I liked it, but I did not like paying 18 for my fiancee and myself to see a 1 1/2 hour Friends episode. They took many of the same gags from the show and put it in the movie. Great movie for DVD viewing, but not in the theaters.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Austin Powers in Goldmember
(2002)
Rehashed, but not all that bad
29 July 2002
I liked it. I probably should have waited for video, but this is a fun movie, if not original. They do the shadow scene again. They do the Dr. Evil v. Scott thing again. They do most of the funny things from the previous movies again. The scenes are funny. There are a few new bits, but there is nothing that made me think that this was a classic like the first two were. Wait for video. Watch it when all you want is a little fun.
Stand by Me
(1986)
I saw this for the first time in a drive in. . .
19 July 2002
it was only fitting. This is a great story about America's past, but yet it is still timeless. Whenever I watch this movie, I can't help but get sentimental about my childhood (even though I grew up in the '80's).
The real point of this story is a coming-of-age story. It is cliche in a lot of ways, but I believe this to be the point: regardless of when we grew up, we still have similar experiences regardless of the time in which we grew up.
The real point of this story is a coming-of-age story. It is cliche in a lot of ways, but I believe this to be the point: regardless of when we grew up, we still have similar experiences regardless of the time in which we grew up.
The Last of the Mohicans
(1992)
A movie that will move you
14 July 2002
A movie like this is rare. Even though it is somewhat formulaic (epics are, by definition, formulaic), the viewer is kept on the edge of his or her seat. It is a powerful and moving story. This is a movie with everything for everyone. For those who love battle scenes, this has great ones. If romance is more your style, this has a great romantic story in it (the ending, oh the ending). For those that love revenge movies, LOTM has got it.
A note: if you can possibly see this in a theater that shows older movies, see it there. This is a movie made for the big screen. TV is ok, but to appreciate the truly remarkable cinematography (this from someone who didn't know what cinematography was before I saw this movie), one needs to view this in a theater.
Lastly, buy the original score if you have any interest in instrumental music. The score helps make the movie and is very good to sit and listen to on a rainy day (tracks 6, 11 are great).
A note: if you can possibly see this in a theater that shows older movies, see it there. This is a movie made for the big screen. TV is ok, but to appreciate the truly remarkable cinematography (this from someone who didn't know what cinematography was before I saw this movie), one needs to view this in a theater.
Lastly, buy the original score if you have any interest in instrumental music. The score helps make the movie and is very good to sit and listen to on a rainy day (tracks 6, 11 are great).
Saving Private Ryan
(1998)
How to review something that leaves the viewer speechless?
26 June 2002
I never knew. I knew that my grandfathers' generation did remarkable things during the war, but I never knew. I knew that we fought a tough battle during D-Day, but I never knew. I knew that people risked, and lost, their lives to fight for our freedom, but I never knew.
The reason why this movie is important, especially to my gen-x generation, is that none of us really knew what others sacrificed for our freedom.
I walked out of this movie and saw an elder gentleman as I was walking out. I thanked him. After viewing the movie, I went to my car and just rode around for a while, collecting my thoughts. If this movie does not give you a punch-in-the-gut feeling after walking out, then you have missed the point. The point is plain and simple, ordinary people did extraordinary things so that we have the right to be free. Some of my generation take these rights for granted. I did. I no longer do.
The rest of this, for the most part, goes into why I disagree with others who did not like this movie. By doing this, I hope that I have also explained why I DO like this movie. I have heard many of the complaints about this movie. I disagree with just about every one of them. I add a disclaimer about this at the end.
I have heard that this movie is not "anti-war" enough, that "The Thin Red Line" is a much better anti-war movie. This misses the point of the movie. The movie is not essentially anti-war. It is about the sacrifices that others made to give us our freedoms.
I have heard that this movie is too gruesome. I can understand why people say this. But, in order to portray truthfully, the bravery that others made on our behalf, the movie needs to be gorry. I believe that this movie was not so much written for the WWII generation, but for their children, grandchildren, and on down the line. We NEED to understand what others have done.
Some have claimed that the movie, beyond the first 20 minutes, does not have enough action. The movie is not an action epic, beyond the first twenty minutes and is not meant to be. The movie is meant to display that these people were ordinary. This is called character development. The characters are not as developed as some would wish, but I believe Spielberg did this with a purpose. The characters are developed to the point that we know that they are ordinary. We are supposed to see that they are just like us (the generations after WWII), yet they did extraordinary things.
Some have claimed that the characters are too stereotypic. Well, we are a stereotypic society. We have cultures from all over the world, and they all fought in WWII. While many units may have been homogeneous, many were not. There are no African-Americans in the story, and Spielberg did hold true to the realism there as, sadly, African Americans were segregated from fighting with white soldiers.
Some have said that this another example of Americans being jingoistic. Well, we did fight separately from other countries' units. Spielberg did not say that other countries did not fight in the war, but this movie would have been twenty hours long if we chronicled each countries' contributions. Beside that, Spielberg is American, and made a film about the contributions that Americans made. Why others feel that he should make a movie about each countries' contributions is beyond me. If he does, that is his prerogative. If a French director makes a movie about the French resistance, I say, "Good job," not "What about America?"
Finally, after fighting off attack after attack, I wish to say, that is fine. That is your right, thanks to the bravery of others. I only wish to say that I hope that those who dislike this movie are still able to see the efforts that others made to give us this right.
PS: Thank you Poppop!
The reason why this movie is important, especially to my gen-x generation, is that none of us really knew what others sacrificed for our freedom.
I walked out of this movie and saw an elder gentleman as I was walking out. I thanked him. After viewing the movie, I went to my car and just rode around for a while, collecting my thoughts. If this movie does not give you a punch-in-the-gut feeling after walking out, then you have missed the point. The point is plain and simple, ordinary people did extraordinary things so that we have the right to be free. Some of my generation take these rights for granted. I did. I no longer do.
The rest of this, for the most part, goes into why I disagree with others who did not like this movie. By doing this, I hope that I have also explained why I DO like this movie. I have heard many of the complaints about this movie. I disagree with just about every one of them. I add a disclaimer about this at the end.
I have heard that this movie is not "anti-war" enough, that "The Thin Red Line" is a much better anti-war movie. This misses the point of the movie. The movie is not essentially anti-war. It is about the sacrifices that others made to give us our freedoms.
I have heard that this movie is too gruesome. I can understand why people say this. But, in order to portray truthfully, the bravery that others made on our behalf, the movie needs to be gorry. I believe that this movie was not so much written for the WWII generation, but for their children, grandchildren, and on down the line. We NEED to understand what others have done.
Some have claimed that the movie, beyond the first 20 minutes, does not have enough action. The movie is not an action epic, beyond the first twenty minutes and is not meant to be. The movie is meant to display that these people were ordinary. This is called character development. The characters are not as developed as some would wish, but I believe Spielberg did this with a purpose. The characters are developed to the point that we know that they are ordinary. We are supposed to see that they are just like us (the generations after WWII), yet they did extraordinary things.
Some have claimed that the characters are too stereotypic. Well, we are a stereotypic society. We have cultures from all over the world, and they all fought in WWII. While many units may have been homogeneous, many were not. There are no African-Americans in the story, and Spielberg did hold true to the realism there as, sadly, African Americans were segregated from fighting with white soldiers.
Some have said that this another example of Americans being jingoistic. Well, we did fight separately from other countries' units. Spielberg did not say that other countries did not fight in the war, but this movie would have been twenty hours long if we chronicled each countries' contributions. Beside that, Spielberg is American, and made a film about the contributions that Americans made. Why others feel that he should make a movie about each countries' contributions is beyond me. If he does, that is his prerogative. If a French director makes a movie about the French resistance, I say, "Good job," not "What about America?"
Finally, after fighting off attack after attack, I wish to say, that is fine. That is your right, thanks to the bravery of others. I only wish to say that I hope that those who dislike this movie are still able to see the efforts that others made to give us this right.
PS: Thank you Poppop!
Chasing Dreams
(1989)
Warning! "This is not Field of Dreams!"
26 June 2002
People see this movie for a lark. I watched it to the end simply because it was so bad. Kevin Costner is pasted all over the cover of the box, but he is in it for about 2 minutes.I will forever call this movie the worst of all time. The only reason that this movie has such a high rating (3.7) is that some think they are voting for Field of Dreams, which this is definitely not. If any of you have a "worst movie ever" VCR challenge, bring this movie. You will win in a landslide.
ESPN SportsCentury
(1999–2007)
"Oh, the games men play"
27 February 2002
I have never watched a biography show (and I love A&E's "Biography") that has touched me quite as deeply as Sports Century. As a viewer, one really feels as though he or she has lived a little of the life that the athlete being profiled has lived. Each fall makes you sink a little. Each rise makes you feel better about yourself.
Recently, however, the show reached new heights. Watch the Shakespearian documentary on Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry. I have never seen a documentary as original and as poignant as this.
Recently, however, the show reached new heights. Watch the Shakespearian documentary on Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry. I have never seen a documentary as original and as poignant as this.
The Matrix
(1999)
One of the funniest movies of all time!
27 February 2002
I could not stop laughing through the whole movie! Keanu Reeves gives his best comedic performance since his appearance in the Paula Abdul video "Rush, Rush."
The only real problem with the movie is that it was not supposed to be funny. I was not the only one who had this opinion. The person I was with kept laughing at the same time I did. Keanu just doesn't do it for me. Every serious look that he tries still has an air of Bill S. Preston, Esq. (or was he Theodore "Ted" Logan?).
I saw it when it first came out and hated it then. When my friends (mostly college age) kept telling me that it was actually a very good movie, I decided to give it another chance. Nope, I was right the first time. It is much funnier than it is thought provoking.
The only real problem with the movie is that it was not supposed to be funny. I was not the only one who had this opinion. The person I was with kept laughing at the same time I did. Keanu just doesn't do it for me. Every serious look that he tries still has an air of Bill S. Preston, Esq. (or was he Theodore "Ted" Logan?).
I saw it when it first came out and hated it then. When my friends (mostly college age) kept telling me that it was actually a very good movie, I decided to give it another chance. Nope, I was right the first time. It is much funnier than it is thought provoking.
Henry V
(1989)
Timely even now.
27 February 2002
First had to read this play for a class I was taking in college then read the movie. Branagh did things with the story I had not even imagined. While some have questioned some of his other films, he does a very good job with this one. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then again, he had some very good material to work with.
Funny how many have been using the character of Prince Hal/King Henry as a way of describing GW Bush. As I say in my title, the story is as timely as it ever was.
Great quote to go along with the timeliness: "We would not seek a battle as we are, yet, as we are, we say we would not shun it."
Funny how many have been using the character of Prince Hal/King Henry as a way of describing GW Bush. As I say in my title, the story is as timely as it ever was.
Great quote to go along with the timeliness: "We would not seek a battle as we are, yet, as we are, we say we would not shun it."
NewsRadio
(1995–1999)
"Good times, good times"
26 February 2002
I have to say, I really didn't get into this show until A&E started showing it in reruns. I really miss the fact that there are no new shows that will ever come because NBC didn't have the foresight to place it on its Thursday night lineup. In that time slot it would have easily outpaced such dogs as Veronica's closet even without Phil Hartman (I raise my glass to you sir).
While Phil Hartman was truly the glue to the show, it did start to make a recovery after the writers and Lovitz started to make some sense of what to do with his character (I think it might have been good to use him as his original role as a mental patient).
I think Steven Root's character was possibly the greatest TV boss in history. He was nuts! If you think that his character was little unrealistic for a multi billionaire, just look at the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban. I was glad to see him again in the movies in "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?"
The writing was always fresh. The actors were all perfect for the role's they played (I am NOT an Andy Dick fan, but he even worked in this show). The humor was sometimes understated, sometimes slapstick, but always funny.
While Phil Hartman was truly the glue to the show, it did start to make a recovery after the writers and Lovitz started to make some sense of what to do with his character (I think it might have been good to use him as his original role as a mental patient).
I think Steven Root's character was possibly the greatest TV boss in history. He was nuts! If you think that his character was little unrealistic for a multi billionaire, just look at the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban. I was glad to see him again in the movies in "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?"
The writing was always fresh. The actors were all perfect for the role's they played (I am NOT an Andy Dick fan, but he even worked in this show). The humor was sometimes understated, sometimes slapstick, but always funny.
Tell Your Friends