imdb-510

I own and love Heat but...The Insider put me to sleep, The Last Of The Mohicans was a center-less attempt at an epic and Collateral set a new record for lack of realism.

Then came Miami Vice. Someone actually recommended this movie to me -- you can't make stuff like that up.

Details: (1) worst dialog ever because of (2) most clichéd/nothing story ever, (3) filmed in the worst way ever (i.e. zero imagination, and best described as amateurish). Apparently Michael Mann likes predictable (read "idiotic") shots -- see his bio page for mind-numbingly stupid scenes he likes to regularly include in his movies.

While I was watching this non-action movie I figured out what the real story was: "Director has prime property in Florida that he would rather not pay for. He films an ultra lame movie that uses said property and brings in millions to pay his taxes and interest." Then I read Mann's bio page and it actually mentioned he owns property in Florida.

So I hereby nominate Michael Mann as _the_ worst director in Hollywood, and Miami Vice the crown of AOL cds he deserves to wear.

If you want action, go to a theater and see Wanted. If you understand dialog spoken in English (or French or German or Italian or pretty much any language on Earth that this movie might be translated into), avoid this film or your brain will melt. But if you like static shots filmed by 16 year olds on too many meds, this could be your ticket to paradise -- enjoy! 0.001 stars (out of 4).

Reviewers here are outraged, I tell you, outraged at how horribly sensible this movie is! It is a horror movie without the horror -- oh, the horror! Worse than that, it is actually consistent within itself and doesn't rely on shaking first person camera shots. Unacceptable! But seriously, 3.5 out of 10? This movie is a 6.x to 7.x movie. Nicholas Cage was well cast and did a great job. The no-name actors are very convincing, and were a lot stronger than many female leads in other movies.

This leaves just one complaint vector -- the remake is not as good as the original (or doesn't slavishly follow the book). Who cares? Why is that an issue? Thomas Crown two is very different from TC1 -- and both are great movies.

Book readers, get over yourself. By your "logic", The Shawshank Redemption is unfit for human consumption. Create iBOOKdb.com and be done with it.

This movie is for people who don't want to watch blood and guts horror movies. Those who prefer The Green Mile to Carrie. And it works just fine, thank you very much.

Many reviewers have focused on the story, or the controversy of being "anti war". Well, aren't we all? In The Valley Of Elah to me is about writing, directing and acting. Paul Haggis is outstanding in two of those. Tommy Lee, Charlize and the supporting cast amply perform the third.

When a movie is this good, it is best described as delicious. I watched it twice in 24 hours (DVD rules!). I enjoyed every minute of it, despite the stronger moments.

Tommy Lee is better doing nothing than any actor I know of and the director doesn't miss a chance to show Tommy being Joe Everyman. This is part of what makes the movie so real.

Charlize Theron is the polar opposite of Jessica Alba. I'm sorry to even mention the two in the same sentence. "More than just a pretty face" is an understatement. She turns in a very real performance as well.

Director/writer Haggis has put some superb dialog onto paper. In part because there is often a great economy of words at work. Less is more, if only our super-saturated culture could see it.

This movie also has staying power (in line with the Director's philosophy of being an artist -- click his bio for more). After the second viewing I found myself thinking hard about it as I was trying to fall asleep. The next morning (today) I was thinking about it again.

I would say this movie was robbed by "No Country For Old Men" at the Oscars, but that is a good movie as well (and Tommy Lee did yeoman work there also). Enjoy either, or both, you can't miss. As good as movies get. 4 out of 4 stars.

Don't waste your money. Do not let your kids watch this. In fact, put earplugs in your ears, duct tape your eyes and leave the room once you start the DVD. This movie gets progressively worse as it winds its torturous way to its illogical ending. Almost two hours long, it had a ten minute plot. Bruce ain't even Bruce but some shell-shocked wimp instead. Bad guy performances range from psychotic to perverted -- wait, that is from the same bad guy. Other bad guys are Grapes of Wrath stupid. The pyro stunts at the end look like the flames from the castle in a Believe It Or Not episode. If you want action, watch a soap box derby -- it will have ten times what this had. Before you buy the DVD, there is still time to poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick. If you go for both eyes and both ears, the DVD will be easier to watch. 1 out of 10 is, in fact, a generous rating for this movie. Calling this a movie is in fact generous. Bruce, time to hang up your acting clothes and retire. Everyone, make a note of this director and avoid any future products. I hope everyone has been sufficiently warned off. If not, give me a call and I will give you an even longer and more detailed warning. Peace, out.

2,000 people have commented on this movie so far, many in terrific detail and with great objectivity (those would be the thumbs down ones).

But there has been a bigger comment on this movie -- the box office.

Just a month after Matrix 2 is released, it is not even in the 5 top grossing films at the theaters. Had it been anything approaching the original, it would still be number one.

The box office has spoken and given the studios the only message they will really listen to: "Smarten up."

Only one thing can help make Matrix 2 a great movie -- a VERY thorough edit before it comes out in the Director's Cut DVD.

Ok, who got the idea that Seth Green was even tolerable in a movie? The Italian Job remake has its moments, but half of these are ruined by Seth Green. The supposed "key nerd", he plays the part in his usual way, which is all wrong here. The nerd part is supposed to make you say "cool" a lot -- instead I kept saying, over and over again "this guy is not in the slightest bit believable".

This was my last attempt at tolerating Seth Green. If I see his name in the credits of any future film I will automatically avoid that movie. I don't need a total downer when I watch a movie.

As to the movie itself, it has an ok plot, some good casting but suffers in the realism department -- SMALL SPOILER -- for example, how *did* they lift a ton of "stuff" away in the opening scenes? If they had equipment for that, I missed it. -- END SMALL SPOILER --

Summary: This movie doesn't decide what it is supposed to be. Mostly a "caper" movie, it lacks realism. Having lots of character development, yet Seth Green's presences says "Austin Powers 33 1/3". Watchable moments but ultimately disappointing. 5 out of 10.

Bruce Almighty is a nicely done movie. Reviewers had suggested it got too heavy, etc. I didn't find that at all. Some viewers had said all the funny parts were in the trailer. I didn't find that to be true either.

Bruce Almighty has a fairly good premise and sufficient (tm) Jim Carrey humor to make it enjoyable. Add to that a reasonable message well presented and I felt I got my money's worth.

7 out of 10.

Thank god for Mike Meyers.

Otherwise, one hundred thousand people would be lining up for their $8 refunds.

Paltrow is passable, Applegate almost invisible. Story gives a new meaning to the word "thin".

I recommend View From The Top to those Mike Meyers fans who liked "So I Married An Axe Murderer" as much as the Austin movies.

This movie has it all, in my opinion. John Grisham book means a great script. Incredible list of actors, including Matthew McConaughey who I think is terrific (see The Newton Boys, a lesser known gem of his). But it comes down to great chemistry -- Matthew with his wife Ashley Judd, with Sandra Bullock in one of her best roles, with Samuel L. -- the list goes on. Enjoy a great movie and get/rent this.

Were you in the cinema when 2001 came out? I was, although just a dozen years old. My father and older brother were thrilled to be going to this movie, and I was sure it was going to be pretty good as well. But of course nothing prepared me for the bigness -- grand music, huge space ship, fantastic light show, and considerable running time.

Well, the point is that I still remember all that, and the cinema I saw 2001 at ("The Oak" on Denman, in Vancouver), and how I had to ask a lot of questions in the end. And how profoundly advanced it was for its time.

The same can not be said for Star Wars or other "special effects" movies (even though Star Wars was one of just two movies I saw twice in the cinema). Special effects do not equal profundity. In fact, my current view is that if a movie is special effects dominated, then it will suck. Why? Because it is so easy to see how fake the effects are...like plastic flowers versus the real thing, fake zero gravity is pretty easy to pick out.

2001 is one of the few sci-fi films that *is* a great movie (I would also include The Matrix). The others are at best creative stories with fancy pictures.

Oh, and for those who find it boring, consider that the original running time of Lawrence of Arabia (released around the same time) was just under FOUR hours! 2001 is a mere 2.5 hours (shorter than The Green Mile).

8/10

Oliver Stone, Al Pacino, Dennis Quaid, James Woods. Should be great, right? Sorry, it is unbelievably bad -- filming style makes you nauseous, no plot nor heart to the movie. Extremely crude, without any useful reason for this. More like a WWF movie than anything else. Some "main stars" are almost invisible, others are badly chopped up by the editing/producing. Cameron Diaz was good...that is all I can say about this movie that is positive. IMDB rating should be 1.0 out of 10. This 35-year footballer was very very disappointed.

This may be the first time I have seen Eric Roberts so mis-cast as to be in a "non" part. Or seen Jon Voight prancing around in a stilted and artificial state in scene after scene. Or listened to incredibly corny and bad lines delivered by normally "star" actors.

But it was definitely not the first time I saw the "special" effects in the movie -- they were all clumsily stolen from vastly better movies.

What went wrong with this one? Almost no story, and what is present is not new, nor well thought out. Extremely poor direction, to the point of it being non-existent. Very poor casting, especially the "star", and the aforementioned Mr. Roberts.

For some reason IMBD gives this movie a 5.7/10. It is really a 1/10. Avoid it at all costs, even if it appears on TV...without commercials!

Stupid. Not a movie. Not interesting. Less than pointless. Maybe aliens *have* landed... Whatever you do, stay away from this one.

My only regret is that I can't reduce the IMDB rating for Titus enough. It was at 8.1 when I looked on Aug 22, 2000!

On a scale of 1 to 10, this movie is definitely a zero. In that respect only it is "off the charts". Leave now, while you still can. Quickly watch any other movie. To clear the palate.

Too late.

Hurl!