jmvcrit56

I went to my local video store last night and walked straight to its awesome horror section. I was specifically looking for this movie, as i had seen it in the store before, and was about to see it until my friend decided that we'd walk out with Joy Ride. The cover of this movie intrigued me, and lead me to think that it would be a darkly comeidic yet still very scary story about a boy's descent into madness.

The Butcher Boy is about an Irish boy, Francie, whose domestic life is miserable. His dad is always drunk and his mother is mentally unstable. However, he lets his anger out through his mischevous behavior in the town, particularly directed towards Mrs Nugent and her son, a perfect mother with a perfect son. Francie is also best friends with Joe, a sensitive kid of whom we get the impression from that he is losing interest in Francie's treatings of others, which are going a bit too far.

A lot more happens in The Butcher Boy, but if you don't like what you just got, don't see the movie. Though it's not slow, Francie's character development seems to drag, and Neil Jordan seems to advance his personality just before we've had enough.

The acting is what makes the movie what it is. Somebody call Eamonn Owens and give this kid a part in a movie. He owns the movie, he is the movie. Words cannot describe how good th' young laddie is at acting as the troubled Francie. This has to be one of my favorite acting performances of all time, right up there with Jason Schwartzman in Rushmore, and Kiefer Sutherland in Stand By Me. This kid needs a good role badly. Everybody else is decent, though i feel that Stephen Rea as Francie's father underplayed the role, and could've added more depth to the character. The character seemed to be waiting to become lively and three dimensional, but Rea went for the B minus and stopped there.

The butcher boy was not what I expected, and if you're looking for a horror movie about madness, look elsewhere. If you want a dramatic character study with a child actor better than a million Haley Joel Osments, this is for you. It is thought provoking, upsetting, and doesn't beg for it at all. How many movies can you say that about?

Help! Call the Police! 911! One of the greatest injustices is currently happening RIGHT NOW! And it all has to do with Woody Allen. Yes, apparently, no matter how good the movie is, the critics and the general public are forced to say that woody allen isn't good any more! What a disgrace! Sure, he's not making annie halls anymore, but he's certainly not making any terribly horrible movies like people say he is. Ladies and Gentleman, please: save those comments for when joel schumacher directs Annie Hall 2: with a vengence.

Sweet and Lowdown is an independent film that received an amusing reaction from critics. Wow! Woody Allen made an art flick! BFD, i say. Some critics loved it, others seemingly dismissed it. I think it's a great flick, and excellent character study.

It's imdb, we know the plot, let's hit the acting paragraph, shall we? Jeff Spicoli, a decent actor, shines as the lead, which i can almost guarantee you could not be played by any other actor. he lets us know that he hates himself, his talents, his habits, his personality flaws, and even those he loves. Penn was nominated for his role, but lost to kevin spacey for his role in american beauty, which was simply a better film, but each man gave an equally stunning performance. Samatha Morton was the one who received the random nomination at the 1999 academy awards. Not to say she was bad, she was great in fact. She loves emmet despite his flaws, and in some ways relates to his struggle, and offers him her undivided attention and sympathy. Great performance, but if you think the academy actually cared then you're a bit mixed up, my friend.

Sweet and Lowdown is an exceptionally good film that i highly suggest you go out and rent (don't worry, they'll have it). A great character study, this film proves that ol' Woody is not ready to go yet, and definetely deserved the standing ovation he received at the 2002 AA's (I was hoping that it would happen and was shocked that it did). So here's to you Woody. Go back to your apartment, turn on the tube, and get out a cold one. Maybe cook yourself lobsters with your girlfriend, or order an italian sub with mayonaisse.

So i just voted the Godfather 7/10. But when I had to summarize it in that one line, i just couldn't do it. It's impossible. The movie has been so tainted and vandalized in the industry that it seems that it's impossible for one to point a finger on just exactly how they feel.

Simply put: the Godfather is a good, solid, 3 star (out of four) movie. Yes, the experienced may have been ruined for me (i first saw it with a cold and didn't like it, so i had to see it later, as i knew something was wrong). I also may be too young (all the commenters say you have to be over 18. i say you could see the movie at ten and over). But i feel the movie is a well written, well acted, well balanced movie.

What's the problem? Again, I'm speechless. It lacks a kick, that special kick that so many movies need to have. Unlike its outstanding sequel, it fails to generate the feeling that the viewer is wrapped in it like a blanket, with the exception of a few scenes. it best serves as an introduction to a legendary trilogy, rather than just a movie.

Brando shines as a role that seems written for him, Pacino is great, Caan is head to head with his performance here and with his performance in the gripping Misery (3 1/2 stars out of four). The script has some of the most realistic writing ever written. It simply lacks the kick.

If a person walked up to me and asked if they should see it, i would probably slap them in the face, ask what's wrong with them, and steal their lunch money. But I would also tell them that before they see it, they should be ready to form their own opinion. Now we come to the "how it was ruined" part.

Hollywood generated and ego for this movie. if you don't like it, or even have a positive opinion like me, you're automatically not considered a movie buff. I applaud (and send my heart out to) all the movie buffs on imdb that get up off the ground, brush it off, lick their wounds, and say, "look punk, i didn't like it." It's important to form your own opinion, and i'm sure that there are plenty of people that go around praising this movie when they themselves don't think it was that hot. I do, though, don't get me wrong, it was a good movie. If you haven't seen it, i suggest you should, though, only for the sake of seeing a so called classic.

That's it, for those of you looking for the last sentence sum up. Overatted, but still very good. 3 stars out of 4, 7 out of 10

wow

I saw this movie about three years ago, just old enough to appreciate the magic of foreign and independent filmmaking. If memory serves me, this was the second or third foreign film I had seen, trailing after the excellent oscar winner (!) "Life is Beautiful" and another Zhang Yimou film, "The Story of Xio Ju" (pardon my spelling, im in a hurry.

This film is intense, right up there with "Traffic" and "The Silence of the Lambs". However, this makes it all the more engaging. In a simple plot summary, the film is about the long steps of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, led by the infamous notorious Communist Chairman Mao. The film covers every aspect of the amazing point in Asian history through one family's story, starting with the rise and oddly sudden fall of a rich landlord with a strong gambling habit. The minute you hear "Master Fugui, you've lost", one is immediately indulged into the world of China early 1900s.

The film was made during Zhang Yimou's GOOD phase, under the umbrella with "The Story of Xio Ju" and "Raise the Red Lantern". His direction is amazing, right next to Stanley Kubrick and Richard Kelly (though we'll see how he turns out), even though his style is quite different. He has a wonderful, character driven tecnique that makes us take a dive into their amazing lives. Unfortunately, he lost this unique style in the average "Shanghai Triad" (though eleven may have been too young for that), the lingering and barely decent "Not One Less", and the painfully flavorless and dull "The Road Home". Hopefully Yimou can get over his break up with his longtime girlfriend and star (who is in this movie and plenty others, her last being "Shanghai Triad"), Gong Li.

"To Live" is on my favorites list, and I have strong feeling that it won't ever budge. If you're in for GREAT movie, go to your local video store (Buckbuster won't carry this one), pop it in the VCR, and be prepared to look at life a whole new way

This is Imdb. How many of us have actually NOT seen "The

Shining." About 0% Therefore, we all know that most horror/that

guy wants to get us flicks are all terrible. There's no more

surprises. People have trouble being original, and apparently,

thats a perfect excuse to make a movie anyways.

not for me, no.

This movie is worth nothing but a sunday afternoon basic cable

watch, when you can turn your back on the tv to grab some food. It

will obviously be on USA in a couple of years, starting out as one of

those cheap suspense flicks that they show early in the morning

on weekends. There is nothing original about this movie at all,

and how it got released in theaters is beyond me.

John Travolta succeeds once again at his cheap paper thin acting.

Vince Vaughn, who always sucks and tries to hard to play every

part he comes across, is also horrible. Teri Polo, a decent

actress, knows this project is in trouble and underplays every line

she delivers. I'll be sympathetic, as it seems she was the only

actor that knew the project was doomed.

The script is awful. What more can I say. It's a slasher fare.

Don't even waste your time with this one. "The Shining" will always

remain as one of the greatest movies of all time, eliminating all

possible surprises from a horror movie. Until the next Kubrik

comes up (hopefully Richard kelley) horror will continue to be

horrible like this

If you hate David Lynch movies or any of those other symbolic, art-house (though i hate using that term), and very independent films, please leave. This won't be too worthwhile for you. Really. Go search "A Beautiful Mind" or "Spider-Man" instead. Heck, I don't know what you're doing on this page to be honest. Okay. Buh-bye. Shalom.

Acting is often an overlooked power of a movie. If used correctly, It can save a movie, and/or possibly make it worthwhile ("Rushmore" and even "Life is Beautiful" would have been weak and sub-par had it not been for Schwartzman and Murray's/Begnini's performances). "The Minus Man" is my best example of an acting movie. Within the first ten minutes, I was immediately mesmerized by Wilson's performance (who, by the way, knowing the general publics tendency to trash actors, will have to eventually decide what kind of movies he wants to make - smart comedies, independent dramas, or popcorn action flicks) as the seemingly earnest and down to earh killer, whose actions seem to be a reflection of his emotions and the way he sees life, rather than simply an act of ruthlessnes. Brian Cox also shines in his performance, and so does Jeneanne Garofalo, who oddly succeeds in portraying a character whose personality is much different from her typical sarcastic "the world stinks" characters.

The script has a few problems, and we sometimes don't know what's going on. However, by the end, we understand that this is part of the movie,and the mystery is there for a reason and is part of the movie's apparent symbolism.

"The Minus Man" is a noticably flawed movie, but if we can forgive its mistakes and take notice of that fact that what we see is all intentional, it will make the perfect thought provoking movie-experience.

Though the plot elements to "The Eighth Day" seem like they have been done plenty of times, the film still has much of the spark, mystery, and symbolism that Jaco Van Dormal's first film had. Though not as good as "Toto the Hero", which will always remain on my favorites list, the movie still leaves us with lots of emotions. Daniel Auteil, from 2001's flavorless "The Closet" downplays his part, afraid to overact (rightfully so, the role could have easily been ruined if the actor was overly dramatic). However, I felt the part needed a bit more realism to it, focusing more on the character itself instead of simply the character's growth.

Don't walk into this movie expecting the dark humor and unexpected twists that you got from "Toto the Hero" because you will be disappointed. However, the film still serves as a decent, if not flawed, movie

How could Coppola mess up so bad?

"The Outsiders" is a bad movie in every way possible. The directing is unevenly paced, and sometimes gets so confusing it's hard to know what's going on. The acting is some of the worst I've seen, right next to the remake of "Psycho". The characters are unbelievable one dimensional, and one can't feel for them at all. Some may argue this point, claiming the actors were young. True, they were (and, on a lighter note, most of them haven't starred in recent "quality" movies in a long time), yet the acting is so inexcusable, they may as well just cast a few second graders. The script, like the directing, is also confusing, and is so fake and hollywood-esque that they probably just pulled out a few lines from a Looney Tunes sketch, threw in a few swears and some blood, and called it "The Outsiders".

Anyone want to know a good story? Three words: READ THE BOOK!