chucknorrisfacts

I just had the misfortune of watching an episode of "Donny!" Let me tell you, it's awful. It's almost as if Donny is so incredibly conceited he thought filming fictionalized versions of what are likely his real-life fantasies would be entertaining to viewers. Spoiler alert: It's not. There is nothing of any substance to be found in this. I'd be shocked if it lasts more than a season. It always amazes me how with as much great talent as there is out there, something like this gets the green light. It's sad, really.

It's not the sexual content I have a problem with, it's how unrealistic it all feels. There's just something that seems so false about what they're putting out. As I mentioned before, it feels like Donny is just trying to live out his fantasies on screen. I can imagine a conversation that took place between Donny and some friends at lunch in Beverly Hills or somewhere, "Oh, hey...You know who's hot? Christie Brinkley. Man, I've wanted her since I saw her in that little red Ferrari in 'Vacation,' we should totally try getting her on the show. Think she'd do it? Of course she'd do it." Gag.

Do yourself a favor, pass on this drivel.

Kowalski is the epitome of disillusionment. Everything he's ever tried doing in life has ended in failure, from attempted careers in stock/bike racing and law enforcement to even his love life, as evidenced when he isn't there to save his girlfriend from drowning.

Kowalski's been relegated to taking a position as a driver for Argo's Car Delivery service in Denver, Colorado, where he takes possession of a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T that must be delivered to San Francisco, California in four days time. On his way out of town, Kowalski stops at a biker bar seeking to obtain some "bennies", slang for Benzedrine, a stimulant similar to methamphetamine. He makes a bet with his dealer Jake (for the price of drugs) that he can make it from Denver to Frisco in just fifteen hours (considerably sooner than his actual deadline). Jake initially thinks Kowalski is putting him on, to which Kowalski replies "I wish to God I was..." Now, that's an interesting response considering we, the audience, know that Kowalski doesn't actually have to be there that fast. So, why say it? It seems rather obvious that he's got more of a stake in getting to Frisco than he's willing to admit...but what's in Frisco? This is just speculation on my part, but I don't believe anything is waiting for him in the "City by the Bay". I think he sets up a seemingly low-stakes bet for drugs in the same way a childhood friend might have dared you to dare him to throw a rock through a window. It was something he wanted to do anyway, but if you dared him to do it -- he had to do it, or he was "chicken". I think Kowalski did very much the same thing by telling Jake he had to be to San Fran in an almost impossible amount of time. He could've just set out across the American Southwest all his own sans bet and still tried to make it as quickly as possible, but by getting Jake to bet him, he was now accountable to someone other than himself to succeed, or die trying.

He wants to make it from Denver to San Francisco in fifteen hours to "redeem" himself for his past failures. He's isn't suicidal, he's just reckless, The harder the authorities give chase, the harder he flees.

Sandy, Kowalski's boss at Argo's Car Delivery, gives an interview to a newsman later in the movie that suggests the reason Kowalski never "made the grade" as a stock/bike racer was not because he didn't have the goods, but rather because he never really cared about winning. This would certainly suggest a nihilistic mindset, for which Kowalski simply didn't see the point in winning, or at least he didn't at that time.

I think by the time Kowalski decides to take his fateful trip, he's taken a more existential approach and decided his trip is a way through which he can give his own life meaning. In the grand scheme of things, do Kowalski's life or his chase really matter? Maybe not, but it helped to give him a purpose. It also provided us with probably the only existential car chase movie in existence and one hell of a good time!

Bill Murray plays a successful computer programmer whose girlfriend leaves him at the beginning of the film. Soon after, he discovers a letter in a pink envelope that's been delivered to his home. Inside, he reads he has a son that may very well be on his way to see him.

Murray's character is unsure on what to think about this most recent development and turns to his mystery novel writing neighbor for help. His neighbor ends up doing a little research for him on the internet, as well as books his trip to go visit the women most likely to have been mother to his supposed son.

Murray reluctantly agrees to go on the trip, and each encounter he has goes from good to bad, from bad to worse, and worse to worst.

I'm not going to reveal exactly what happens at the end, but some might've been dissatisfied with how abruptly the film ends, but I think that if you watch the end credits to discover just who it was he saw in the car, it does kind of clear things up a little bit, and in some ways, makes the ending more satisfying.

I'd definitely recommend checking this movie out, the subtle nuances of the actors' performances are really what makes this movie great.

I've got mixed feelings about "About Schmidt". There's a part of me that liked it, and a part of me that didn't.

At times, the film's pacing is a little slow for my taste, but Nicholson makes it bearable. I don't know how much I would've liked this movie had a different actor been cast in the lead.

The film had a quirky sense of humor, which was quite funny in certain parts, particularly; in scenes where Nicholson is writing his sponsor child, Ndugu. But, in general, there are quite a few humorous scenes scattered throughout the movie.

My only real critique is I think the movie could've been a little shorter than it was, but I'm not going to gripe too much.

If you like Nicholson, you'll like this movie. That's pretty much all the more you need to really know. Conversely, if you're not a big Nicholson fan, the quiet script may not be enough to keep you interested in what's going on.

I'll try to make this short and sweet…

Overall, the original "Psycho" is obviously better. However, I don't think the remake is nearly as awful as everyone likes to say it is. I mean, how could it be? For the most part, it's a shot-for-shot remake. To say the remake is terrible is kind of like saying the original sucks.

Sure, the performances weren't as good in this movie as those in the original film, but most of the action that occurs in the movie was the same.

I think there were some good performances in the movie, though, just not Vince Vaughn's. It kind of saddens me in a way to say that, because ordinarily I like Vince Vaughn but he was undeniably weak here, and seemed unsuited for the part.

I was a little surprised that when the infamous shower scene happens, after Norman Bates murders Marion, you can see her butthole as she falls out of the shower.

I don't remember that in the original…

I mean, was this remake necessary? Not really. Most remakes aren't. However, it could've been worse. I think that Rob Zombie's horrible remake of "Halloween" deserves to be bashed far more than this film.

I'm not a fan of Denzel Washington, so it was with much hesitation that I watched "The Book of Eli". I'll be honest, I didn't think the movie was great. It wasn't horrible, either...it was OK at best. I think one viewing is more than enough.

To me, what hurt the movie more than anything was the ridiculousness of the ending. Seriously? You mean to tell me friggin' Jackie from "That '70s Show" is supposed to be a hardcase like Eli was? That's just stupid! I'm sorry but no way would I ever buy Mila Kunis as a tough broad in a million years.

If you're REALLY bored and hard up for something to watch...I guess you could watch this if you wanted to, but I'd recommend checking out something else. It's just not worth wasting your time on, in my opinion.

"The Road" is not a very good movie. In fact, it was extremely boring. If you're going to try to watch it...do so during the day. It's almost guaranteed to put you to sleep if you try watching it at night.

I understand what the movie was trying to do. I think it wanted to be a more "realistic" survival movie than most others in the post-apocalyptic genre are. However, there's just not enough going on to keep the viewer interested.

...And don't even get me started about the ending. It made me feel like I'd completely wasted my time in watching the whole damn movie. I foolishly hoped that something interesting or redeeming would happen, but alas...it most certainly did not.

I highly recommend skipping this "snoozer" of a movie. If you want to watch something in the post-apocalyptic genre, I suggest watching something that's actually entertaining like "Escape from New York" or something.

I just watched "Heathers" for the first time tonight. I've heard people talk about it before in the past and they seemed to like it, so I figured I'd go ahead and give it a shot...

Well, now I'm sorry I did. This has got to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I really don't understand how anyone can like this. It's just stupid. I don't know how else to explain it. Personally, I feel that fact should be painfully obvious to anyone who tries watching this piece of crap.

Every time I watch a movie, I usually find myself going to the internet to try to learn a little bit more about it. One thing of interest I found was that the screenwriter supposedly tried sending this script to Stanley Kubrick in the hopes he'd be interested in making the film. Seriously?! Give me a friggin' break! Did he honestly believe Kubrick would touch this? If so, he seriously needs to check into a mental health facility.

I also learned that apparently Christian Slater sent Jack Nicholson a message asking him to watch the movie and tell him what he thought...Nicholson never responded. Now, I can't say for sure what Nicholson's reasons for not responding were, but I'd assume that he either:

A.) Thought the movie looked ridiculously stupid and had the good sense to avoid it.

or

B.) Saw the movie, but was appalled that Christian Slater would so blatantly attempt to copy him that he didn't want to "encourage" any further contact from Slater by even responding to let him know the movie sucked.

I seriously doubt Nicholson even saw the movie, but if he did, I think it's fairly safe to say he didn't like it if he wasn't willing to respond to Slater.

Maybe I veered off course on my review, but I think the main point I'm trying to make is that this movie blows and everyone who thinks otherwise is obviously a little off their nut. I'm sure some will say "I missed the point of the movie" or that "it's a satire", but I say it's still garbage.

I just watched "Girl 27" on Netflix instant stream. It's a very sad movie, but I think it's worth checking out, particularly if you're a starry-eyed youth thinking of making a career in show business.

The truth is, the world's a pretty nasty place, and you shouldn't trust people. Maybe that doesn't sound very nice to say, but it's the truth. It's just too bad no one ever told poor Pat Douglas that when she was growing up.

"Girl 27" tells the story of Pat Douglas, a young extra in the early days of Hollywood who gets raped at MGM and the subsequent cover-up that took place to protect the studio from the backlash after Douglas went public with her story.

I know a lot of people have given this film negative reviews and I can't really understand why. It seems a common complaint is the director's mishandling of the material or his apparent need to put himself in front of the camera instead of the real "star".

Well, first off, I'm in no way affiliated with the director, but I think if he's the one to uncover the story, he has the right to appear in his own documentary. Secondly, no one ever stopped to consider that maybe Pat Douglas wasn't comfortable talking on camera long enough to make a whole film out of it -- and that the director had to relay some information himself? I don't know...I guess I just think the people who voted this movie down because of the director missed the point of the whole documentary. It's about Pat Douglas and her tragic story, and I'm just glad the story got out and without the director that wouldn't have happened.

Some may say he exploited her again for the purpose of a story, but I don't see that. I think he gave her the only vindication she received in her whole life. Otherwise, the story would never have been told, as I said before, and I think as tragic as the story is, it serves as a warning of the dangers of being young and naive and unaware of the dangers that exist in this world.

I would recommend checking this movie out -- it's really sad, but I'm glad to have seen it -- because nothing like this should have to happen to anyone...and awareness is key to keeping stuff like this from happening to anyone else.

"Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions" is a very enjoyable game. In it, you get to play as four different versions of the Spider-Man character: The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man Noir, Ultimate Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2099.

If you're worried each Spider-Man will play the same, only look different, don't be! They each have their own unique fighting style and environment.

The voice acting is incredible! Each Spider-Man is voiced by an actor who has previously portrayed Spidey in his different animated series. Neil Patrick Harris ("Spider-Man: The New Animated Series") provides the voice for The Amazing Spider-Man, Christopher Daniel Barnes ("Spider-Man: The Animated Series) provides the voice for Spider-Man Noir, Josh Keaton ("The Spectacular Spider-Man") provides the voice for Ultimate Spider-Man, and Dan Gilvezan ("Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends") provides the voice for Spider-Man 2099. Listen for Stan "The Man" Lee, creator of many of Marvel Comics most beloved characters to provide the opening voice-over narration, too! I think this was an especially nice touch as it lends a real feeling of authenticity to the game.

There is plenty of action, a great story, a numerous amount of famous Spidey villains across four different dimensions to keep you busy, all in all, it was a great pleasure to play this game.

I definitely recommend getting a hold of it. I know I had a whole lot of fun playing it. At first, I was bummed "Shattered Dimensions" utilized a level setup instead of an "open world", but I think they did a nice job of making each Spider-Man's levels different that the game never felt monotonous. I wish I could say the same for "Spider-Man: Edge of Time", Beenox's latest Spidey offering. Hopefully, they'll get their act together and produce another quality game like "Shattered Dimensions", and I'd like to see the open world format reintroduced next time. That'd be cool!

Stylistically and mechanically, "Spider-Man: Edge of Time" isn't much different than last year's "Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions". That shouldn't be much of a shocker since they're both made by the same people. I really liked "Shattered Dimensions", so I didn't really mind that both games played very similarly in that sense.

Here's what I didn't like: The game is EXTREMELY monotonous. I don't understand why, either. I never felt that way about "Shattered Dimensions". It's like as soon as you make it through a part that's driving you crazy, you're temporarily relieved because you don't think you'll have to go through anything like that again, but then lo and behold, you do...over and over and over again.

The whole game takes place inside of one building that keeps changing as each Spider-Man is affecting the other from their own respective times. I could try to explain the whole time-traveling aspect, but it would become quite confusing and convoluted very quickly, so I'll spare you the explanation of the storyline.

Personally, I miss the "open world" style of "Spider-Man: Web of Shadows". I don't particularly care for the level setup used in both "Shattered Dimensions" and "Edge of Time", however I think "Shattered Dimensions" used levels much more effectively than "Edge of Time" does. In "Shattered Dimensions" each Spider-Man's levels were different from each other. You didn't feel like you kept playing more of the same...which is exactly what "Edge of Time" feels like. I grew bored with it rather quickly.

I wish I could give the game a positive review, but in good conscience, I can't. While I'll freely admit the graphics, controls, voice acting and story were top-notch...the execution wasn't. Variety is the spice of life...and video games. If they'd mixed things up more where I didn't feel like I kept playing the same damn level over and over, I might've liked the game better. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

I'll be looking forward to the next Spider-Man game. Hopefully, it will be better than this one was. I'm not saying I want someone besides Beenox to make the next game...I'd only say that if they make another disappointing game next time around, but they do need to make some definite improvements from what they did here.

My personal favorite incarnation of Spider-Man is "The Amazing Spider-Man". As such, I would've been a lot happier if the game had been set in his own timeline. I think it's cool throwing other Spider-Men into the mix, but I hope they don't make every new Spidey game include them. It worked for "Shattered Dimensions" because it'd never really been done before. Now, with "Edge of Time", I feel like Beenox was just trying to go back to what worked for them previously.

Next time I'd like to see a game set in The Amazing Spider-Man's time, with a great number of villains from Spider-Man's rogues gallery present...something akin to "Marvel: Ultimate Alliance" but with Spider-Man as the primary lead. I'd love to be able to explore New York City, Aunt May's house, Peter's apartment, the Daily Bugle, etc. I think that'd be pretty damn cool!

This movie just kind of irritated me. I had heard how good it was, so I decided to go ahead and check it out on Netflix instant stream. I'm sorry I did now.

I don't know why this keeps happening to me lately where I keep running into movies that've been overly hyped.

I don't know what the deal is -- do people just want to like a movie so badly they say it's good even if it's not? Another movie that fits that bill for me right now was "Drive". Everybody kept talking about how good it was, and all I saw was a shameless rip off of "The Driver" starring Ryan O'Neal, except for the fact that "The Driver" was actually good while "Drive" put me to sleep.

I understand what this movie was trying to go for with the whole "neo-noir" thing, but I don't really think it succeeded. The dialogue was so garbled and incoherent, I could hardly understand what was being said.

I don't know what others saw in this, but I just wasn't impressed. At best, I'd give it probably a four or five out of ten. I don't recommend checking this movie out.

OK, I'm sure I'm going to ruffle a few feathers with this review, but that's all right...

I didn't like "Midnight Cowboy". I don't understand why it's thought of as such a great movie. I just didn't see anything special about it. I mean, what's so great about it? Jon Voight plays a hick who travels to New York City to become a male prostitute...Then, he meets a gimpy guy (played by Dustin Hoffman) who agrees to "manage" him. You know what happens next? Pretty much nothing interesting!

I feel like this movie is just another "hype" picture. For whatever reason, every once in a while people get all hyped up over a movie for nothing. It's like someone must've put something in the water to convince everyone to like this movie. That's my best guess as to what could've happened because I sure as hell didn't see any "masterpiece" here.

The only good part of the whole damn movie is Harry Nilsson's song, "Everybody's Talking'", that's it!

I have no interest in watching it again. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, either. That's really all the more I have to say about this joke of a movie.

"Being John Malkovich" is a really strange but interesting movie. I don't know if I'd ever feel the need to watch it again, but I think it's worth checking out if you have the time.

John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener and, of course, John Malkovich all turn in pretty good performances here. It's kind of nice to see Cameron Diaz not have to get all glammed up for a movie role for once. Although, her character's story arc still surrounds itself with sex, so I suppose it's not such a big change for her after all.

The thing I probably liked about this movie the most was the fact that I hadn't seen anything else like it before. In a time where nearly everything you see is a remake of something you've already seen...I was glad to be able to watch something completely different.

The puppeteering in the movie was pretty impressive. Obviously, it wasn't really John Cusack doing it, nor John Malkovich, but it was still pretty cool. They really made the puppets seem "alive".

I don't really have anything more to say about this movie. Give it a shot if you want...it's not bad. It's kind of weird, though, so just know that going in. If you're like me and are tired of all the retreads...try this on for size.

Massive spoilers ahead! You've been given fair warning...

At first, I was interested in the movie, but as it went along I was startled by how slow its pacing was.

Perhaps, I was expecting a different kind of movie than what I got. In fact, I know I was. I felt like at times this movie tried to be a little too "artsy" for its own good. What was the deal with the cheesy music and the slow motion? I don't know.

I didn't buy Ryan Gosling as a badass. I could've bought him as a good driver because you don't have to be physically tough to do that, just possess the knowledge and the skill. If they'd left it at that, I'd have been fine. But, of course, they didn't and we learn later on that he is, in fact, supposed to be a badass. I just didn't see it.

The film never really explains his past, or why we should buy him as a tough guy, but I guess that's because they wanted the character to seem a little mysterious or something.

Carey Mulligan plays about the most Mary-Sue love interest this side of "Twilight". What was so special about this girl that interested Ryan Gosling's character in her in the first place? The fact she's his neighbor? What's the appeal? Is it because he's a driver and he can save gas not having to go far to pick her up? What?

Bryan Cranston's character is almost a complete waste because we hardly see him. It's still sad to see his character get killed off, but we haven't really had any real chance to get to know this guy to feel too sorry for him.

Albert Brooks plays a surprisingly effective villain, though. Usually, he's a comedic actor, but I could totally buy him as a jerk. Although, I was a little disappointed in Ron Perlman's character, Nino. He, too, got too little screen time and I didn't think they did his character justice by having him go out the way he did...it just didn't seem "big" enough to me. I don't know.

In the end, I guess I'd say I was just a little disappointed in the movie. I had heard good things about it and I was pretty psyched to see it, but in the end, I just felt like "Drive" ran out of gas. What I found most annoying about the movie was that for it to be called "Drive" it had a surprisingly small amount of exciting chase scenes in it.

On a one-to-ten scale, I'd probably give the movie about a six. You can check it out if you want to, but personally I thought it was a bit of a letdown. If you want to see what this movie should've been, go rent Ryan O'Neal's "The Driver" instead. It's actually a good flick unlike "Drive"!

I had thought about watching "The Majestic" before, but I had heard it wasn't very good. I let that scare me away from watching it for a long time. Tonight, I finally got around to watching it on Netflix. It was available on instant stream, so I figured I'd go ahead and give it a shot.

I feel a little ambivalent about the movie...I think it was better than a lot of people give it credit for, but still not as good as I might've hoped. I really liked the beginning, I felt almost as if I were watching a novel come to life. It had a very slow pace that I kind of enjoyed, but then it felt like the movie was in a big hurry to end itself toward the latter half of the film.

How did I come to that conclusion? Well, the same night that Peter/Luke (Jim Carrey) figures out who he really is, is also the same night his "father" Harry (Martin Landau) has a fatal heart attack. Then, at Harry's funeral, Carrey's character confesses to his love interest, Adele (Laurie Holden), that he is not the man she thinks he is. Right after that happens, the government baddies show up to take him away. It's just a little too bing, bang, boom to me. The movie takes such a long time to build itself up, only to let itself end far too rapidly.

I thought the performances were very good, and Carrey does surprisingly well, too...Although, I saw him slip into his "shtick" a few times, for the most part, he stays pretty true to his character.

Overall, I wouldn't say "The Majestic" was a bad movie, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was great, either. I think I'd feel comfortable in saying it was pretty good. I don't know if I'd necessarily feel comfortable in recommending the movie to everyone, but I think that as long as you don't mind seeing a predictable happy ending, you won't mind watching this movie.

For me, I felt a little conflicted about the ending. I didn't want to see what would've been more likely to happen, which likely would've been too dark and depressing, but I also felt like I was feeding into the whole "audiences love a happy ending" thing, which is fine, except for when a happy ending isn't always what a movie calls for. I'm not saying "The Majestic" fits in this category, but perhaps an ending that wasn't too dark and depressing nor the best case scenario also known as the "Happily Ever After" ending could've been envisioned and perhaps utilized more effectively here. Although, in all fairness to the movie, I'd rather see the happy ending they chose than the bleak one they could've gone with, so I do think they made the right choice. I just wonder if maybe a third option could've been thought up?

I thought "Quigley Down Under" was a pretty decent western. I certainly wouldn't say it's the best western I've ever seen, far from it, but it's a pretty entertaining movie for the most part.

I appreciated the attempt to go a different way than most westerns do, and set the film somewhere other than the American Southwest. I thought having the film take place in Australia was a nice change of pace, and certainly something you don't see in most movies of this type.

I thought the actors all did a pretty good job in this movie. Tom Selleck actually plays a decent cowboy! Although, he sometimes looks a little strange sitting on the back of the horse because of how tall he is. It makes me wonder just how big of horse they had to find to be able to accommodate his height.

The main problem I had with the movie was the character of Quigley himself. He's just a little too perfect, in my opinion. He's far from the regular rugged cowboy we see in most films, which I guess could be a reason to like him, but he's almost "too good". He may have a somewhat gruff exterior, but he's probably one of the more selfless movie cowboys you could ever hope to find. Also, he's just a little too good at what he does. He's never beaten in a physical confrontation, unless he's severely outnumbered. No one can shoot farther or draw their guns quicker than he can, either.

I feel that it was inevitable that Tom Selleck's character would be able to defeat Alan Rickman's. They portrayed Quigley in such a light where I had no doubt what was going to happen in the end. I feel they should've built Rickman's character up more so that he seemed like a more worthy opponent for Quigley. I don't think it was Rickman's fault, either. I think it was the script because Rickman certainly seemed a worthy adversary for Bruce Willis' John McClane in "Die Hard".

Take the movie "Unforgiven" for example...here you've got a character played by Clint Eastwood, one of the greatest movie cowboys of all-time, and his character as badass as he was, still had limitations. He wasn't the Superman that Quigley always seemed to be, but despite his limitations, I hold no reservations in saying I prefer Eastwood's Bill Munny a million times more than Selleck's Quigley. I know these were two completely different types of western. "Unforgiven" was dark and gritty while "Quigley Down Under" was just sort of a more light-hearted western, but I still feel the comparison is relevant, in that, even in lighter-hearted films, it's still OK for a character to make mistakes, and not always act in other's best interests before his own.

Overall, I'd say it's worth giving "Quigley Down Under" a watch. It's still a pretty decent show, but just keep in mind that it's no "Unforgiven" or "Tombstone". If you go into the movie with that kind of expectation, you'll be disappointed. However, if you can see the movie for what it is, I think you'll enjoy it.

"Unforgiven" stars Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman...how can't it be good?

I consider this movie to be a new classic. It's what I like to call a "slow-burner". A slow-burner is a movie that starts slow but continues to let its momentum build and build before finally reaching a thrilling and satisfying climax. I think that is a very good description of what watching this movie's like.

Clint turns in yet another great performance. I can't emphasize enough how good I thought this movie was. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone looking for either a great Clint Eastwood film, a great western or just a great movie in general. I think it succeeds in being all of those things.

Check it out!

If you're in the mood to watch something dark and suspenseful, I'd suggest checking out "Tightrope" starring Clint Eastwood and real life daughter, Alison.

I just watched it for the first time tonight on Netflix instant stream and I was really into it.

I consider myself to be a big fan of Clint Eastwood, and I think this is one of his best films.

What's interesting about Clint's character in this movie is he has two completely different sides to him: The loving father and the wayward detective with a penchant for prostitutes. It's a pretty interesting blend.

The movie starts out a little slow, but it keeps building momentum as it goes along. Plenty of suspense to be found in "Tightrope", that's for sure!

You ever watch one of those movies where it starts good but just gets worse and worse as it goes along? I'd consider "Bad Seed" to be one of those movies.

I was kind of into it at the beginning, but it just kept going downhill. Luke Wilson's character kept making stupid decisions and his deceased wife's lover was impossibly clever.

I wish I could say it was good, but I can't. Perhaps if the ending had been better, I could've at least considered it decent but in good conscience I can't.

Unfortunately, I'd have to say skip this one. It's just not that great. There are far better movies in this same genre to check out.

Wow! I think I've discovered a way to help insomniacs go to sleep...watch "The Naked City"! This has to be one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. I know you're not supposed to say a movie is boring...but it was, and there's no better word to describe it than that.

I liked the stylistic elements of the film, the qualities which make it film noir, but the acting and the plot are weak as hell.

If you're looking for a quality film noir, I'd suggest checking out "Double Indemnity" starring Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck. It's leaps and bounds better than this snoozer!

"L.A. Noire" is a great game, but not a game without flaws. Still, it has more going for it than it has going against it, so I'd like to start my review by focusing on the positives of the game.

Graphics - 10/10 The graphics were amazing in "L.A. Noire". Especially, the rendering of character's faces. They look like real people. In fact, if you look up the voice actors from the game on IMDb, you'll see they look just like the do in the game. Very cool! The city of L.A. was beautifully constructed for the game and is apparently quite accurate to what Los Angeles would've looked like back then. The game accomplished this by using famous vintage aerial photographs during its design phase.

Sound - 10/10 Everything from the voice acting to the sounds of bluesy-jazz is perfectly done. The actors do a great job of conveying a "noir" feel and the music suits the mood.

Gameplay - 8/10 The only reason I gave the game slightly less points in this category is because there are a few things that'll annoy you when you play the game...Things like getting stuck on random corners or on chairs you're trying to walk past, etc. The game can be a bit glitchy at times...particularly when you're waiting around to receive a call at a gamewell. I've had to walk around the block, get in a car and drive down the street and back, all sorts of weird things to try to signal to the game that I should be receiving a phone call.

Also, driving leaves a lot to be desired in "L.A. Noire". Driving is so much more fun in "Midnight Club: Los Angeles". The reason I compare the two is because they're both Rockstar properties set in Los Angeles. In "L.A. Noire" the cars can't handle for crap. If you're trying to pursue a perp and your suspect takes an unexpected turn...you're probably screwed. Sure, you might be able to catch up because the game is a little bit forgiving in that department, but you'll most likely run into a fence that won't break or something else you'll get stuck on, which is also another thing that annoyed me...In "L.A. Noire" it's hard to tell what's OK to plow through in a car and what's not. In "Midnight Club" you could drive through pretty much anything, like fences for instance. In "L.A. Noire" you can drive through some fences but not all. Well, just how in the hell am I supposed to know while playing which fences are able to be broken through and which aren't until it's too late and I drive head-on into one and it doesn't budge meanwhile my suspect's getting away!

While there is a "free roam" mode, it isn't as good as you might expect. You can't draw your gun, which sucks if you like to just screw around on the game and not always stick to the story and there isn't much to do outside the cases. Sure, you can answer calls from dispatch but eventually you'll run out of those side missions and then you'll be left with a giant beautiful open world you can't really do anything in.

Controls 8/10 For me, the controls took some getting used to. I found the whole use R1 to go into cover, L2 to either stand up from the covered position or peak around a corner you were hiding behind only to have to then line up your gun sights with the joystick before firing with R2 to be a little confusing to get the hang of at first.

The cars also had kind of strange controls, too. In "Midnight Club" you just used the joysticks to accelerate/brake and turn. It made a lot more sense. In this game, you have to use R2 to accelerate, which felt a bit awkward to me, but the joystick still controls turning at least.

Story 10/10 The story was great. Better than most things coming out of Hollywood right now. I don't know why but movies just haven't been what they used to be. It seems if you want quality entertainment there are more good shows on TV and better stories in video games than anything you've been seeing on the silver screen lately.

"L.A. Noire"'s story was complex and interesting. The characters weren't perfect but flawed, as they should be in any film noir inspired work.

Conclusion: "L.A. Noire" is a great game. I hold no reservations in recommending it. Keep in mind, though, that this isn't some typical first person shooter. It's a game that expects its players to be interested in investigating crime scenes by looking for hidden clues and such. Some people might find this boring, but I do not! I think it's a much needed departure from the mindless shoot 'em up games that are so plentiful. I much enjoyed a more cerebral video game experience that while slower paced was a lot more interesting and rewarding to me.

Oh, and one more thing...I know some people have complained about having to play as Jack Kelso toward the end of the game instead of Cole Phelps, but I actually loved this aspect! I loved that they switched things up on us and didn't stick us with only one character the whole time. I wasn't a particularly big fan of Cole, anyway...so getting to play Kelso was a great turn of events in my book.

Overall 10/10!

I first became interested in the film noir genre after seeing the 1958 film, "King Creole", starring Elvis Presley, Walter Matthau, Carolyn Jones, Dean Jagger and Delores Hart. It was directed by Michael Curtiz of "Casablanca" fame.

I've watched "King Creole" many times over the years and count it among my favorite films, it's certainly my favorite Elvis movie and as I understand it, it was also Elvis' favorite film of all the ones he made. I can't watch a film noir without giving credit to the movie which first interested me in the genre to begin with, "King Creole".

Because I like "King Creole" so much, I decided I'd like to see some other films in the same noir genre, so after I discovered "Double Indemnity" was available instant stream on Netflix, I thought I'd give it a go and I'm glad I did! I can clearly understand why so many people consider this movie a classic. It is! Don't let the fact the film was made in 1944 fool you. It's not "too old" to watch...not by a long shot. In fact, I found the movie more suspenseful and entertaining than just about everything that's being released nowadays.

The actors turn in great performances, particularly Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck. The story is great, but how it's told is even better...in true to form noir styling. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie and if you give it a chance, I think you'll like it, too! Like I said before, don't let the age of the movie fool you...It still packs plenty of punch! I hold no reservations in recommending this movie. Check it out, I think you'll be glad you did!

I noticed "Louie" currently has a higher rating on the IMDb than "Curb Your Enthusiasm". While I agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'd like to at once review "Louie" while also comparing it with "Curb". Hopefully you'll entertain my ramblings and follow along, I think you might notice a few things you hadn't thought of before...

Let me start by saying I like both shows, I think they're both a much needed departure from the typical sitcom format of lovable but bumbling husband and his relationship issues with his more attractive but nagging wife.

I'll admit I liked "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "The King of Queens", but I'm just so tired of those kinds of shows now. I think it's nice to see shows that aren't still relying on the same old format used since "The Honeymooners".

That being said, when you pit shows like "Louie" and "Curb" against one another...You have to examine both their differences and their similarities. So, let's get right to it:

A few similarities, far from an exhaustive list:

Louie C.K. and Larry David are not necessarily the most likable characters, yet somehow possess a certain charm that draws you to them.

Louie C.K. and Larry David like to point out to people things that they've done that aren't polite or correct, although ironically they might do this in an inappropriate manner themselves. I would like to draw attention to the fact that "Curb" has been around a lot longer than "Louie" and you can't help but feel like "Louie" has drawn inspiration from "Curb".

A few differences, again, a far from exhaustive list:

"Louie" has a strange format. He'll have more of what I consider to be vignettes interrupted by brief segments where he's performing his stand up routine at a comedy club. The comedy club bit reminds me a lot of "Seinfeld" but I'm not going to go so far as to say it's ripping "Seinfeld" off because how else are you going to have a show about a comedian without showing him do stand up comedy?

Since "Louie" uses little vignettes, nothing is really tied together. It's not like "Curb" where everything that happens in the show has a direct and distinctive purpose and connects somehow to something else that'll happen by the end of the episode. "Curb" uses a sort of a "nothing is incidental/all loose ends tied up" format.

Another thing about "Louie" that some praise while I don't particularly care for is its lack of continuity. Granted, it allows "Louie" to be able to tell any kind of story he wants to tell without having to be held to what's happened on his show before, but let's say you're interested in a particular storyline and you'd like to see it develop more, there's a chance you might never see anything come of that storyline again, which I think is a real shame.

Although I like both shows, I just like "Curb" more. Again, your mileage may vary and I think both shows have a right to exist, but I just think it's a little early for "Louie" to be given as much credit as it has thus far.

I just watched "Dressed to Kill" on Netflix. I have to say I really liked the movie a lot. I was surprised because Brian De Palma's movies tend to be hit or miss for me.

If you like suspenseful movies, there's no reason for you not to like "Dressed to Kill". It might come off as a little bit of a "Psycho" ripoff at times, but since I've heard De Palma was a big fan of Hitchcock, I think any similarities are intentional and in homage to Hitchcock rather than trying to rip him off.

I only had one minor complaint about the movie, I feel like they REALLY went into detail at the end to make sure you knew what happened, which was OK, but I feel like they didn't have to explain it as thoroughly as they did. It's almost like the filmmakers were afraid the audience wouldn't pick up on what was going on, or if they did, were afraid they wouldn't understand why what happened did happen.

I think had they had a little bit more faith in the audience's ability to understand what was going on it would've been just a bit better, but like I said it's a minor complaint.

I give it an eight out of ten! Check it out! It's worth seeing if only to check out sexy looking Nancy Allen!