Change Your Image
jayhonk
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
3000 Miles to Graceland (2001)
Way Better than I expected
Saw this on TV the other night, remembering that it did not get a real good reception when it first came out. So I wasn't expecting anything much, but for an action movie, it delivered alot. Plot twists, funny lines, action, adventure, weird scenarios, good guys, bad guys, Women that may be double crossing, big heist, lost money, blown up gas stations, quick draw shootouts, unexpected killings, expected killings, and Ice-T spinning upside down shooting submachine guns at cops. What more could you want!?!
Why then the bad reviews? A: Some people just love to hate Kevin Costner; and some people-casual movie goers-have to pile on movies that are getting bad reviews. Put them both together, and you get weird results. e.g. Waterworld was NO WAY as bad as people made it out to be-I am not saying it was great, but it didn't stink.
This movie put the heist at the beginning (it was basically botched), then what could it do for the last hour? Just try to guess... you cant't. Except the last 15 minutes, you can guess that. No other reviewers have mentioned the Elvis' kid subtext that gives the movie a little depth, just something to think about between the action.
Many of the items that other reviewers mention as weaknesses are actually strengths. The soundtrack, Costner's mean character, Ice-T, Howie's death scene, the whole robbery sequence, the shootout (all of them), killing C.Slater. These all made for a good action pic.
I gave it a 8/10 for the plot twists, though it was probably just a 7. It would have been a solid 8 if the last scene wasn't so corny.
Evolution (2001)
Funnier than they think
Alot of people are mentioning Ghostbusters, this movie rates between Ghostbusters I and GBII. Alot closer to GBII. I gave it a 7 of 10 because it IS a funny movie. I can't believe one reviewer said they should have played it straight. The problem with the movie is that the story line of the discoverers vs. the Army kind of flip flops between who is advocating what, regarding what to do with the aliens. In the end, you just roll with it to see what happens. Any way, David Duchovny and Orlando Jones did fine, Duchovny played his part with a dry sense of humor, while Jones could have used some funnier lines. Sean William Scott did a great job with his part, the lovable goof. Juliane Moore isn't going to make anyones favorite actor list based on this movie, not her fault, the part was kind of lame. Dan Aykkroyd came on as the governor of Arizona toward the end and spewed hilarious bombast like the Aykroyd of old. I can't believe that some said there were no funny scenes in this flick: the shotguns in the mall was real fun and Aykroyd's scenes were worth the price of admission. Good but not great, I would recommend it.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
Maybe it's just me, but this movie stunk
If being a great technical achievement is basis for being a great movie, then let's give out 10's to all those 3-D flicks from the Fifties and Sixties. Don't want to do that? Then, let's judge it as a movie. OK, I just did, and it gets a 1 out of 10.
Maybe it's just me... But, I found NO appeal in Roger himself. None. In fact, I hated him. Annoying voice, annoying personality, NEVER a funny line, movement, or gesture. Well, if he was not funny, then he was likable? No. Not funny plus annoying is not a good start in a title character. And, Jessica Rabbit, how did Roger ever marry her. Why would he want to, no personality, flirt, just a sleazy trouble magnet. Further, why would she want to marry him?. A nerdy, screw-up. And, why was she drawn with such dripping sexuality? I was torn between hoping her gown would slip off, and wondering why I was thinking such thoughts about a cartoon. Weird. Sick. Yuck.
Hoskins did a yeoman's job, but most of his accomplishment was acting to the animated characters. As a character in a drama, I thought he came off a little flat. His character was ultimately very predictable.
You know, I don't even remember Christopher Lloyd... I guess he was an over-the-top bad guy. Shocker. Now, there is something every great movie should have: A cardboard bad guy, and an very unfunny cartoon as the good guy. NOT.
Now, the ratio between 1 and 10 ratings (a stat I check all the time) was almost 10:1. So maybe it was just me... If you rent it, make sure you have someone to talk to, because you won't want to waste time following the story. Just talk over it.
xXx (2002)
The Perfect B-movie
Anyone who gives this movie less than a 7 (6 maybe) just didn't get it. I give it an 8, because it is the perfect B-movie. No pretensions to high art, bad overdone special effects, bad acting, dumb dialogue, wooden characters. Bring it on! Bring on the high energy, comic book action; bring on the save the world plot; bring on the really bad villains; bring on the ultraviolence! The music knots the movie together with its pounding rhythms -- when the editing fails, which it often did. I actually thought the tunes were one of the strong points of the movie, and I am no metalhead. That, and all the big explosions!
The James Bond references made by others were right on the money. This is the American Bond: crude, rude and to the point. This movie is far better than every Roger Moore Bond movie; and compares well to the Pierce Brosnan ones. But a better comparison is the Die Hard series. Pure action and thrills. Check your brain at the door, and enjoy a wild, testosterone-driven thrill ride, because XXX delivers.
Spaceballs (1987)
Great, Funny, Exciting
This movie is great. The first couple times I watched it I didn't quite get it but the second time I understood it perfectly. My advice to you:
1. Rent it 2. Rent it again 3. Rent it again 4. Watch it again and again and again 5. Buy it 6. Watch it more. The thing about this movie is you can watch it again and again. The only reason I got kind of bored of it (but it's still funny)is because I have watched it about 38974508708241532743543295 times. Rent it. Watch it. Buy it. Watch it more.
The Rare Breed (1966)
Lukewarm Western
Jimmy Stewart in this role wasn't not illogical, in fact he was the right choice. Unfortunately, the writers didn't follow through on their part. The movie has all the ingredients of a good western, cowboys, cattle, scenery, outsiders, bad guys, dreams, adventures, swindles, romance. But the total package fell very flat. At the heart of the movie is a romance between Stewart and Maureen O'Hara as a British widow bringing a new breed of cattle to the West. No real on screen sparks fly, though. The heart of the problem is that it is hard to root for Jimmy Stewart's character--and you can't say THAT very often. He starts out as an average guy who doesn't hesitate to steal a prize bull, for a thousand bucks. While he does put the money to good use, his fundamental lack of scruples was off-putting. But obviously, we are supposed to root for him.
Maureen O'Hara's character drives the movie when she shows up, but she was a little hard to empathize with, too. She sees more in Jimmy Stewart than I did, and pursues him. Eventually she gives up on him and her original dream (not worth going into that), just when Jimmy catches the vision thing. So the their relationship cycles in opposite directions. Of course, you know that eventually they will get together. Not before she takes 6 months of in home hospitality from Brian Keith' transplanted Scottish character. That role was a riot, until he civilized himself on her behalf. Whereupon he lost all his personality trying to please the target of his affections. Probably some lesson there...
I wouldn't recommend this one. Some interesting twists at first, but ultimately very predictable. If you do watch it, your eyes will be happy, but your heart will be left out.
Last of the Dogmen (1995)
A Perfect 6
To me a 5 or below means get up and walk away; a 7 or above means grab a chair and stick around. A 6 means watch it if you don't have anything better to do. This was a 6.
First the good: the scenery. The not so good: The movie came off as a TV movie. I thought the acting of both Berenger and Hershey was flat. The opportunity was there for both, but there wasn't any zest. I attribute this mostly to the pedestrian writing. In addition, Berenger's presentation was very average. He exhibited a single vocal tonation--a medium holler. As the movie went on it got worse, not better. This was uncalled for since the plot became kind of interesting, and he should have too. Sure he was supposed to be the taciturn mountain man, but all in all, he came off as very one dimensional. Hershey was only mildly better. I really wanted to like her, but her character never came to life either. And between them, there should have been a smoldering heat, but I thought the matches were too damp to light the fire.
The plot was curiously predictable assemblage of several set pieces. However, I admit it did make me want to see how it ended. The first part was the socially exiled mountain man called in to help the cops solve a crime. I am a sucker for that one--though predictable. Then it turns into an interesting spin on the monster investigation. I am a sucker for that one, too--though predictable. Then it turns into the attack against the innocents. I don't usually go for that one, especially when the attacker is even more irrationally motivated than usual, as was the case here. The it finishes with the heroes go happily into the night. I can take or leave that one.
I wanted to like this movie, and I can see why most of the reviewers here fell for it: it had all the elements present. It just fell a little short. Watch it, only if you have the time.
BTW: I thought the voice over was the astronaut from Northern Exposure, not Wilford Brimley.
The Piano (1993)
Long, dry, and dry.
How long was this movie? 4 hours. No, it seemed like it was longer. All the characters were very hard to like. Plot sorta of hard to relate to. 2 strikes and you are out for me. I am sure the filmwork was good, I forced it out of my mind
Why did people like it, cause they were supposed to? I don't know. Oscar for the girl? Must have been a thin crop of competitors. Watch this movie at home with a glass of wine so you feel arty and sophisticated. But be sure you have a magazine in your lap so the whole evening isn't wasted. Long, dry, and long. And dry.
A Night at the Roxbury (1998)
Sorry. Not funny.
The ratings don't lie. This movie is not funny. 4.8 is a gift; I gave it a 1. It is one of the worst I have ever seen. Any movie where the leading characters are really, really stupid starts off with one foot in the grave. Bad gags and lousy writing will push where it belongs, 6 feet under. The music is decent and the memories, well you are supplying them, cause this isn't evoking them. This is the punch line here: any movie with really dumb characters has to make you like them, or it has to make you bust out laughing, otherwise you will quickly despise the characters. These two brothers here are not likable, where is the sympathy in two clueless oafs? How can we play along if the jokes are bad?
Dumb and Dumber I almost liked--same scenario: 2 really dumb guys. But the jokes were funny and the guys almost sympathetic. I hated Something About Mary for this same reason as this movie: no one to like; many to despise. If you liked that movie (for some reason) then take that into consideration. But I recommend you keep the 99 cents in your pocket and rent Princess Bride or something.
Me, Myself & Irene (2000)
fundamentally a bad movie
A comedy that is not funny. In any movie you should empathize with one of the characters. Not so here. The split personality of the Jim Carrey character is not sympathetic. Actually the bad character is more fun. The stupid gross humor (attempts) that others mentioned in these reviews did not actually put me off. But they were not very funny. In summary, the plot was stupid, the characters annoying, jokes not funny, nothing good here... Move along, people, nothing to see here.