stuprince

Fun little action move/Romantic comedy. Very much like a reverse True Lies, this is an unsuspecting, bland man who is scared to go off the farm meeting up with the sexy lady spy who poses as an international art dealer.

Nothing ground breaking in this show, but it makes for a fun couple of hours. If you are a Marvel fan, you will like the string of bounty hunters that come along to capture the Tax Man.

Don't expect any deep thinking or groundbreaking effects. But, the story is nice, the acting is solid, and the action makes this movie, available only on Apple TV+, more than worth it on a Saturday night.

Led by a great score, soundtrack, and visuals, this film is inspiring to get people to understand that life is what we make of it.

Product placement is a little heavy handed, at times forced into the film.

Great fantasy and feel good movie.

After a few fun episodes, the show was getting so far away from the truth that it is unwatchable. Episode 7 sealed it for me, just so far from reality that it is frustrating. Done with the series.

Fun movie, pretty standard action hero type move. Some good actors are poorly used, such as Richard Jenkins, and the story has a number of illogical pieces. But, if you like good guy, action films, this is a decent watch.

Mel Brooks may have produced, directed, and starred in some of the funniest movies since the 1960s, but for his final effort, this movie is really sad.

Brooks had fallen into the parity genre by this time and while his earlier effort, Spaceballs, had many memorable moments, this is nothing but a series of worn out and rehashed jokes. The same jokes worked in Blazing Saddles and its successors, but by this time they had lost there way.

I hope that people don't think that this is the best of Brooks, take time to see Saddles, Young Frankenstein, or the Producers.

Skip this one.

Well, you can get a chuckle or two out of this film, maybe even find some inspiration or cheer for the underdog, but for people who know ANYTHING about football, this moving is just one mistake after another. Whomever edited this thing should be drummed out of Hollywood. Just go to the goofs section and that might begin to list all the continuity and factual errors. Players on the field, then off the field in the next shot. Jus the problems with how the structure of the team is built makes no sense. Why fire a coach and hire a new one during a strike? Why no backup quarterback? Why are players playing both ways? What is a QB doing on a kickoff team? it goes on and on and drives me crazy.

OK, I have now seen this film twice and maybe the problem is all the hype it got. Both times I have seen it I have come away with the same thoughts and feelings.

This is a good movie, no doubt about that, dark, action packed, good supporting roles (especially Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Michael Caine). Cool toys and special effects make this fun to watch, and the good guys (for the most part) win in the end. Just the kind of film that is fun to watch in the summertime.

As for this being one of the greatest films ever, not IMHO. Heath Ledger is a good Joker, especially as this movie moves along and he has more interaction with Christian Bale's Batman. the farther into the movie it gets, the more evilly humorous he gets. For my money, I still prefer Jack Nicholson in that role, maybe it is the writing, but his lines are classic, while Ledger's lines are much less memorable (Why So Serious is pretty good). Ledger is much darker and more evil, but to me The Joker needs to have a little more humor to him.

Good movie, but I would take the 1989 version over this one (but that is like preferring a Mercedes over a BMW...you win with either one!

This could be the story about so many "B" level celebrities, and is based on the life story of the "Amazing Kresken," The Great Buck Howard tells us that once you enter the field of entertainment, you might do anything to stay on top.

Buck Howard (played wonderfully cheesy by John Malkovich) is a "mentalist" who was popular on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show," appearing 61 times. He is a classic 70s Vegas magician, doing fascinating tricks and metal feats of amazement. In all, he is a relic of decades past, entertainment without special effects and he still seems to think he is on top of the entertainment world.

Howard's career has has hit near the bottom, performing in such hotbeds as Bakersfield, CA and Akron, OH in front of partially filled small auditoriums. Still, he see's himself as a big time entertainer that is just not getting the break he needs to get back on top (much of which he blames on Jay Leno), in many ways he is a sad individual and does not get that the only people who enjoy him are almost as sad as him.

The story is told through the eyes of his traveling secretary, played by Colin Hanks, who is, himself, struggling with issues. He is battling his desires to become famous with his fathers (played by his real dad Tom Hanks)wish he become a lawyer. since he has no real talent (other than writing)he is breaking into entertainment the only way he sees possible.

This is a charming film, not something for those looking for action, a major love story (a minor one occurs between Colin and the beautiful Emily Blunt (best known as the 1st assistant in The Devil Wears Prada), or some major personal victory, although in the end, Howard does find what makes him happy.

This is a movie that likely describes the life of many "B" entertainers that are seeking to stay in a limelight that has moved away from them. it is simple and enjoyable.

OK, lets all get a grip. Why do people have to come on tho IMDb and bash a movie because it does not agree with their political views or give it a one so that it will "balance" the votes.

So, lets try to get this straight, I am not an environmentalist, but Wall:E does discuss a real issue in today's world (as does Gone with the Wind, Midnight Cowboy, Brookback Mountain, and many others)and if you are not on the side of the filmmakers than so what? Disagree and enjoy the film! Everything is NOT a left wing plot to twist minds, you have the ability to listen, watch, enjoy, and disagree if you chose.

This is a great achievement in film making, especially in animated film. With very little dialog, the film manages to discuss a current issue, develop a cute love story, and really slam the typical American who just sits around and cannot function without our electronics...this issue I agree with.

I can see how small children may not like this as you need the ability to follow a story without the dialog walking us through, a tough skill for many small kids (and too many adults).

the animation is amazing and this really is a good SciFi movie, not just a good animated film. Plus, the little short about the magician before the flick is good too.

Being a Star Trek fan for many years, this movie I had avoided because I had heard that is was not very good. I caught it in FLIXe the other night and, surprise, found it to be a very enjoyable movie with all the good things about Star Trek in place and done well. The Next Generation crew does a nice job taking on the issue of forced displacement of a race, feels very "Trail of Tears" when they are marching up the mountains.

The series continues to find hot women to play the love interest in Picard (and Kirk before him), You just can't hire a bombshell to play these roles, so you need to find someone who is beautiful, sexy, but a little more mature and Donna Murphy does a nice job at this.

So, maybe not as action packed as "First Contact" but a pretty good film. maybe a real good one for someone who has avoided Trek because it was to sci fi-ish but is willing to give it a try.

After all the hype and promotion that USA was giving this show, In Plain Sight turned out to be an average show, something that just felt like NBC rejected and sent to its second tier network.

I have been a big fan of past USA show, especially Monk, Psych and Burn Notice, yet this show is disjointed and the plot was confusing. The show as supposed to be the story of federal marshals that hide people as part of the Federal Witness Protection Program, but quickly became a bad cop show with an attempt to solve a local murder of a young man who parents were in witness protection.

There is another story stranding through about Mary McCormick's character and her disjointed family life. Both stories were poorly put together and just typical cliché TV. Still, there is something to this show with an original idea and will, IMHO, develop into a decent show.

So, worth a look and it has lots of room to get better. USA, make it about witness protection people and not just another cop show and you will keep me watching.

Although this is not a perfect film, it is a wonderful overview of the Soviet Union's "Vietnam" and how we essentially spent them to death. It also offers, at the end, some idea of why we are in the current situation in Iraq. Tom Hanks does an impressive job with the Wilson character and, having seen several documentaries on, and interviews of, the former Congressman, Hanks seem to get him dead on as a smart ass womanizing boozer who comes from the only district that does not want anything which gives him a free hand to do what he wants with his vote.

This movie shows how much is done in DC behind the scenes and how the committee system can control so much, it also comments that people with limited personal morals can still do good things, an odd concept for many people who see people as either all good or all bad, most of us are somewhere in between.

For the purpose of a good movie, this film does feel a bit choppy at times because they are trying to tell a seven year story in the context of a 97 minute film, so knowing the story and suspending the time element helps.

I recommend this film, it was very good.

An enjoyable premise and pulled off really well in spots, Delirious is a fun film that spoofs soap's (similar to the TV show Soap)by allowing a soap writer played by John Candy to dream that he is in the soap opera he writes for. While it the dream, he can change what is happening each moment by simply typing it out on his typewriter, most of what he writes involves his anger toward the shows other writers and a vehicle to make himself a sexy leading man while wooing his love interest played by Emma Sands. Because at some moments Candy's character is simply trying to get rid of people, Candy writes some funny, if weird, things that the characters can't even figure out why they are doing them.

Although the movie lags in places, it has some of the funniest lines I have ever heard in movies, especially the Robert Wagner lines about Cleveland and the running gag about cable TV repairmen and having to wait for them. The cable gag is really dated (I haven't had black bar issues in about 15 years)as is other parts of the film, but it still works.

Raymond Burr does a great deadpan job in his final theatrical performance. Muriel Hemmingway really stinks it up, the rest of the cast is made up of soap actors who do a nice job of spoofing their own genre.

Another good flick that spoofs soaps is Soapdish, does not have the fantasy piece of Delirious, but is also very funny.

A "B" movie with so many stereotypes, bad lines, poor acting, naked boobs (at least in the video version), and actors who went from nowhere to....more nowhere, it makes it fun to watch.

Patrick Swayze looks like an Oscar caliber actor in this one, but so what? If you are looking for what the hairstyles and clothes of the 80s looked like, you will enjoy this, the cast must of set a record for hairspray used. At times Julie Michaels hair looks like it is made of plastic.

Badguy rednecks abound (complete with a monster truck!), the good guys win, a hero is killed, another hero gets to girl, and finally all the scared little town folks gather around Swayze to stand up to the evil Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara clearly at rock bottom of his career)...see Pale Rider for the better acted and written western version of the same story.

Just sit and enjoy a trip back the 1980s, and a decent Jeff Healey Band soundtrack, and don't expect too much, but it is lots of fun!

First, I loved MI I, it is one of the best spy flicks I had seen, it was fun, smart, and kept you guessing all the way to the end. II was a dog, a huge WOOF of a film that had no story, just two hours of special effects. When I sat down to watch the third, I was not expecting much, and that is what I got. Better than #2, it does have a decent story, but the writing is so bad and the directing makes the film confusing at times. I though Ving Rhymes was a computer expert? Now he is a regular field agent. Also, frankly, I don't want a love story, just a great spy flick. It was not a waste of time to watch it, but I won't be watching it again anytime soon.

I read some of the comments that people have made claiming this film is dated, and maybe there is some truth to that, but it is still one of the funniest films I have ever seen and began a genre of film that still continues today. Honestly, the sequel was bad (not a ZAZ film, by the way), but don't hold that against this film, without Airplane we would never have gotten the Naked Gun films, or Hot Shots.

This film is even more funny if you understand the pop-culture references of the period. Few young people today understand that the "Jive Lady" was Beaver Cleaver's mom, the ultimate white suburban Mom. References to Anita Bryant, "From Here to Eternity," Ethel Merman, and, most of all, understanding that almost NONE of the actors in the film were comedians, they were the foundation of 1960s and 70s dramatic films and TV. Only AFTER Airplane do they go on to do comedic roles. Imagine current actors such as Russell Crowe doing a parody film today and you might begin to understand why seeing and listening to these actors do these parts was so damned funny. Leslie Nielson had been the prototype handsome dramatic actor until the film, only then did he become a comedic star.

So, time has made it hard for people watching it for the first time today to understand all the humor, but still, watching the "shit hit the fan" has to be good for a few laughs.

I still remember when this came out and it was far from the height of the cold war, more like the tail-end with the Soviets just about 8 years from falling apart and already facing awful economic issues (Just about the same time Afghanistan had tried to establish independence from the Soviet Eastern Bloc, which led to an invasion, but showed that Soviet satellites were beginning to break ranks). I was about 21 at the time and thought this little TV film was about 10 years late to really scare the hell out of the country.

I recall at the time that the ABC TV promotion and warnings, along with the word of mouth (Imagine if there had been an internet at the time) scared people more than the film. The critics just thought is was a dog! The special effects are not scary, in fact many of them are the same ole stock Nuc footage that were found in most movies, documentaries, school science films of the time. The acting is decent with lots of "soon to be" name actors (Steve Guttenburg, JoBeth Williams, John Lithgow)and a few solid names (Notably Jason Robards).

As I rewatched this movie this weekend, what I thought it did a great job of was creating the tensions and anxiety of the people leading up to the nuclear attacks. I did find this gut wrenching. Really, the film is at its best in the first hour.

Once the bombs dropped and they tried to show what life was life afterward, it began to drag with bad make-up and a script that seemed more like people were becoming zombies, then battling to survive...maybe it could have used a zombie or two.

We really never find out why we fired first (though they mention an attack on NATO headquarters)and why we seemed to jump straight from disagreement to Nuc's, seems like a big jump. The guy who plays the president on the radio was really bad, just a series of cliché's. Maybe his speech writers were killed.

Overall, worth a look, but hardly a major, life-altering movie that so many people seem to make it into. Honestly, who would tell there HS kid to go to his brothers elementary school, if the missiles were fired, so they "wouldn't die alone" Man, that house must have been a lot of fun!

I still remember laughing so hard I was in tears in a theater filled with less than 20 people! A great cast and well written, this movie got the shaft after it was suddenly moved to a 12/2001 release (with almost no publicity)after the events of 9/11 because the movie had scenes depicting lax airport security. We Americans were far to fragile to see someone smuggling an atomic bomb and a gun through poor security! What people missed was a funny story and some of the best one-liners I have ever heard ("maybe you guys should plead Not Guilty by reason of stupidity!). Honestly, I have never been able to drive into an airport without thinking about Arriving and Departing ("We're arriving, but then we are departing?")and Florida Gator fans just get hammered! Great flick, get the DVD and see it for real, not the Comedy Central version.

This is a romantic comedy, but not one I would watch with my wife!

The tasteless jokes and one-liners roll out almost non-stop.

The movie verifies most everything we believe about used car salesmen, the "My boss will have a heart Attack" sales scene nearly brings me to tears I laugh so hard. Russell is at his best with some of the best character actors around joining in, I especially like the goofy Lenny and Squiggy, they just play two very disturbed individuals. Don't look for any deep meaning here, just crude humor a a very funny movie.



I give it 8/10

Wow, I should be punished for watching the entire thing as much as the producers for creating such a poor piece of film.

First, as mentioned, this camera work is so bad it gave me a headache. In, out, side-to-side. Hold the damn thing still! Second, this movie included every NBC second-tier star they could find in an attempt to get some name recognition (my apologeze to Fred Ward, but, geeze, You were in The Right Stuff...has your career dropped this far?) Few of these actors were any good, though the direction and lousy, cliche filled script might have have led more to that then the acting. Some of these actors were exactly the same as they are on their regular show (see Dule Hill and West Wing...Did we even need his character in the film???) Finally...Write your own movie, don't steal little scenes and characters from other disaster films and modify them (Blow up the meteor and self to save the planet=Bruce Willis and Armageddon, Blow up the fault and self to save the west coast=Fred Ward)and give us some characters we like...most of these I wanted killed of, beginning with the Gov's daughter!

If only Southern California had been swollowed up BEFORE this film was made!

I chuckle at all the people who seem to think this movie is an NRA bashing film that tries to convince people that guns are bad.

Far from it.

This film tells us that "people kill people, guns don't kill people." It does suggest that the NRA (and Heston)is a group of paranoid self-serving, insensative, nuts that can only talk about 1. the second amendment, 2. I need a gun to protect my family, and 3. It's my right to own a gun, so I will. Instead, this movie tells us that WE are the problem. The media and our own fears. And that if we get scared and fearful enough we will pick up a gun and use it. He also places a huge amount of the blame on the government, suggesting that how can the government tell us to treat each other nicely if they are overthrowing governments and assasinating leaders. Even though I don't believe it all, it was a film that makes me think about these issues.

Plus, this has some very funny moments, and nobody does satire like Moore. Worth watching, just put your politics away for a couple of hours.

Time to fall somewhere between all the other comments, it seems that everyone is looking for something specific, but me being interested, but not enamored with SFX, religious connections, or some great deeper meaning, I thought I could provide some "regular filmgoer" thoughts.

First, it is a good movie, but not something to watch unless you have seem Reloaded. Since it opens with no recap, someone that missed the second film would be completely lost. I did prefer Reloaded because I like the new charactors introduced, the Frenchman, Seraph, the Architect, and the Keymaker. All of them were solid and made me interested in what may be happening next. I developed an attachment to each, even if they were bad guys. Revolutions give us some new, but uninteresting people, I didn't care about most of the people in Zion so why should I care if they win? The Wachowski's seem to write better Matrix type people then real people.

Next, though the SFX were very cool, the move was so dark it was hard to visually take them all in. The fight scene for control of Zion was nice, though a tad too long in my opinion. I thought this war would be won in the Matrix, but after about the first half of the film we were never returned to the place the entire series began...what is with that? It's the Matrix, without the matrix.

Neo's final fight with Smith seemed pointless, Neo could not win, but I guess that was the point. To destroy Smith, Neo had to be assimilated (the Borg would be so proud) so the machines could gain control of the program Smith. By the way, is Neo dead? in another coma? or just a program? Someone help me on this?

Finally, We found out in the second movie that Neo was just the most recent "One," each time a matrix is created another "One" comes with it. Therefore won't this whole thing just keep happening over and over? Yes, billions will now be freed, but where will they go? Zion appeared a tad overcrowded already and the machines, though at peace for the moment, don't seem ready to give some of their beautifully landscaped territory to the humans that have already tried to destroy them once.

So, it is a good film, but I prefer the other two based on the matrix action. Will enjoy the day I buy them all and sit and watch them back to back to back...maybe more of this will make sense!

I saw this film for the first time a couple of nights ago and really enjoyed it. At then end I could have sworn it was a 90 minute film, not 120 plus. The story was great and the acting, well, Hackman, Hoffman, and Cusak, that should tell you a great deal.

so many people complained about how bad it was, but they seem more concerned about the liberal bias the movie has toward gun control that the film itself. Yes, it oozes left wing rhetoric, but is still a entertaining film. My wife and I began about 30 minutes in to try and figure out who would win this three way battle, and the ending was a surprise. I want to read the book now since I hear it is so much better.

Put your politics away for two hours (which everyone needs to do now and then) and enjoy a good film.

To be short and sweet, this is a good Star Trek with another solid villain. Being a series fan I was sad to hear haw bad Nemisis was supposed to be, but I found it fun to watch.

Some of the main characters become lost in this edition, especially the Doctor and Jordy. Still Patrick Stewart is once again solid and dynamic a Picard, especially when dealing with his clone. This is supposed to the last "Next Generation" film, which would be a shame.

I rate a 7 out of 10. Worth a watch

UPDATE, May, 2009

having not watched this film in a long while, I sat down and took another look. to my surprise, this is a much better Trek than I recall. the last hour of the film, especially, is action packed and in the finest Star Trek tradition. I guess the difference for me was filtering out the quality of special effects. it does not stand up to other films of the era.

But my point is, so what? Just as I read reviews of cell phones by people who are only interested in the text messaging feature, something that is not overly important to me, This Trek creates an exciting and action packed last hour that leaves you guessing to how Picard will pull it out. My 11 year old, a huge Star Wars kid, got caught up in the film and let me know that "that was a pretty cool movie."

I will officially pass on that this may be worth a second look if you are not all about special effects! in 2003, a 7, today...an 8

In the days of action films that fill 90 minutes full of special effects and a mind numbing pace, we find a little gem called Lost in Translation. The comments I have seen about the boredom and being surprised it is nominated for Oscars is not a shock, it is a movie that requires you to look into people personalities and discover how you have have a relationship with a person of another gender, without having sex.

Murray should have been nominated for best actor since this is his best work, not his most popular. He plays the lost middle-aged actor well, trying to show us that being an action hero is about acting, not his life. I love Caddyshack, Ghostbusters, and his other huge over-the-top roles, but this one gave men, mostly adult men, something to relate to.

I enjoyed it, great film