them stores a bed, and there are about twenty other people living there, too. The rest of the story is contrived and stupid. Have you seen "National Lampoon's Favorite Deadly Sins"? The second story with Joe Mantegna is about a television writer who can't find a good story to make a TV movie about, so he creates one. Now substitute the television writer for a screenwriter, morph Mantegna into to annoying actors half his age, and take away the comedy and you have this movie.

The actors try. Kristy Swanson is in the movie for maybe 10 minutes and still gives the best performance in the movie. She is still hot, but it would help if she would actually STAR in a movie instead of constantly making CAMEOS. As for everyone else, I don't think it was the actors fault because they have BAD material

Go watch the National Lampoon's movie, but stay away from this movie.

Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.

The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.

Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting.

Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever!

This movie is always going to be compared to Deep Star Six and The Abyss, because all three films came out at the same time. It is an underwater "Alien" movie, but it doesn't rip off The Abyss, which came out third of the three and none of them did any real business.

Anyway, this movie was one of those films that is engrossing in the theater and transfers very poorly to television and video. I would venture a guess that a wide-screen DVD version may be able to pick-up most of the considerable detail that was placed into this film. The acting is not awful and the story is well-paced, which is a step ahead of the other two 1989 underwater movies. This isn't Shakespere folks, so don't expect it. A little more polish to the script would have helped this movie greatly, but it is a fairly B horror flick so it was expected.

The cast is Weller, Hudson, Crenna, and Pays doing their things. They don't exactly phone it in, but they aren't expected to deliver that many lines convincingly anyway. Whatever happened to Amanada Pays? After seeing this I thought she had a chance to break through, but instead she disappeared.

The setting and special effects are the keys to this one, though. Visually, it is as tough as they come. Like I wrote before, stick to the DVD version, because I already know the VHS version stinks because it is so cloudy and out of focus. Watch the DVD and I can almost guarantee that you will find this movie to be better than you have been lead to believe by others.

This is perhaps the funniest political satire ever, and one of the most underrated movies. Some will watch it expecting to bust a gut, and there are plenty of sight gags to keep you laughing, but the political elements are the funniest parts. This is one of those "smart" comedies, because most of the jokes are not going to go out and smack you in the face. The plot has been duplicated and called original (cough..."South Park" cough) because the idea IS so unique.

This film has a storied history itself. Michael Moore wanted to make this movie solely a satire and the studio wanted it to be a straight comedy. This film had Eddie Murphy, Roseanne and Tom Arnold and other names in the early '90's attached to it early, but all of the "stars" had to do other films, while two studios fought over the rights to the script and film. All together it took Moore about 5 years from original concept to finished product and by the time it was nearly completed, John Candy had died, and reshoots were changed or cancelled. The film of course bombed, because neither studio really tried to promote the film, Moore refused to promote it, Candy couldn't promote it and so the film pretty much went directly to video.

It's still a great flick. Alan Alda's performance is great and Kevin Pollack does a remarkable job. It's not a typical Candy performance, but he still has fun with it. Yes, there are a couple plot holes, but almost every single joke works if you understand where Moore is coming from. This is not an anti-Canadian movie, because most of the cast is from Canada, and they obviously did this film to spoof American views of Canadians, American politics and because the film was totally different.

This is an original movie with enough laughs and humor to hold it's own, and I wish it wasn't blatantly ripped off by two stoners for their unfunny little cartoon movie.

Seeing all of the negative reviews for this movie, I figured that it could be yet another comic masterpiece that wasn't quite meant to be. I watched the first two fight scenes, listening to the generic dialogue delivered awfully by Lungren, and all of the other thrown-in Oriental actors, and I found the movie so awful that it was funny. Then Brandon Lee enters the story and the one-liners start flying, the plot falls apart, the script writers start drinking and the movie wears out it's welcome, as it turns into the worst action movie EVER.

Lungren beats out his previous efforts in "The Punisher" and others, as well as all of Van Damme's movies, Seagal's movies, and Stallone's non-Rocky movies, for this distinct honor. This movie has the absolute worst acting (check out Tia Carrere's face when she is in any scene with Dolph, that's worth a laugh), with the worst dialogue ever (Brandon Lee's comment about little Dolph is the worst line ever in a film), and the worst outfit in a film (Dolph in full Japanese attire). Picture "Tango and Cash" with worse acting, meets "Commando," meets "Friday the 13th" (because of the senseless nudity and Lungren's performance is very Jason Voorhees-like), in an hour and fifteen minute joke of a movie.

The good (how about not awful) performances go to the bad guy (who still looks constipated through his entire performance) and Carrere (who somehow says her 5 lines without breaking out laughing). Brandon Lee is just there being Lungren's sidekick, and doing a really awful job at that.

An awful, awful movie. Fear it and avoid it. If you do watch it though, ask yourself why the underwater shots are twice as clear as most non-underwater shots. Speaking of the underwater shots, check out the lame water fight scene with the worst fight-scene-ending ever. This movie has every version of a bad fight scene for those with short attention spans and to fill-in between the flashes of nudity.

A BAD BAD MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After reading the other comments about this movie, I have decided that there is a simple test to know if you will like this movie and can waste 3 minutes instead of 83 minutes if this is not your type of movie. Okay. When you sit down and watch this movie, watch the first two scenes and if you think these are amusing continue to watch and laugh, if not then STOP watching this film. The opening scenes of this movie are by far the strongest of the film, so if you hate those, it only goes downhill from there, BUT...

The rest of us will continue to watch this movie and find out that it is one of the dumbest, but funniest movies ever created. Sure, you can call bits and pieces of this film "lame" if you desire, but I still find it funny. If you got to witness the "added scenes" that were in the NBC version aired a couple years back, then you can complain harder, because those were the scenes that were pasted back in off the cutting room floor and it showed. They brought down the film, but some of the hard cuts in the "released" movie were explained, because awful jokes that were thrown into scenes were just cut right out. This is not a complaint, because the video/cable version stays at a fast pace and you have to be paying attention to catch all of the jokes.

This movie is like "Hot Shots" in that it is just done for stupidity and laughs and nothing else. Yes, there is a softball plot thrown in there so that the jokes have a direction, but it is just done for fun. Tim Curry, William Shatner, Emilio Estevez, and most of the rest of the cast look like they are having the time of their lives filming this, which only adds to this film's greatness.

Remember, take the test to see if this film is right for you.

I rented this flick after viewing part of a cut version on the Sci-Fi Channel. I thought it would be so cheesy it would be funny. It has TONS of cheese but the acting's so awful, it begins to wear thin on the viewer. Amanda Donohoe looks pretty hot but the armpit hair could go. Hugh Grant phones in his performance and looks stunned that he had to do this flick. The other women look decent but are somewhat forgotten while they attempt to tell some very dull story. In a word, this movie is "pathetic." It might be "the best Irish/Celtic horror film" because it might be the only "Irish/Celtic horror film." If this film had any competition in the category, I can guarantee my vote would be for the competition. They could have just filmed the three women running around semi-nude and that would have more of a plot than this piece of trash. The "monster" looks like a paper mache worm. The VERY end is cute but the nearly 1 hour and a half of slow torture it took to get there isn't worth it. Don't waste your time!!!!!!!

This movie is not really a comedy, dark, light or any other kind. The movie is very jaded and cynical in its presentation. The plot goes that the group of five kill off dinner guests weekly. With lots of colorful symbolism, a slew of cameos, and strong performances by 3 out of the 5 group members, this movie grew on me after viewing it and thinking back on what I witnessed. I'm not going to give away anything but the last 20 minutes of this movie more than make up for the flaws, which there still are a quite a few. The first knock I have on this movie is that Cameron Diaz's and Annebeth Gish's performances are not really that great. Diaz is cast as one of the most important characters, but her acting ability is tested greatly as she has to deliver most of her lines behind a table, without her best attribute (her body) showing. Her weak ability to speak her lines becomes obvious with the excellent performances of the rest of the cast. Gish's problem is the weakness of the character, because she plays the one of the five that could have easily been written out.

Other problems in this movie are not as important. One is that half way through the movie becomes repetitive. The director shoots this part quickly, and with a tongue in cheek style, but it still comes across dull. The policewoman character is added to the story and is pointless and just used as a character builder and attitude change for one of the five.

All criticism aside, watch this movie. If it gets to the middle and you aren't sure you want to finish it, FAST FORWARD and watch the end. The speech given is perhaps one of the best political speeches I have heard in a film. The final 20 minutes is the 1 inch layer of icing on a partly damaged cake.

I know that a lot of people are highly critical of this movie, because most of the plot is lacking and the acting is not impressive, but I still greatly enjoy this movie. Don't get me wrong, it is a "B" movie, but the superb direction and special effects more than make up for the lame plot. Seth Green is the main character and upon viewing this movie the first time about three years ago, I realized that he could actually act and now everyone is picking up this movie because of name recognition. That's fine by me, but to the Seth Green fans out there, he plays a total geek in this movie. Seth Green may be the main character but this movie is tailored to the die hard "B" movie fan, with Clint Howard and Ami Dolenz doing their usual bits and Peter Scolari (The other "Bosom Buddy") doing his best not to laugh as he delivers his lines. Oh yeah, the guy from "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" is in this too, and I believe he and Howard did some of their best acting in this film. Unfortunately, Dolenz is wasted, as her character is never even remotely close to effecting the plot. She's there as something to look at and for the posters and box covers. Roselind Allen also goes through the motions and is also wasted in her role. Like I said at the start, this is a special effects and directorial masterpiece, but cheesy dialogue, a weak plot and limited acting ability hurt this film. Still if you're into effects, this movie is better than most, especially considering the perceived lack of a budget.

I saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word "Snow" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!