velcrohead

Right off the bat, I'll let you know that I am NOT a brony. I don't think there's anything wrong with a man watching "My Little Pony." I've seen one episode of "Friendship Is Magic" and the old 80's series. I get the nostalgia. I'm fine with people following it.

This documentary, however, was created with the intention of explaining bronies to non-bronies like myself, as though to somehow acquit the fandom of the negative image it has been saddled with, fairly or unfairly. This film utterly fails to meet that objective.

One would think, in order to show that bronies are just normal people like you and I, that normal people would be put front and center in this documentary. They are not. The filmmakers seemingly selected some of the most extreme bronies they could find. Basically every person focused on in this documentary is a walking, living, breathing personification of every negative brony stereotype. Without meaning to be cruel or unkind to those who featured in the movie, effeminate, basement-dwelling, autistic, pasty-skinned, doughy manchildren is all this reviewer could see.

And that's a shame, because in the group shots at Bronycon there did appear to be some relatively normal-looking people in the crowd. Perhaps in the five minutes wherein the documentary glossed over the military brony luncheon they could've actually found someone to shatter the stereotype, but even in that brief moment, they highlighted the most effete members of the group. For heavens' sake, Tara Strong was standing right there with her boobs practically hanging out and not one eye was on her chest.

If the hope was to bring bronies into the norm, perhaps the documentary shouldn't have focused on such outcasts. You have the pilot guy, who spends his days getting his life threatened because he unwisely paints a target on himself by putting pony art on his car. You have the kid who we all gave wedgies to in high school who took his PARENTS to bronycon (oh, the humiliation) and whose father, throughout the movie, looks one step away from sending the kid off to military school for de- programming. You have the agoraphobic, socially-crippled Asperger's guy from England, who, let's just face it, is a blazingly hot mess. You've got people who insist on being called by their internet screen names in real life. The list goes on, and none of them appear to be anything other than social outcasts and maladjusted losers. This is NOT how you show how normal you are.

As a non-brony, I approached this documentary hoping it would do something to dispel the overwhelmingly negative stereotype that follows the Brony sub-culture around. I hoped to gain some understanding of it. I watched it along with my wife, who had never even heard of bronies prior to viewing it, and not only did it not represent the fandom well, but it actually caused my wife to think poorly of it.

If you're a brony, you probably won't see anything wrong with the film. But be aware, if you recommend it to a non-brony as a way to make your fandom look better, you will be shooting yourself in the hoof, because this will only hurt their opinion. Vote me down if you wish. I have no hate for MLP:FIM fandom, and I think it's great you have your hobbies, but this is the way it looks to people outside the bronyhood.

"Courageous" is a highly ambitious movie from the Kendrick Brothers and Sherwood Baptist Church. It's encouraging to see that the filmmakers have grown and improved since earlier efforts. The cinematography is vastly improved from "Facing the Giants" and even "Fireproof," both of which I didn't really like. Thankfully, this time they were actually concerned with lighting, framing their shots, and the sound mix.

The message is great, too. After all, who can disagree that the world needs better fathers? I'm a little concerned that Christians are a bit over-zealous in defending the film, and altogether too willing to overlook some mistakes, but in all fairness to the filmmakers, this effort is far and away their best effort yet.

But there are still a few hurdles the Kendricks need to overcome before they will be truly great filmmakers.

Clocking in at over 2 hours, the film is really badly paced. The story starts and stops, when it really could've been effectively woven together in a much more dramatic fashion. It becomes a roller coaster after a while, with various mini-climaxes, and just when you think you've reached the denouement, the movie takes off in another direction. And then it just sort of stops dead at the end.

There were a lot of scenes that could've been cut. For example, one of the characters has a major decision to make, in which it appears his employer is being dishonest. The film chooses to drag it out and chew up screen time with unnecessary dialogue, when it would've been more effective and more meaningful for him to make his inevitable decision within the same scene. There's also an extended (and honestly somewhat creepy) scene at a restaurant between a father and daughter which doesn't really add anything to the story, and which to many actually detracts from the realism of the narrative. It could've been cut without any impact to the story. There were several other scenes that should've been kept, but trimmed down. These and a few other scenes could've been cut or edited to make the story flow better and to trim down the running time.

The writing is better this time around, but it's still not great. I think Alex Kendrick would be better served to farm out the writing to more experienced screenplay writers and focus on production. (One could also argue that his films are better when he is not the lead actor.) Kendrick is a decent and competent producer, but he struggles when writing dialogue, though he has grown somewhat. A more skilled writer could've used the groundwork he laid and have developed a more fluid and gripping story (using the same elements) that fit together a little better.

All that being said, there are many things to praise about this film. The action sequences were extremely well-executed and gripping. There were several laugh-out loud comedic moments in the film. The acting is average, with some really good performances mixed in with some really bad ones, but it feels, again, like a step up from previous movies. The final confrontation between the police and the drug traffickers--aside from a shot that was inexplicably repeated--was top notch. And the message of the film really is a good one.

Evangelical Christians will enjoy this movie. Those who aren't probably won't. It's one of the better faith-based movies out there, despite some really deep flaws. Hopefully, the next offering from this studio will continue the trend of improvement. As long as the producers pay attention to the writing, pacing and editing a little better next time, we may actually see a thoroughly enjoyable movie from the Kendricks.

I have to start out by admitting I'm a shameless WWE mark. I have yet to see a WWE film that was really all that good--"Legendary" was OK, at best--but I keep holding out hope that the next one will be "the one." Sadly, "Inside Out" is not.

The run-time is about an hour and a half, but you'll swear it's longer. The pacing is painfully slow, the scenes are mercilessly dragged out, and for a movie that claims to be an action movie, there are precious little scenes of any action or intensity. It's one long conversation after another, most of which repeats stuff which you've already been told.

The movie seems to WANT to be a psychological thriller, but it doesn't have the writing to back it up. Let's face it, WWE writers are great at writing promos and then letting 2 guys beat the snot out of each other for an hour, but not at scripting intricate plots. The film doesn't have the acting to back it up either, which is a shame because pretty much everyone in the cast has been in better movies and turned in better performances. Julie White, most notably, is out of place here. Parker Posey...it's like she wasn't even paying attention half the time. And Bruce Dern's scenes could have been played by any actor or a reasonably well trained monkey. The only acceptable acting was Michael Rappaport, who as usual was playing Michael Rappaport. Even so, I kept wanting him to just please SHUT UP.

Overall, the movie is dull, predictable, and the big reveal about the daughter only produced a "duh? we've known that this whole entire time" response from the viewer.

If you want action, skip it. The action scenes don't total up to more than 5 minutes of the actual film. If you want drama, there are much better movies for you out there. If you want a psychological thriller, this one's brain waves have flatlined. Two hours is an awful lot of life to lose at one time.

There are very few films that I will watch a second time. There are even fewer films that I will watch over and over. "St. Elmo's Fire" is one of those movies. I seem to need to watch it at least once a year.

The theme resonates with me deeply. As someone who fresh out of college was saying "uh, OK, what now?" I totally identify with Billy and the rest of the cast. What do you do with your life when you've spent literally all of it in school trying to get from one grade to the next? What do you do when you've finally finished the last level? How do you make the change from being "young and innocent," as suggested by one of the soundtrack's songs, to adulthood?

One of the odd things about this movie is that for all intents and purposes there is no real reason that anybody should like these characters. They are all deeply flawed, and it's entirely likely that, were you to know any of them in real life, you might consider them all douchebags or even vile people, certainly not people you'd hope to know. Kirby borders on the psychotic as he stalks Dale, his unrequited college crush. Billy is not only a major lech, but also a deadbeat dad, who tries to rape Jules and also nearly rapes Wendy and certainly humiliates her. Wendy, in turn, is a mousy introvert with almost no self-esteem, who does in the end give herself up to Billy, as much to validate herself as to give a gift to him. Kevin, thought gay by literally everyone else in the movie, is a total loser with an unhealthy obsession with his best friend's girl, whom he ends up sleeping with by preying on her vulnerability and drunkenness after breaking up with Alec. Alec not only cheats on his girlfriend; he cheats a LOT with random women working in department store dressing rooms. He's abusive and pretty much racks up an attempted murder with Kevin later on in the movie. Leslie's not a heck of a lot better, because she jumps straight into the sack with Alec's best friend, and she's basically a tease who gets a free ride in life based on who she's having sex with. And Jules...well, there's no kind way to say it: Jules is a crack-head.

At this point you may be wondering "why do you like this movie so much again?" Well, that's where the genius of the movie lies. Joel Schumacher gives us these awful, deeply flawed people, and by the end of the movie, he makes you not only like them, but root for them. You're thrilled when Kirby plants one on the girl he's stalked. You're happy to see Billy and Wendy finally do it, right before Billy has to go away. You cry a little for Jules when you find out her life is a total lie.

This film is not quite "The Breakfast Club." Don't get me wrong. But it's good stuff, and there's something in at least one character that everyone will be able to relate to.

The most hilarious part of reading all the negative reviews for this particular movie is that even though all these guys are trying to be with the cool kids and snark on Hannah Montana, clearly they all have sought out, paid money for, and watched this movie. Who's the joke really on, guys?

Look, I'm a man in my mid-30s. I'm not embarrassed to say I watched this movie and that I enjoyed it. Don't get me wrong; I wasn't optimistic going into it. But "Hannah Montana: The Movie" surprised me with its emotional depth. Far from being just a silly kid's flick, there is actual heart to the story, and by the end of the movie--provided you get over your pretentiousness and whatever antipathy you have for Miley Cyrus, the actor--it's really easy to be caught up in what the characters are feeling and to really care about them.

Is there silly stuff? Well, sure. This isn't a documentary about concert promotion, after all. It's a comedy meant to be accessible to all ages. Folks who were looking for "Hannah Montana: Buckets of Blood" are clearly going to be disappointed. If you expect the movie to answer existential theories or postulate about the meaning of life, then yeah, you're gonna leave somewhat empty-handed.

My one gripe about the movie is that the credits should have rolled immediately after the performance of "The Climb." If the movie had stopped right there, it would have been perfect. I understand that they needed to leave an open ending to continue the TV series, but I thought the ending did sort of undermine the value that the rest of the movie until that point had been trying to illustrate: being true to oneself. Instead, after Miley has not only come to grips with who she is, but also with how her Hannah side is quite frankly destructive to her life, she is railroaded by the rest of the cast into keeping up the lie. The film's message had been pretty clear up until then: living a double life can never make you happy, and it's best to be honest. And suddenly, there's an about-face that says "hey, lying's OK, nay, it's the only way you can truly be happy." Were it my movie to edit, I would've left the movie to end at "The Climb," allowed the sleazy tabloid reporter to out Miley, only with Miley not caring, because she finally was OK with herself.

Still and all, not a bad little film, and certainly not deserving of the bile that gets vomited on it here.

I did not know when I went into this movie that Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer were behind it. If I had, I would have never have wasted my time with it. But it was pretty obvious to me who was responsible for this by 15 minutes into the movie.

I'm mystified that 20th Century Fox would willingly distribute a movie with these guys attached, given their horrendous track record, and especially given the returns on their more recent atrocity, "Disaster Movie." "Vampires Suck" suffers from many of the flaws that all Seltzer/Friedberg movies suffer from. There are, of course, weak pop culture reference that are already dated by the time the movie is released. These guys seem to operate based on the premise that everybody compulsively watches basic cable and knows who the Kardashians are or what Jersey Shore is. Ten years from now, if a copy of this movie survives, nobody will get the jokes.

Pacing. Good golly. For an 80 minute flick, this movie went by SLOWLY. This is the biggest reason that the sight gags fall flat. The movie belabors each of its jokes, which makes it sort of like the guy who tells a joke and then looks at each of his non-smiling friends for 30 seconds, saying "get it? it's funny, right? get it? see what I did there?" In this movie there are even occasions when the dialogue EXPLAINS the joke. Here's a clue, guys. If you have to explain it or belabor it, it possibly wasn't funny to begin with.

Great spoofs like "Airplane" or "The Naked Gun" didn't follow the stories they were based on so slavishly either. This one, on the other hand, basically tells the whole story of Twilight with a few sight gags.

To their credit, Seltzer and Friedberg did play it safe this time. It's hard to lose with Twilight hate. I notice that the positive reviews on this site come from hardcore Twilight haters almost exclusively. So they went the safe route, at least. It's sort of like making a movie about hating Hitler. You're not gonna get much disagreement.

But through and through, this movie fails. I wish I hadn't seen it, and I hope you won't. I love the parody genre, but these two clowns are killing it. Don't give these two unfunny fellows any more money.

I put off watching this movie for over 10 years. I guess I'm always the late-comer to every party, but I couldn't see what the big deal was. Then, for whatever reason, I decided to watch the sequel. I rarely watch sequels before I watch the original movie, but it was on, so I checked it out.

After that, I immediately went out and got a copy of the original. Honestly, I was not prepared for what I was about to see. The sequel was polished, and frankly it wasn't a whole lot different than a lot of other R-rated teen flicks. The original, however, is on a whole different level.

Clerks is the textbook of example of the power of the script. You can keep your special effects blockbusters. Most of them don't bother to tell a competent story. Clerks not only tells a competent story, but it does it in such a way that you end up not caring that the movie doesn't have color, that the acting is admittedly bad, or that the scenery doesn't really even change. That's the power of the script.

I mean, who hasn't been Dante, at least at some point, right? Crappy job, uncertain relationships, wiseguy friend who gets you into trouble, getting called in on your day off... that's all of us, right? And Randall? We've all had that friend: the guy who you know is bad for you to hang with, but who makes your boring life a little bit more fun than he probably should.

Forget the profanity. That's how people talk in the real world. I heard lots worse than that in high school. You introduce me to a guy who works at a convenience store who doesn't cuss, and I'll show you a guy who hasn't worked there very long.

Overall, Clerks is a competent and extremely enjoyable movie. Excellent script, passable acting that is saved by brilliant dialogue, believable characters, and an interesting take on everyday life. Keep it out of your teens' hands, because they won't get it, but if you're the average working schmoe or ever have been, you'll enjoy this one.

Watchmen has been one of the movies I've been waiting to see for quite some time now. As a fan of DC comics, I was very hopeful, and given the past history of DC movies I knew it would be either really great or absolutely horrific.

It wasn't bad.

Granted, there were a few things I had to get past. The graphic violence was tough to watch, frankly. Parents do need to know that this is NOT a kids' comic book movie.

I was also distracted initially by Dr. Manhattan's ever-present herculean dong. I'm no prude, by any means, and I have a healthy sex life, but it's just that natural reaction of "hey, wow, there's that guy's pecker" and not knowing whether you should look away or what. I get the point of it, but it sort of distracted me from the movie in general. (On a lighter note, it does give new meaning to the term "blue balls.") Rorshach has been and always will be my favorite character from the Watchmen universe, and he's portrayed here quite beautifully. Jackie Earle Hayley did a superb job of simultaneously making the character an ice-cold action hero and a supremely disturbed psychopath, all rolled up into one big anti-hero. I would've liked to see a movie or series that focused specifically on him.

There's a lot of social commentary in the movie. Frankly, you really should read the book first, because it can be confusing if you're not up to speed on when/where/what universe this takes place in.

As far as pacing, this movie does last three hours, but it's mostly non-stop the entire way. I didn't tire of the movie so much as I did the actual theater seat. Still, I wouldn't cut the movie any shorter or it would completely lose its punch.

All told, I give the movie about an 8, taking away one point for alterations made from the graphic novel, and another point for getting dick-slapped by Dr. Manhattan one too many times.

Finally, we have a reality show that delivers this gem of a message: If you're dating a useless loser jerk, DON'T break up with him! YOU CAN CHANGE HIM! Yeah. That's great advice for all the self-esteem-challenged young ladies out there.

Is your guy sleeping around with other women? Does he forget random important things, like for instance your birthday or the fact that you even exist?

Does he embarrass you in front of everyone you know?

Does the thought of being with him for the rest of your life the way he is horrify you?

Then don't do the smart thing, the thing every other rational human would do, which is to drop him like a bad habit. Stay with him! If you love on him enough, he will change! No matter how deeply ingrained his character traits are in his very DNA! You'll never find another fish in the sea! CHANGE HIM!

As for the cast, well...the guys are all douchey toolbags, and the girls are all completely devoid of brains and character. But it makes for great TV, doesn't it?

It irritates me when people point out a movie and use that as the definitive argument for the statement "See! It can happen!" I've heard preachers use movies in their sermon as an example, as though a work of fiction can be used to bolster reality and truth.

And thus, we have Facing the Giants. And to make a long story short, the team in this poorly rendered movie didn't win the big game because God wanted them to; they won because that's the way the script writers wrote it. Remember, fellow Christians...this is a work of fiction, not based upon a true story. (There is a rumor that this is based on reality. Not so, unfortunately.) This movie is the prime example of what's wrong in Christian evangelism these days.

Essentially, what we learn from Facing the Giants is that if you really believe hard in God and pray, he will give you every thing you've ever wanted wrapped up in a neat little bow. If you have a crap car, you'll get a brand new one, completely for free! If you're not performing well at your job, then you'll soon be a superhero at work! If you couldn't play football to save your life, you'll soon be state champs! And if it's physically impossible for you to knock up your wife, she'll be pregnant the next day! (The mailman REALLY got away with it this time.) I am heavily involved in church and ministry, and I cannot tell you how many times new Christians have become completely disillusioned and have fallen away because they were truly expecting things like this and were mad that just because they had become a Christian that all their life troubles didn't melt away in a haze of rainbows and roses. They are led to believe by well-meaning but mis-informed Christians that if they obey Jesus Christ then he will immediately remove all troubles and trials from their life. Every day is going to turn up roses, and you'll be peaceful till the day you die. Small wonder, the disappointment that comes when this inevitably fails to occur.

This movie fails to understand, or at least portray, the point of what Christ promises his followers: that he'll guard your heart and protect your soul, but hey the world is the world and there is no peace promised upon it. Oh, and by the way, now that you've become a Christian, the devil will just have to tempt you that much harder. Otherwise, guys like Paul and Peter and pretty much the rest of the apostles must've been really full of crap, because they believed 2000 percent, worked hard, and still got their heads chopped off for their troubles.

How Christians can find meaning or comfort in this movie is beyond me. And if any of you really think God routinely concerns himself with the outcome of one high school football game, you're seriously deluded.

I won't criticize the actors too much (they're awful) since they were all volunteers. I'm sure some of them were just enamored of being in a movie, regardless of how stupid the script was. The filmmakers themselves, well... poorly shot, often poorly lit, the script steals a number of elements from better football movies... the list really goes on and on, and the topper of it all is that it's a film that is completely in love with itself and takes itself way too seriously.

Also, where is the rule that "wholesome Christian family entertainment" has to be completely dumbed down and wholly unrealistic? Just avoid this movie.

The death and return of Superman is a landmark story in comics history. The story arc literally created a comic book renaissance, and as fans we sat and waited week by week to see how the story was going to play out. The anticipation was maddening as we first waited to see how the death would be carried out, and then as we watched how post-mortem events would unfold, and then as we would watch the four pretenders to the throne, and finally as he made his return.

So it was with great anticipation that I picked up the "Superman: Doomsday" DVD.

As the movie unfolded, it was obvious that there was going to be some slight re-writing of the canon. Not a huge deal, as I understood it would need updating. However, the movie fully applied the brakes and ground to a screeching halt when it was revealed that Lois was sleeping with Superman without knowing who he was. And the explanation he gave was just ludicrous. "If you knew my secret identity (Clark Kent) it would put you in danger." Wait wait wait wait... being associated with a big nobody like Clark Kent wasn't ever going to endanger ANYBODY. The comics and previous movies have made it quite clear that her relationship with SUPERMAN was what would bring his enemies down upon her. I had to stop the movie for a moment, because that level of absurdity yanked me out of the moment.

After deciding to accept the idiotic nature of their relationship, I pressed on. I didn't mind the retconning of Doomsday's origin. When the monster got loose, I actually started enjoying the action. Talk about no holds barred... Doomsday got to smash people up in violent scenes that I've rarely seen outside of anime. The filmmakers really earned their PG-13. And the battle between Superman and Doomsday went down exactly as it should have. I was well pleased with the action there.

Then the movie ran out of gas for a while. There was a bit of rubbish between Lois and Jimmy that never really got worked out. There's also a bit of Ma Kent that didn't really add much to anything.

But five minutes after Superman's death, here he is, flying about the city, saving folk. Though it's not REALLY him, natch. It's a combination of the comics' Cyborg and Eradicator all mashed up into a clone made by Lex Luthor, who has a really wonky obsession in this film's reality. Now, I'm not one of the ones who thinks there HAD to be the four Supermen. I think the story could've been told just fine in another way. But this just wasn't it. It left plot points dangling and just sort of wrapped the story up before it's time.

Overall, the film felt rushed and while it had some REALLY good moments, I think that THE landmark story in all of Superman history deserved better.

I picked this title up at the local Big Lots. I've heard about the book, was curious to read it, but figured I'd pick up the DVD for the "cliff's notes" version of it. Well, I'm happy to say that what I intended for cheap entertainment actually turned out to be one of the more engaging movies I've seen in quite a while.

I was a Brady Bunch fan as a kid. Of course the show was canceled a couple of years before I was born, but it was (and still is) hard to miss reruns of Sherwood Schwartz shows like "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch." Like Barry, I was hot for Maureen McCormick (even though Cindy would've probably been more age-appropriate for me at the time.) I enjoyed each episode, even though some small part of my juvenile mind still knew that each plot was overly simplistic and...well...cheesy.

Adam Brody does a decent job of playing Barry Williams here. He's extremely likable, though I suppose there wasn't much chance of seeing his bad side, since Barry wrote the novel on which this film is based. It's incredibly easy to empathize with him, and what red-blooded American male can't identify with the stars in Barry's eyes when he first lays eyes on gorgeous Maureen (played brilliantly by Kaley Cuoco)? It's important to remember that the story is told from Barry's perspective. People who are curious about the point of view of, say, Florence Henderson aren't going to get very much out of the film. Still, there's a great deal of peripheral information about the show that I learned from this movie that I didn't realize before, such as Bob Reed's distaste for the show in general, Eve and Chris's hook-up, and Barry's date with Florence. I appreciated that they explained the disappearance of Tiger, though I have heard different versions of the event. Watching the Brady boys running wild around the Paramount lot with the blessing of Sherwood Schwartz was priceless. (I hope they saved those Star Trek props!) It was also interesting to see the Brady set completely rebuilt to perfection (even including the horse statue at the foot of the stairs.) It was equally spooky to see the empty sound stage at the end of the movie where Barry meets "fake Maureen." (I've seen this mistake here more than once. Though she looks like Maureen, it's not really her, as you can tell by looking at the credits. Shame, that. It would've been refreshing to see the real one.) The best thing about the whole movie is the love story between two teenagers who were never destined to be together. The unrequited love between them is so palpable that it almost hurts to watch. One really has to marvel at the fact that so few people are able to distinguish actor from character and fact from fiction, such that Barry and Maureen--who are not actually brother and sister--couldn't publicly carry on a relationship without it making the tabloids. (Though, curiously, nobody seemed to care much when he took his mom--Florence--out to a swanky Hollywood watering hole.) Barry and Maureen are both cute and sweet together, but their maddening inability to "seal the deal" keeps the romantic tension at a fever pitch. And that final moment after season 5 when Maureen backs out of sleeping with Barry left me aching just as much as Barry. I found myself hearkening back to my own personal days of heartbreak while watching Barry's sorrow-filled pity party, even while he clumsily tried to score a pity-screw from Florence.

After watching this movie, I was moved to learn more about each of the Bradys. It's inspiring to look around the internet and know that every one of these actors hold nothing but fond memories of the show and maintain close relationships with their co-stars. And while I know it hasn't happened yet--and isn't likely to, as both of them have married others--but I truly hope that someday, even if it's in an old-folks home, Barry and Maureen will still come full circle on their romance.

Till then, I'll just have to wait. And we'll just have to see what Maureen's side of the story is when her tell-all is published later on this year.

My knee-jerk reaction prior to seeing this flick was "oh crap, another one of those '(Insert Genre Here)Movie' fiascos," or to put it more succinctly "this is going to REALLY suck." Surprise, surprise, I didn't hate it.

The funny thing is that the negative user reviews here seem to come from two types of people: (1.) People who were anxious to bash the next "(Insert Genre Here) Movie." (2.) People whose sphincters are about the size of a pin point and whom have had their senses of humor surgically removed at birth.

Kudos to the studio for getting David Zucker in on this. That upped the quality tremendously. Double kudos for keeping Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer unemployed this time. Craig Mazin is a much more competent writer, though if they had brought in Pat Proft, this movie would've been even better. And triple kudos for Leslie Nielsen doing what must be his 150th spoof movie.

As for the film itself, it really doesn't belong with "Epic Movie" or "Date Movie." A different title would've brought different preconceptions from the movie-going public. Unlike those movies, it actually doesn't try to stuff 100 movie parodies into a 90 minute film. There aren't as many pop culture references that would make it irrelevant two months after release. And there are some genuine laugh-out-loud moments. (And yes, farts are funny. Any of you stuck-up twits who will herein claim otherwise can take a big whiff of one of mine, because you all know you giggled, even though you pretend to be grossed out.) The movie doesn't reach the nadir of comedy that is "Airplane" or "Naked Gun" (all of which contain fart jokes) but then I suppose it doesn't really try to accomplish that. It's simply a movie that can kill two hours and be enjoyable at the same time, and it's a refreshing riff on the comic book industry as a whole. I can actually see this being a successful comic book, as it reminded me quite often of "The Tick." (Fans of that show will definitely see the similarities.) So all of you "sophisticates" out there can go blow it out your shorts. This movie was never meant for you anyway. (We all know you're not nearly as sophisticated as you'd like us to think anyway.) For the rest of you, enjoy this movie...it's the best step toward classic parody movies that we have had in years.

I never for a moment believed that this movie would be earth-shattering or mind-blowing. I expected it to be along the lines of "Talladega Nights" or "Kicking & Screaming," and it was. There were a few laugh out loud moments, and a few mildly amusing stretches, and then there were parts that just weren't funny at all.

But the overall experience wasn't that bad, considering I was just looking for a movie that would make me laugh and pass the night away on those rare date nights with my wife.

The only real complaint I had about it was the language. I thought some of the profanity was a bit excessive, especially considering past Will Ferrell movies. And that's really all the R rating is there for.

I had great expectations, perhaps they were too great.

Overall, when the movie ended, my gut reaction was "that's it?? Really??" I felt the movie had great potential, especially with Samuel L. Jackson in the villain role. And with Diane Lane on board, how could this movie miss the mark? Unfortunately, Jackson's character Roland (that's the best name they could come up with?) is pretty static. There's no depth to him. There's no reason why he hates jumpers. He just hates them. And wants to kill them. The character isn't sufficiently fleshed out, except for a flash-in-the-pan comment about some sort of religious zealotry, so essentially what you have is a soulless Samuel L. Jackson as a bounty hunter. And Diane Lane's role pretty much isn't more than a glorified walk-on, as she gets little more than five minutes of actual screen time.

And I just couldn't get involved with the characters. Our hero/anti-hero, as portrayed by Hayden Christenson, goes from being a lovable loser to a loathsome lothario within the first ten minutes of the movie. I found myself expecting him, as he watched the news reports about drowning people to teleport and help those people. Instead, he goes back to counting the money he has stolen. Basically, any love I had for him from before was squandered.

And Rachel Bilson's Millie is pretty much a braindead set piece, there for Hayden to have sex with and then develop some minor moralistic complex which requires him to save her. I can suspend my disbelief to a degree, but after Hayden's been thought to be dead for seven years, he just walks up to her in a bar, and the only question she's really concerned about is if he is or is not actually a banker. No "hey where've ya been for the past six years?" No "hey, wow, thought you drowned!" Not to mention he gets her goodies after less than 24 hours.) I know this movie is set up for a sequel, since the finale managed not to tie up any of the loose ends at all, up to and including the well-being of the other jumper. But to be frank, I don't know if I'll be motivated to set down 8 bucks for the sequel.

I don't really know what else to say. This special has held its place in my life ever since I was old enough to remember. Every year, Charlie Brown would come on TV and make me feel what the season was all about. No glitz, no glamour, no magical snowmen, no toy lines being sold...just plain ol' Charlie Brown showing us what the holiday was about.

I expected to see you Christ-bashers here. Funny how everything that embraces your values is seen as "protected free speech" while shows like this are considered "heavy handed pro-Christian propaganda." If you don't like it, turn it off, and go spread your bah humbug somewhere else. It's Christmas after all...his name's in the holiday, whether or not there are elements of other religion. Get over yourselves, and go do something better with your lives.

If I miss Charlie Brown during the season, I don't know if it will still be Christmas...

I didn't really know what to expect from this direct-to-video release. I certainly expected the Christian basher reviewers to come on full force. They never can stand us to say anything about their stuff, but I'm sure they'll have words to say about ours. Anway, the previous two movies were passable, but nowhere near the quality of the books they were based on.

That's not the case with Left Behind: World at War.

At the helm this time is director Craig R. Baxley, whose previous work makes it no surprise that directing movies with suspense, apocalyptic themes, and action should come naturally to him. The movie is directed and edited much differently than the previous two. The movie relies very little on special effects. Baxley's used to letting set pieces and camera angles convey the mood and tell the story of a post-apocalyptic world.

It's a lot darker this time around. There's a more palpable feeling of despair and tension as Nicolae tightens his grip over the world and tries to stamp out Christianity and other opposing governments. The action is more grim and gritty, and the film is often graphically violent.

Somehow, almost all of the original cast have returned, with the notable exception of Clarence Gilyard (Bruce Barnes.) The trade-off is good though, with Arnold Pinnock taking over Bruce's character. Pinnock delivers the character more believably and was a welcome breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, the character of Bruce won't be able to return for the next film. Janaya Stephens has gotten better as Chloe, and even Kirk Cameron appears to have ratcheted up his game as he pours his heart and soul into his role. Chelsea Noble's back as Hattie. Gordon Currie returns as the embodiment of all evil, Nicolae Carpathia, though he gets very little screen time. I was most surprised to see film vet Brad Johnson return as he seems to be rather busy lately, but I'm glad he did, because no one else really could be Rayford Steele. New to the cast is Laura Catalano as Amanda White, Rayford's wife. Also joining the cast is Oscar winner Lou Gossett Jr as President Gerald Fitzhugh. He is a very welcome addition and brings credibility to the series.

If you were hoping that the movie would adhere strictly to the books, you'll be disappointed. That being said, there are definitely connections there, but the movie takes its own liberties. Fortunately, that's not always a bad thing. The movie explores a character, President Fitzhugh, that was glossed over in the books, and spends most of the time following his story. What happens is sort of like a side-trip within the books...something we didn't know about that could have happened in the continuity. Chloe and Bruce get sick off infected Bibles, which brings about the end of Pastor Barnes, which many of you will remember from the book series. The connection between Ray and Hattie is touched on once, but kind of glossed over. Part of the difficulty of fitting all these characters into a 90 minute movie is that a lot of character development gets left out, and some characters just sort of sit like window dressings. One gets the feeling that the movie would've been able to pull it off better if the run time was stretched out to 2 or 2.5 hours. However, the story we do get is interesting and relevant, and it ends up coming off a lot better than the fractured, pieced-together-so-as-to-not-diverge-too-much-from-the-book way of the first movie. And the story is treated as real and taken seriously.

The movie doesn't get too preachy either. It references the previous rapture maybe twice. And when the characters are having a conversation it isn't stilted in the manner of the first two movies (they're having a conversation, but you know it's a thinly veiled sermon pointed at the audience.) There's only one person to get saved in this movie, and it's at the end and doesn't feel as artificial as those in the previous two. This doesn't weaken the message though. It makes it more powerful, as the whole movie builds itself up to this point.

There are no super-cheesy special effects in this movie (think about the air raid at the beginning of the first) and they left out the cheesy CCM soundtrack this time (think "i know that i will not...be...left...behind..." *shudder.*) All in all, this movie's a thousand times more well done than the others and will appeal to more than just the target audience of Christians.

If you don't happen to believe in the rapture and the millennium (many Christians don't,) you can still learn a lot from this movie. There's a great deal spoken here about persecution of the church, and the images here could very well be images of the future prior to Christ's return if the religious atmosphere in this country continues on its current trend. Oppression of religion has been a factor in this world for a long time, and it's very eye-opening to see the portrayal of persecution on our own soil in this movie.

Now for the DVD extras. Kirk Cameron fans will be happy to know that there's a "Way of the Master" extra on this DVD that features Kirk and Ray Comfort. It includes a message from Kirk and a portion of their video seminar. Also included on the disc are a couple of music videos, deleted scenes, a technical "making of" featurette, a character featurette, bloopers and outtakes, and an audio commentary.

All in all, it's worth your watch.

I am at a loss to explain "Batman & Robin."

Akiva Goldsman, the script writer, wrote the absolutely breath-taking script to "A Beautiful Mind," yet this script seems like it was written by homosexual drunk monkeys.

Joel Schumacher directed such gems as "Phantom of the Opera," "A Time to Kill," and my personal favorite "St. Elmo's Fire." Why, oh why, could he not achieve the same level of artistic perfection with a Batman movie?

George Clooney was splendid in "ER" and "From Dusk to Dawn."

Arnold Schwarzenegger is an action movie icon.

Uma Thurman is a superb actress (i.e. "Kill Bill" and "Pulp Fiction.")

Alicia Silverstone is... well, OK, she's nice to look at and mildly entertaining in "Clueless."

My point is this: When you bring all these sparkling talents together in one room, how in the world could they come up with such a turd as this movie????? It's wretched! It's abominable! Kids don't even like this movie! I lined up for this movie when it came out. I was excited. I was a poor kid in college who barely had two nickels to rub together. I hadn't had the money or means to see the first three Batman flicks in the cinema, but this time somehow I'd scrounged up the change to go see it. Meanwhile, I sat there, in the darkness of the theater, watching the debacle on the screen in front of me, thinking "this is what I waited for?"

I mentioned "St. Elmo's Fire" before. Joel Schumacher did such a wonderful job with that movie. Ultimately, he created a movie that has aged very well and remains a classic. It had great characters that you actually liked, and it stuck to themes that are real. It never got corny or hackneyed. THIS is how Batman should've been treated...not set in Georgetown, necessarily, but at least given SOME sort of credit.

Don't watch "Batman & Robin." Life is too short to waste it on this. If you are a true die-hard fan of Batman, I caution you especially not to watch this. There are some instances of bad films that only true fans will love, but this is not the case. If you love Batman, you may be moved to violence by this travesty.

I wish I could give this film a 0, but IMDb won't let me. I think I will go out and buy a VHS copy of the movie and let a horse take a big old dump on it, just to make up for this inequity.

It's obvious from many comments you see on IMDb that many would-be critics (such as myself) only comment on movies they either truly love or truly hate. There's no perceptible middle ground. After all, if you didn't have some sort of emotion towards a film, why would you even look it up in the first place? When I see user comments calling this "the best film ever" I wonder (especially considering other films out there.) That being said, I come around to "Supergirl" as a fan. I saw the movie as a child and loved it, as I did all the Superman movies. And I do mean all (even the now dreadful 3 and 4) simply because I was a child, and believability and good writing had no impact on me, so long as Superman was flying around kicking the crap out of bad guys.

Supergirl was an altogether different kind of character for me. As a child, I knew she had basically the same costume as Superman, which put her in a good place for me, but I also knew she had some sort of sexy quality to her, which made me approach her differently. Superman was a guy you could hang out with, have a Coke with, and go fishing with. Supergirl was a character who you'd have to bring flowers and ask her Dad before taking her out to a movie. But still, there's something inherently...super...about her.

So watching the movie was something different for me.

I visited the Superman museum in Metropolis IL (and if you're a Super-fan, you must add this to your vacation trip list) and after seeing the Supergirl movie room, I was inspired to watch this movie again.

It has aged okay...not great, but still the special effects managed to be better than later efforts such as Lois & Clark. Helen Slater was such a fox, and she wore that costume with such grace and style as to make it look effortless. She did all her own stunts, which helped, and to this day, I imagine Supergirl with her face. As for villains, Faye Dunaway was acceptable, but I think we could have asked for more.

Storywise, I have difficulty with this movie. The concepts tend to lend more toward camp, which is what the Superman franchise did not need at that moment. The Omega Hedron as a plot device was over-used and ill-conceived. One could assume from watching this movie that the script called for quite a bit more than ever made it to screen, with the shortcomings possibly due to budgetary constraints and/or compressed production time.

However, when the movie is taken as a whole, I found it enjoyable and entertaining. It's definitely not the worst of comic fend's movie outings (that title will forever and in perpetuity go to the godless debacle that is "Batman & Robin.") I highly recommend this film for family viewing and for Saturdays that you get rained in.

And if you're a Supergirl fan, maybe this movie will make more sense than the current convoluted comic book story lines.

It's very telling that I had to look 15 pages deep into the user comments to find one negative review of this movie. And the negative reviews were from insufferable snots.

This movie made me laugh as a teenager, but it also makes me laugh as a fully grown adult. Does that mean the humor is dumb or sophomoric? Not necessarily. What exactly is "adult humor" anyway? Does it necessarily need to contain graphic depictions of sex and generous uses of profanity to be considered sophisticated and adult?? I contend that it does not, and I cite UHF as an example.

The laughs here are genuine, and they come from lack of pretentiousness and an honest feeling that one need not take oneself too seriously at any given moment. Al lets us know that it's OK to make fun of yourself as well as the rest of society. Much of what he does is self-deprecating, and UHF is no exception. He doesn't stand around making fun of others and establishing an air of superiority over the rest of society. As George Newman, he becomes the everyman, infusing much of his own personality along with his on-stage comedic persona. And he's not afraid to kick himself around and then proceed to pull himself up via his own bootstraps. Nobody else has to be hurt.

Plot has never been a big necessity in these spoof/parody movies. "The Naked Gun," "Airplane," "Top Secret," "Johnny Dangerously," and many others have had the most skeletal of plots. Cop must find and bring to justice bad guy who shot his friend. Burned out ex-pilot must save aircraft when crew dies. Rock and roll star must overthrow Nazi plot. Mobster must overcome those who wish to take him down. And in "UHF" we have Loser Man must save TV station from evil network exec. The plot is not important; it's just a vehicle to get us from laugh to laugh and set up the next joke.

UHF's comedy, though basic, rings true, and if you'll drop all of your pretentious airs, you'll get it. (We all know you're not nearly as sophisticated as you think you are anyway.) Who among us can keep from laughing while Raul teaches poodles to fly? Who can stifle a chuckle when Stanley is doing... well... doing just about everything he does in this film? Al admits in his commentaries and interviews that "UHF" is no "Citizen Kane." But that's the beauty of it. There's nothing complex here. It's all about the laugh, and there's where this movie really scores.

I'm at a loss to describe why so many people here have panned this movie. I can only suppose that those who didn't like it went to see this expecting a horror movie. And since no monsters jumped out and hacked people to death, I imagine teenagers (apparently the main demographic that posts here) were bored to death with it. They couldn't understand why there wasn't a mutilated corpse every half step. Their A.D.D.-addled brains couldn't sit still long enough to decipher the complex plot points or to appreciate good character-building (something sorely lacking from movies nowadays.) Comparing this movie to "The Ring" is like comparing "Godfather" to "Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer." The movies are in two completely separate genres.

I blame the marketing department. The promos did make it look like a fright-fest. One might have expected ghosts to be flying around the room a la "Poltergeist." I suppose they must have assumed that those of us who like movies that actually engage us and make us think weren't a very big market. Instead, they chose to market it to the "slasher movie" ilk, and they, being simplistic, got headaches trying to sift through an actual PLOT. Then they went home to listen to their Korn CDs and smoke pot.

Anyway, that being said, I approached the movie with all the preconceptions I just mentioned. And if you do have those preconceptions and are unwilling to give them up, the movie will drag on mercilessly for you. However, I switched modes quite easily, and became intrigued with the plot. It led me one way and then another, every time giving me something new to think about.

Nobody can criticize the acting here, either. Jennifer Connelly is superb as always, but the young daughter is quite skilled as well, and I expect to see her more often in the future.

I won't get into specifics, but the ending is something I really wasn't looking for.

As I left the theater, all the adults (most of whom didn't know each other) were talking about what a great movie it was as we filed out the doors. The teenagers in the theater were too busy making out to notice the credits rolling.

View if you're mature. If you're not, save yourself the brain-strain and go rent "Seed of Chucky" and leave the grown folks alone.

OK, I'm taking back everything I had previously written in this post.

I'm now half a season into it, and I realize that it's not fair to compare this show to "Medium." Yeah, there's the obvious similarities, but there are distinct differences as well. In "Medium," the main point is that Allison has to deal with family issues and staying sane, all the while solving mysteries for the D.A. with helpful hints from psychic dreams and the occasional ghost. In "Ghost Whisperer" there are no psychic dreams, just honest-to-goodness ghosts wandering around that Melinda has to help achieve closure and get to the other side. There's no family angst, as yet, since she seems to have the perfect marriage.

So taken on its own merits, it's a good show. I think, as has been the case in many shows and movies, the marketing was targeted to the wrong demographic. They hyped the show up to be a ghost show, a scary show, nay even maybe a horror flick type show. And who wouldn't buy that with scream queen Jennifer Love "I Know What You Did Last Summer" Hewitt at the forefront. But it's not that kind of show at all. Sure it has its creepy moments, but basically the formula comes off more as "Touched By an Angel" than as "Supernatural." There are no creepy special effects; in fact, there aren't much of any special effects, since the only way we know that they're a ghost is through use of sound effects, lighting, editing and shot selection. You never even see them cross over. Still, it manages to warm your heart while occasionally bringing a mist to your eye, and you find yourself engaged.

Give it a chance. You'll probably like it.

It's hard to rate this, because it's less of a show and more of a showCASE.

Basically, you get to see the characters from Takara's Transformers: Robot Masters line. If you haven't seen the line, there are definitely good points to it. Prime among these (pardon the pun) is G1 Convoy (Optimus Prime for those of you not versed in Japanese Transformers.) Starscream looked really great too.

So, anyway, the thing's like 10 minutes long altogether. Earth's under attack by you know who, your unfriendly neighborhood Decepticon. So G1 Prime has got to fly in and whip the crap out of Beast Wars Megatron. This, in and of itself, is reason enough to watch. Both characters are the same size (rather than the tiny Megs you see in BW) and they proceed to tear up several city blocks. Then while that's going on, Starscream and the Seekers are flying over town, only to meet the one thing every Transformers fanboy has always wanted to see: Optimus Primal, all King-Kong like, hanging from the top of the Empire State Building with guns blazing.

And you don't get just one Prime. You get G1 Primal, Beast Wars Primal, Victory Leo, Star Saber... just a pantload of Prime. And then there's "Reverse Prime," some sort of evil Optimus, who can also change into Megatron tank mode and become "Reverse Megatron." Multiple Megatrons and Primes, all of whom have a showdown in the end, with predictable results.

It's 10 minutes long, so it's all combat and just the thinnest shade of plot.

The animation is out of this world. It's very reminiscent of Beast Wars/Machines, and it's very well rendered. There is eye-candy aplenty. The only thing it's missing are the original character voices. That would've completed the fanboy fantasy, I think.

Best place to find it is at TV-Nihon, where it's fansubbed. It's fun. And a good way to waste 10 minutes.

I'm not sure how to rate this series. If you put it up against the silliness of some of the American G1 series, it seems more mature. However, if you put it up against some of the subsequent (and better) Japanese G1/G2 series, it seems almost sophomoric.

I understood the need to move past or do away with some of the older characters, but it seemed so contrived to just have them just all of a sudden walk away just for no real reason at all. The whole Prime-gets-killed-for-no-reason-at-all thing seemed extremely cheap. Rodimus and the guys just walking away after Cybertron is destroyed just seemed contrived. Some of it was well done. The death of Ultra Magnus was almost (but not quite) as gut-wrenching as the death of Optimus Prime in the movie. The destruction of Galvatron was okay.

But then you have a bunch of largely unsympathetic characters left, and no strong presence of a Prime or Megatron to lead them and make them make sense. Fortress Maximus is a pathetic Prime substitute to say the least. Scorponok seems cheap. And you get the feeling that the whole reason they're leaders is simply that they're large bots.

And of all the G1 characters we get to keep, why Wheelie and Daniel?? Why???? Couldn't we trade them both for Bumblebee or something? This is not really to say that this is a horrible series, though, because it does have merit. It's just not as good as the next couple of series.

I came into this series with uncertain expectations. I had undertaken the task of watching the various Transformers series, starting with the original series and hopefully going on through the current Cybertron series. In order to get there, I had to get through Masterforce.

So after the events of the Headmasters series, I was unsure if this installment would just be a permutation of that, or if it would just venture out on its own.

As it turns out, it did both. There's a hint left of the old series, but it doesn't come off as just the "next chapter," like Headmasters did. There's a glimpse of old characters (Rodimus Prime) and a cameo or two of some Headmasters characters like Fortress Maximus, but for the most part, these are new Transformers. And this time, instead of having the Transformers rely on humans for help, the humans themselves are actually the Transformers. Some are robots hiding in the disguise of human shells, and others are real humans who adopt robot transtectors to defend the Universe.

Best among them all is Ginrai, who adopts a truck that looks an awful lot like the classic Optimus Prime. I think this is where most original Transformers fans will latch onto the story.

The thing this story has going for it is story, pure and simple. It takes it to the next level. And while this may have unfamiliar elements, it's definitely a must-see for all Transformers fans. (Look at TV-Nihon for fansubbed episodes not available in the US!)