Reviews

This is the type of movie that gives independent films a bad name. It definitely struck me as the archetypal bad, boring what-is-the-point-of-all-this independent film? If you're looking for a FUNNY independent movie, try watching "Mifune" or "Repo Man" or anything except this one!

This is an awesome movie, although I'm not quite sure I'd actually characterize it as a "Barrel of fun." However, there is a scene in the movie (Times Square, Manhattan, NYC) with a huge billboard of Colonel Sanders urging his customers to "Have a barrel of fun!" (i.e., a barrel of his Kentucky fried chicken). Down on the street, it doesn't look like any of the pedestrians appear to be having much fun at all though...this is only one of hundreds of amazing images & ironic juxtapositions that make up the movie. I doubt if there's much in the way of original criticism that I can add that you can't already find in the external reviews and other user comments, but I would like to make 2 recommendations that are not already listed under the imdb.com recommendations: "Baraka" and "Powaqqatsi." These 2 films are also "documentaries" about the world we live in, and like "Koyaanisqatsi" they also have no "plot", no dialogue & great soundtracks. If you like "Koyaanisqatsi" you'll like these films too!

"Breakout" is a lightweight action film but worth a peek, especially if you're a Charles Bronson fan. It's not one of his best movies but manages to be entertaining, albeit corny, most of the time. If you want to see a great movie with Bronson in it, check out "The Magnificent Seven;" if you want to see a great Charles Bronson movie, watch "The Mechanic."

This film is obviously not for everyone, not even for everyone who likes Woody Allen. I like it a lot, partly for the awesome all-star cast, partly for the blending of comedy (i.e., Woody's usual schlemiel self) with drama (a deranged killer loose on the streets of a fog-shrouded town at night). I'm not going to go into a lot of details on the film, anyone can pick them up between the other user comments, external and newsgroup reviews. The main reason I'm adding my two cents worth is no one seems to have noticed, or commented on one of the film's underlying themes: that of anti-semitism in Europe apparently between world wars. For instance, the "Mintz" family is picked up by the police as a convenient scapegoat for the recent murders despite Kleinman's (Woody Allen) assertion that they are "lovely people." Shortly afterwards, Kleinman goes to the local church to make a donation on behalf of Irmy (Mia Farrow) and finds the priest and a policeman making up a list of people that also includes himself. I can't quite put my finger on it, but he seems to be referring to the start of Hitler's persecution of Jews in Germany prior to WW II. Of course this theme is woven in with several others regarding marital fidelity, prostitution, insanity and the nature of mob- mentality; but it does seem interesting that everyone motivated enough to write something about this film pro or con seems to have overlooked, or intentionally ignored.

A lot of people hate this movie because it's a real "Reader's Digest" form of the lengthy novel. I know, because I used to be one of them. Entire characters are cut out, so are entire chapters; so is most of the book. It's probably better to have read the book first, that will definitely make the movie easier to follow. Of course, if you have only seen the movie and didn't hate it, you should also read the book, which as far as I'm concerned is just as much an American Classic Novel as anything by Hemingway, Steinbeck or Twain. Part of the reason I changed my mind about this movie is because of the superb casting: Alan Arkin as Yossarian, a very young Martin Sheen as Dobbs, Anthony ("Psycho!") Perkins as the Chaplain, Orson Welles as Gen. Dreedle and Buck Henry as Col. Korn - please look up the full cast under the IMDB entry for this movie and see for yourself. I also came to like this movie more and more by watching it several times over the years and noticing all sorts of nice little touches, such as when several pilots give Col. Cathcart the "thumbs up" sign as they take off on a mission, while Yossarian flips him off. All in all, this is actually a much better adaptation of Joseph Heller's classic novel than most people give it credit for. Of course, it would be great to see this movie remade in a version about twice as long to fit in a lot more of the book. It would also make a great mini-series on TV, assuming that anyone out there still wants to see one of the strongest anti-war statements of the twentieth-century.

Just thinking about this world-class DUD is making me sleepy...but before I pass out completely, I feel obligated to let all of you fellow cinema-buffs out there know that Mr. Depp also starred in another highly un-entertaining, non-thrilling movie called "The Ninth Gate." Avoid both these movies like the plague...I bet either one of these major-league mediocrities could put a speed freak to sleep in no time at all.

This is a great action/sci-fi/ movie without a dull moment.

When I saw the preview for this movie I thought "Not another special-effects movie, there isn't anything original left to do." However, I was wrong. As Laurence Fishburne states in the movie "No one can tell you what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself."

This movie is a waste of the acting talents of Sissy Spacek and Christopher Walken. It may be a waste of the acting talents of Brendan Fraser and Alicia Silverstone too, but since I don't think they've proven themselves to be as talented as Spacek and Walker (yet) that really isn't a major consideration. If you want to see a recent movie that is funny, check out "Waking Ned Devine," "Office Space" or "Shakespeare in Love."

Peter Sellers stars as Sir Guy Grand, a fabulously wealthy eccentric who gets to do anything and everything he wants to by liberally greasing the palms of those less fortunate (and wealthy) than himself. Lacking an heir, he adopts a homeless derelict (Ringo Starr) who becomes Youngman Grand and joins him in a series of wild and wacky misadventures. In his apparently never ending quest to prove that everyone has their price, Sir Guy and his newly adopted heir are joined by a host of other notables in cameo roles including Richard Attenborough, John Cleese, Laurence Harvey, Christopher Lee, Roman Polanski, Yul Brynner and Raquel Welch. The movie is based on a book by Terry Southern (who wrote the screenplay for another Peter Sellers classic - "Dr. Strangelove") with Monty Python alumni Graham Chapman and John Cleese lending a hand in the screenplay. This is a movie that has everything: great writers, great actors, well-known comtemporary celebrities and a rapid-fire barrage of parodies and spoofs of almost everything we hold dear, including greed, gluttony, racism and incompetency. If this movie does not make you laugh out loud (frequently) you should consider getting treatment for a severe case of humor deficiency.

First of all, even though I didn't like this film, it certainly deserves a lot more than the 23 votes and one user review (mine) that it currently has. After all, we're talking about a film version of "King Lear!" Unfortunately, this version looks like someone slipped some heavy sedatives into the actors and didn't give them time to recover before filming started. Paul Scofield is undoubtedly a fine actor, but his version of "King Lear" strikes me as being too phlegmatic instead of choleric, the way I imagine Lear to be. On the other hand, maybe this play is just so tragic that it is way more difficult to stage than "Hamlet", "Julius Caesar" or "Macbeth". If this doesn't seem plausible, than just consider which one of the "Big Four" tragedies seems to be the least commonly staged and filmed. In "Hamlet," something is rotten in the state of Denmark; in "Lear" almost everything and everyone in the entire world is rotten. Is it possible for someone out there in Tinseltown to make a really epic film version of this epic tragedy? I don't know, but I'd certainly like to see Kenneth Branagh give it a try...

This is an excellent version of the Bard's great tragedy, and it certainly deserves a lot more than 21 votes and one user review! I like this version more than the 1948 film starring Laurence Olivier, (which was a disappointment for me) but less than the 1996 "unabridged" version starring Kenneth Branagh. Being a Shakespeare buff, I have to like Branagh's excellent film more than this one because it contains the entire play. On the other hand, even though Branagh does a really good job of portraying the "Prince of Denmark" I do like Nichol Williamson's performance even more. I highly recommend this version to all fans of Shakespeare, Williamson, and great movies in general.

I'm amazed to see that other people (or androids with no taste, more likely) actually LIKED this boring waste of invaluable time! This movie had no action, no excitement and no reason to be made...except possibly to cash in on Leonardo DiCaprio's popularity from "Titanic." This movie was not only a waste of time, but a waste of some really first-rate actors such as John Malkovich and Jeremy Irons. I haven't read the book but am encouraged to note in other negative reviews that the movie is nothing like the book (so what else is new?) so maybe reading the book will make me forget about this awful film. I'm amazed to read that other people out there (or possibly androids who have not been programmed to recognize the difference between good and bad films) actually liked this snore-filled cure for insomnia. If someone thinks this movie is good (or worse yet, great) I'd hate to see what movies they hate! I hate this movie & so should everyone else! If you want to see a REAL action film, try "The Three Musketeers" (1974) or "The Four Musketeers" - both based on the novel "The Three Musketeers" by Alexandre Dumas, who also wrote "The Man in the Iron Mask".

After reading several other "user reviews" and just browsing through the rest, mostly negative and lots of 'em, it's unlikely I can add very much in the way of criticism here. The one point I do wish to emphatically emphasize is that the only "Batman" movie that didn't have a script GROSSLY INFERIOR to the comic books (and graphic novels) was the full-length animation "Mask of the Phantasm." Why does Hollywood insist on paying people to write scripts for "Batman" and "Superman" that REALLY SUCK compared to the comic books? If you don't believe me, read the great graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns." Also, George Clooney was the worst of the three actors to play Batman and Chris O'Donnell is way too big and old to be Robin. I didn't hate this movie, but that's only because I'm still in my first childhood as far as comic-book movies goes...

I didn't hate this movie, although after reading all the other "user reviews" I'm almost embarrassed to say so. It is undoubtedly the worst of the lot, but I guess I'm just too much of a comic-book junkie to hate any "Batman" or "Superman" movie. One thing they both have in common is that NOT ONE of the movies has a script HALF AS GOOD as a typical "Batman" or "Superman" comic. Anyway, if you're not a comic-book junkie maybe you should watch something else instead (like the first two "Superman" movies).

I've been told Ebert & Siskel labeled another recent film as being a "crime against humanity" because it wasted precious, irreplaceable time on the part of every viewer. I think this shoe fits "Soldier" as well. All this movie boils down to is an excessive amount of gratuitous violence without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. The inane plot is about how state-of-the-art "organic" human soldier/zombies are going to be made obsolete by genetically engineered soldier/zombies. This is bad news for soldier/zombie Kurt Russell, who is no longer state-of-the-art and unceremoniously thrown away with lots of other trash on a "landfill" planet inhabited by a bunch of losers. Kurt has less than 100 words to say in the whole movie, mostly "Yes sir" and "No sir" to whoever he's talking to, be they man, woman, child, cat, dog or fire hydrant. To make up for his lack of dialogue, he saves the losers from a bunch of the genetically engineered soldier/zombies, who have been sent to the landfill planet on a training mission which includes killing everyone they run into, since they're told the losers are "hostiles." Kind of like Vietnam, huh? Anyway, this movie's grotesque violence makes me wonder if violence in movies and TV really is responsible, to some degree, for some of the senseless violence in real life all around us. Now I'm not a prude about this and I like lots of violent films, such as "Pulp Fiction", "Scarface", and "Resevoir Dogs" to name but a few. But the violence in those films isn't gratuitous and these movies have a point other than violence and violent situations. I guess I missed whatever point "Soldier" is trying to make, although it's hard to even imagine a point to this brutal, senseless movie.

The "Blues Brothers" is a good comedy and a great musical, featuring James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles and Cab Calloway as "guest" musicians (i.e., not members of the BB). The BB band is composed of excellent musicians such as Lou Marini, Alan Rubin and Donald "Duck" Dunn among others. One interesting aspect of the movie I haven't read about in other reviews (so far) concerns spoofs of other movies and TV shows. For instance, when Jake gets out of prison he walks through a blinding white light and out the gate, reminiscent of the kidnapped earthlings disembarking from the giant UFO near the end of "Close Encounters." The interview with the "Penguin" (walking up a long flight of stairs, and the Penguin floating back into the room) is a spoof on "The Exorcist." Jake and Elwod's interview with the landlady is a spoof on the old TV show "Dragnet." The car chase under the El spoofs "The French Connection" car chase and even uses several seconds of footage from the movie. The scene in which a police dispatcher authorizes "the use of excessive force to apprehend the Blue Brothers" spoofs the old TV show "Highway Patrol" and I believe the movie dispatcher was in the TV show as well. I'm not quite sure how the Nazis chasing our heroes is a spoof of "Apocalypse Now" but the music (Wagner's "Flight of the Valkyries") in this sequence was used in both films. I susect there are more spoofs of other movies and/or TV shows present that I'm missing; if anyone out there can name more I'd like to know about them as well.