Reviews

The first -- and probably not the last -- Hollywood kids' movie that not only typically insults the intelligence of its audience, but actively insults the gullibility of the parents for paying to see this crap. I wouldn't have imagined it, but it's even worse than "The Grinch".

If this is the best the collective creative genius of the movie industry can do, then a few of Emmerich's giant tornadoes would be much welcome. Please, please stop making movies of Dr. Seuss.

Everyone, please just buy the book instead. Your kids will thank me.

I managed to catch this movie on cable yesterday afternoon. Yeah, sure, it stinks, but it was made in 1973, so whaddaya want?

I would not be surprised, however, if this movie was the inspiration for many of the scenes in Monty Python's Holy Grail. There are many small similarities, and while watching this movie you can just hear the Python troupe's twisted gears turning in their heads.

"wouldn't it be funnier if Sir Gawain was wandering in a forest and then came across a castle of virgins...?"

This is a movie that has moments, both good and bad -- about equal numbers of both. If you're the kind of person who really really enjoys stupid, low-level satire, then this is a match made in heaven. If you appreciate snickering at stupidity every once in a while, then catch this movie when it comes on cable. Otherwise, don't worry -- you're not missing much.

This movie has a lot of fun making fun of both the boxing world and itself. It's not really much of a movie, but it has moments. I recommend it as one of those movies that, if you're channel-surfing on cable and you happen to come across it, and there's really nothing else on, then watch it. It's not a complete waste of time, but it's not a movie that you should run out and rent.

Quills stars a lot of big names -- Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, etc.. -- but it's a story of sexual perversion gone to extremes. It begs the audience to believe -- and accept -- that necrophilia and sadism are legitimate, even normal, expressions of sexual feeling.

Moreover, its message is muddied. On one hand it seems to say that free speech is valuable and should be allowed under any circumstances, on the other it shows that extreme pornography can have a disturbing effect on the already disturbed. Which is the case? Why make it unclear?

Overall, I get the feeling the movie was made to portray obscenity as art, so as to confuse people as to which is which. I'm perceptive enough to "get" it, but I don't buy it. Don't waste your time with this one, there are plenty of other movies that attack the same topic with less drool.

This is a guy movie. This is a WW2 sub movie. If you have seen any WW2 sub movie in the past, you will know everything that happens in this movie -- and expect every cliche of the genre. It is a fumbling, half-assed formula of a movie that doesn't deserve to be watched. If you're in the mood for a good WW2 sub movie, see "Run Silent, Run Deep", or "Das Boot".