karma90036

U.S. Senator can't deal with the lies anymore, doesn't care, decides to be honest at all costs. What a fantastic premise! I love this idea. And what a cast! Before I saw this movie, I loved everything about it. And then I sat through it. Barely. It's a preachy, tired, poorly written heap. Beatty takes all of its potential and throws it away.

Bullworth is a satire without bite, or direction. The movie's biggest problem - there is absolutely no question that it was written by an old white man. Warren Beatty writing inner-city gang members? Ridiculous. And that's the way it comes off. Beatty reveals himself as a holier-than-thou liberal with no conception of the lives of those people he's supposedly fighting for. How could he - he's Warren Beatty. It's not his fault that he's sheltered from the truth. He just shouldn't write about it. And we shouldn't pay money to see it.

Okay, so it wasn't such a great movie. It may even have been a bad movie. But one question - did you laugh? I thought so. The story goes nowhere, the characters learn nothing, it conveys a negative message, but, goshdarnit, it managed to include some very funny scenes. That's no small feat. So if you're looking for great cinema, look elsewhere. If you want a stupid comedy (and some people do), check out 'Old School.'

Reading others' comments on this film, I'm shocked to see those of you out there who didn't like it. Shame on you. You've lost your right to ever complain about the quality of films Hollywood puts out. Here a few major talents have taken a risk that pays off wonderfully, and you're complaining that it's not more like the garbage you complain about. Enough of that.

This movie is truly wonderful. I saw it on cable, started watching late at night, figured I'd fall asleep halfway through - and I couldn't turn it off. This film had me in more suspense than any action film I've seen since Die Hard. And 'Tape' keeps getting better and better as you watch. There isn't a wasted shot or line of dialogue in the movie. Performances by the actors was amazing.

If you enjoy films that are more challenging than the multiplex fare, you will love this movie. If, on the other hand, you don't want to have to think, steer clear.

this is perhaps the best film of 2002, and was robbed by the Academy. No nomination for screenplay or direction? Please. Rarely has a movie been as effective in fusing comedy and tragedy. Rarely have we ever so thoroughly understood a movie character as we do Warren Schmidt. 'About Schmidt' stays with you. I would bet that in twenty years this film is better known and respected than any other that were released in 2002.

So rarely does Hollywood turn out a decent comedy, that you've got to stand up and take notice of this movie. It manages to be funny and entertaining at the same time. No small feat these days. This movie works on two levels. Yes, it's hilarious. It really is. But it also works as a thriller. I know that sounds silly, but this movie had me on the edge of my seat. At certain points, I couldn't even look to see what horrible turn the plot might take.

This film deserves all the success it's had. And that's so rare.

Funny, but had this film not been so incredibly succcessful, I imagine people would be much more likely to praise it. It's hard for any film to live up to the hype that surrounded this one. Try to take a step back and judge the film on its own merits. It's innovative and very effective. It's actually a miracle how good the movie is, considering the conditions under which it was made. The directors and edit should receive major credit for making something out of the footage they had.

And the acting was superb. Please don't say that it wasn't really acting. That's absurd. This isn't a hidden camera situation. These three actors knew exactly what was going on - they were shooting a movie. Sure, the film crew tried to scare them, but in the end these three were acting. The fact that so many people claim that the actors weren't acting is just testament to how well they acted. We bought every second of their act. As Heather Donahue was quoted as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here), "A pile of rocks is not scary." Meaning, there was a lot of acting going on.

I went into this film with low expectations, having heard that 'Wall Street' is quoted by some of the characters. And the plot sounded strangely similar to 'Wall Street.' I was very pleasantly surprised. Much of the film's appeal is its sharp direction and editing. It moves lightning fast. But everything's solid here. Sure, we've seen this sort of thing before, but this is a new take, and one worth viewing.

Particularly of note is the performace of Ron Rifkin as the disappointed father. I felt his pain. He inhabits the character, doesn't 'play' him.

First of all, I think you have to give this film credit right off the bat for being so incredibly different. These filmmakers tried damn hard to show you something you haven't seen, and in many aspects the film succeeds. First, the bad news. Some of the acting here is sub-par. Some of it stands out in stark contrast to the professionalism of the rest of the film. The actor who played Quentin has a few particularly stagey moments. His crazy-eyed stare could've been taken down a few notches and been more effective. He tries so hard to act insane; it feels like acting. But those are only a few moments. Overall, the guy's pretty believable and carries a good portion of the show.

Directing, editing, cinematography - all well done. I was told that, in reality, only one room existed, but was shot in such a way to make you feel as if it were an endless maze. Very clever. The movie contains a surprising amount of gore. Several scenes took me back. I didn't expect this level of gore in a small independent, and smart, film. Nonetheless, it's effective gore. It ups the stakes.

'Cube' is a suspenseful film that definitely deserves a look. But be warned: if you're a moviegoer who prefers to be spoonfed (this film does NOT do that), or who requires a black and white conclusion, skip it. It's a little more challenging than what you're looking for.

For those of you who haven't seen this film - go out and rent it. It's a fantastic movie. Stylish, funny, exciting. At the time it came out, it was not a hit. That's the public's loss. Maybe the ad campaign was screwey. Whatever. 'Out of Sight' was sort of Steven Soderbergh's re-emergence. Of course, ever since he's been at the top of the A-list, winning awards and such. But this film is my personal favorite Soderbergh film. The music is awesome. Tons of fun to watch.

If you're looking for a pure action sci-fi film, don't see this one. It's terrible. If you're looking for a parody of a sci-fi action film, you won't like it either. I've heard all kinds of arguments that 'Starship Troopers' was intended to be as ridiculous as it is, but here's my point - even if a filmmaker intends to make a bad film (if you buy that), it's still bad. I can only recommend this film to people who enjoy watching pain and blood. I guess it does have its audience.

Whether you dug this movie or not, you've got to give it credit for having major guts. Remember, this is a big Hollywood comedy, with a big Hollywood budget, and a major studio behind it. And the protagonist ends up discovering his homosexuality. Now, that might not seem like much of a risk to some moviegoers, but try to think of another big studio comedy (I'm not talking about independent films) that has the courage to go this route. The filmmakers could have just as easily wimped out, as would be the usual choice.

Besides the above, this is a finely crafted comedy. It's funny and touching and well written and acted. Sure, it's not perfect, but it succeeds, which is more than one can say for most other comedies.

This is the first Anderson/Wilson feature collaboration, and I think their best. I saw it without knowing anything about it, and I was so pleasantly surprised. It's funny, but in a very subtle way. The comedy here derives from nuances and atmosphere. You've got to watch closely, and you'll be rewarded.

The writing and directing are good, but the actors make the film what it is. I don't know how much of it was improv, but the Wilson brothers are so smooth they make the whole thing feel spontaneous.

I'd heard so much about 'Clerks' that maybe it was inevitable that I was disappointed by it. I know, it was shot for next to nothing, but how much of the film does that excuse? In my opinion, the weakest part of the movie was not the production value or acting (although they do feel as cheap as they are), but the screenplay. Given there are several funny bits in the film, overall it's a mess. It really goes nowhere and takes too long to get there.

My guess is that if this film were made today, nobody'd ever hear about it. 'Clerks' came about at just the right time, on the cusp of new indie popularity. Maybe this film was responsible for some of it. In that respect, I appreciate this movie. In most others, I don't.

It's too bad about 'True Romance.' Judging from the screenplay, this could have been a fine film. That is, with a different director. Tony Scott is responsible for the mess that is 'True Romance.' He clearly can't do subtlety. He doesn't know when to tone it down. He doesn't know what's funny about the screenplay. He plays every moment huge and overblown. A stylistic choice, you say? Please. Take a look at Tony Scott's credits. 'The Last Boyscout', 'The Fan,' 'Beverly Hills Cop II.' Did he mean to make these films the overwrought bores that they were? That's all he knows how to do. It's really a shame that his brother didn't direct 'True Romance.'

This is a good film that is totally stolen by Martin Short. The scenes including his agent character are some of the funniest I've ever seen in a movie. He's absolutely brilliant.

If you can see past the blinding light of Short's performance, there's a likable movie here. Kevin Bacon and his character's storyline are compelling and involving. There are loads of funny cameo-type roles. There's one scene in particular that stands out. It's not funny, it's heartbreaking. I'm talking about the scene where Kevin Bacon picks up Michael McKean in his Porsche, gets a cell phone call, and asks McKean to step out of the car to take the call. Man, that's harsh. It's testament to Bacon's acting charm that his character can be redeemed at all after a stunt like that.

The one thing that seemed consistently not to work here is the fantasy sequences. The movie would play better without them.

Offensive, crude, infantile, empty. Sure, 'Raw' is all these things. It's also laugh-out- loud funny. This is Eddie Murphy at his best, when he still knew how to make people laugh. He takes the stage and commands for the duration of the film. He's so in control and confident it's amazing. I saw it again recently. It aged well.

This could be the best war movie ever made. I haven't seen another film before or since that as successfully drops the audience into a war zone and keeps them there for the entire running time. The film is as heavy as they get. You may need a nap after you see it. It manages to be terrifying and poignant and dramatic. Performances are first rate all around (a young Charlie Sheen could act), screenplay is stellar, directing is as good as it gets. This is Oliver Stone breaking out, and man did he break.

I know I'll catch a lot of flak for this, but I thought this film was better than the third installment, and nearly as good as the first. People complained that this one was too dark. Well, I like dark. Some of the action sequences in this film have not been surpassed since. The scene on the rope bridge? Amazing stuff. The mine car chase? Name one better. This was the age before digital, they used miniatures for most of this stuff, and the realism can't be touched.

It's amazing how well this movie was made. Consider it was a computer thriller in the early eighties - and it still works today. Sure, most of the technology is incredibly outdated, but now the film works as a period piece. This film shows that a 'cyber thriller' can work. Sadly, none since has worked as well.

I've heard it said that this film can only be appreciated while under the effect of some controlled substances. While that state of mind does give the viewer another point of view, it's a completely false statement. 'The Wall' is simply a great movie. With or without drugs. If you haven't seen it since your stoner days, rent it again. You'll be surprised at just how good it is. It's not mindless entertainment. Don't expect to sit there and just 'get it.' You've got to think about it, put the scenes in order in your head. It's a fascinating trip - even sober.

'Superman II' is a really fun film. It's better than the original film, or any of the sequels that followed. It has the most defined storyline. The three baddies who were banished to space in the first film come to earth to seek revenge on Jor-El's (is that Brando's character's name) son - Superman. The three actors playing the bad guys are superb. Their performances, mixed with the superior special effects (for its time), make them a frightening bunch. They're the stars of this film, with Superman merely dealing with the havoc they wreak.

I first saw this film as a kid, and couldn't sit through it. It literally scared me out of the room. Then I saw it as a teenager - same effect. It wasn't until I was an adult that I sat down and watched this thing straight through - albeit it in the middle of the day with all the lights on. I just can't understand how some of you don't find it scary. Perhaps you're too cynical. It's a movie, you've got to go with it.

'The Exorcist' is William Friedkin at his best. Interestingly enough, many of the scenes in this film that don't take place in the little girl's room are the spookiest. Friedkin has infused every scene with a foreboding and volatility. Particularly frightening are the scenes in the hospital when the girl is getting tests done. An interesting comment on modern life.

I came to a screening of NEW SUIT with a friend, and I was just blown away. I knew nothing at all about it beforehand, and afterwards I was just happy. It's kind of a feel-good satire. It's kind of like "The Player" and "Swimming With Sharks" but with more jokes, and snappier dialogue than "Swimming With Sharks" and no dead bodies. It's more fun and not as dark as those movies. I recommend seeing this one strongly. You won't regret it. The story itself sounds deceptively simple. Guy comes to Hollywood. He wants to be a writer and he ends up with a lame job as an assistant. He's really not happy. He plays a trick on his friends and tells them that there's a new script they have to read called "The New Suit" by a guy called Jackson Strawberry. The joke is that there is no script and no author. Very quickly, those friends tell their friends, and it runs out of control very quickly.

Soon everybody's talking about "The New Suit" and this mystery writer. It gets to a point where people are trying to buy this fake script. I won't spoil the ending, but it's really unexpected.

I said that it's deceptively simple, because there's a lot going on here. First of all the movie is fast. It moves very quickly. The dialogue and characters are sharp, and nasty and absolutely dead-on hilarious. the movie never stoops to cater to the lowest common denominator. you've got to pay attention because things start to happen so quickly and the movie doesn't explain everything. You've got to figure it out. New Suit has a great look. I saw it projected in a wide-screen format and it was really rich. I recognized some of the actors (Dan Hedaye), but all of them were fantastic - across the board. The two leads (Marisa Coughlan and Jordan Bridges) were very charismatic. They were familiar to me but this movie really shows their capabilities. There's also Paul MCrane from ER. And you'll be surprised by his performance. And Heather Donahue from The Blair Witch Project has a supporting role, and she proves herself here. Dan Hedaye is raw and sleazy and scary here - an excellent performance as good as anything I've seen him do. But really, the acting is solid here. The music was very cool. Editing is quick. Its well-directed, but I did get dizzy at one point (you'll see what I mean). But mostly you're just going to laugh. Some of the jokes are set up way in advance and I had to laugh out loud, and I never do that. The dialogue was just sharp and youve met all of these characters before. I did get a little confused at one point and I will say that the movie starts out like a typical Hollywood story, and you feel like you've seen this before, and then it kicks in and surprises you. Overall you leave the theater feeling good. It's a fully-realized satire and I strongly recommend it. If you like your comedy with a brain, you'll like it a lot.