Reviews

I loved this entire movie from the first scene, and intend to watch it all again because there were lines that I missed as well as jokes that I want to savor again. Rarely do I howl with laughter, but that happened several times during this entertaining hour and a half, notably but not least at the wildly genius "Mad Men" reference. Special mention to the three amazing child actors here, especially the particularly priceless Eleanor Sweeney, who together gave the story an extra dimension of fun.

I read several disappointing reviews before watching today, and lowered my expectations considerably. Why didn't other people find this funny? Could it be because I am exactly the same age as Jerry Seinfeld, and grew up in North America? So many hilarious references for those of us who were children of the 60s. Clearly, this movie was written to entertain boomers (whether they realize it or not), and for lucky me it's a bull's-eye.

As for the rest of you Debbie Downers, stick to your superhero movies.

I love that Pete pushes the envelope and has always produced original, boundary-challenging material that feels authentic to who he is. And this special has lots of very funny moments, but ultimately it disappoints. He took a genuinely funny concept about his mother so far that it felt more directed to an audience of other comics. (If you're a fan of "the Aristocrats," which I'm not, it's right up your alley.) It deserved about 2 minutes but went on til it was dead and rotting. Likewise the whole saga of the stalker, which was boring AF, lacked any relatable authenticity, and was beaten to death to the point where I had to fast forward to get to the end already. First time I've ever needed to do that. But that shows I was still hopeful, because normally I'd just turn it off. However, the realtor story was a weak finish. Pete's well-meaning "commitment to the bit" may work well in improv, but in a tight 55 minutes he desperately needed some wiser editing and direction.

I can't remember the last time I wanted to walk out of a movie; there are times I fall asleep but it's rare that I'm suffering enough to actually leave. I felt that way within 15 minutes of sitting through "Sex Tape" and it never improved, it just kept getting more agonizingly crappy. It was bad enough that I don't think I can ever look at Cameron Diaz again and certainly will never go to another one of her movies. Jason Segal... that'll take a while as well. The writing was unimaginably boring, like a bad drama trying to be a comedy. Painful. Was there some reason that the best friends' kid had it in for Jason Segal's character, because I never figured that out. Can't imagine what they were thinking. Just awful massive fail.

Although I normally love deep-digging dramas, this one may well be the very slowest movie I've ever sat through.

I was drawn in by some great reviews of this movie, undaunted by warnings that it was NOT an action film, since Bruce Willis and Nic Cage are not my cup of tea. But I actually did fall asleep twice because the pace was that numbing.

I can't say this is a bad movie, per se, but it simply PLODS soooo slowly. In addition, the film is dark and old-looking, recreating the 70s in Europe, I suppose, and this added to the soporific effect.

Complicating matters further, it was difficult to follow the details of what was going on and keep the large number of players straight. Who are the characters? Great actors playing a whole lot of unattractive old white men (yes, even Colin Firth becomes a smarmy middleaged white guy). I think there were a couple of women in there, one of whom was a bright light with the amusing line, "I don't know about you, George, but I'm feeling seriously underfucked." Could have used more of her...

If you're a die-hard espionage fan, you will probably like this. Otherwise, pick something more lively.

Typical action movie lovers will find this film very satisfying. It's got attractive lead characters, guns, car chases, lots of cold-blooded murder and a supposedly world-class villain with a twist.

The truth is, it's not really my cup of tea -- I look for more emotional drama or educational/meaningful content ideally -- but my three action-loving companions all gave this one thumbs-up, and that's all the average action-lover will need to know.

Having said that, the screenplay gives the impression of a plot that could have been executed with more depth but for the time considerations of a movie, which force producers to gloss over too many interesting issues. Thus the whole production became superficial, with Richard Gere delivering a disappointing performance. I didn't feel the depth of the character that would have raised Gere's performance to a level I think we always hope for from him but never really get. In addition, Topher Grace and Odette Annable are the too-perfect, too-pretty, 2-dimensional couple that are a bit hard to swallow.

Although there were a couple of interesting twists in the plot, they weren't developed enough to raise the level of this film to a must-see, and pretty much every other part of the screenplay was as superficial as your run-of-the-mill action movie.

I've updated this review following episode 3, which was finally more engaging and feels like it's going somewhere interesting.

Enlightened reminds me of Curb Your Enthusiasm in the way it makes me cringe. The difference is that CYE quickly gets to the point, jabbing it in repeatedly so that it's inescapable, if painful. Enlightened is simply not making its point in any way that can hook a viewer in 20 minutes (make that 40, now that I've been completely irritated by the ending of the 2nd episode). I watched the second episode hoping it would find its focus but, despite a growing cast of "carnival freaks" (a very funny line), I still didn't feel the satisfaction of understanding what their angle is. There was some good stuff in episode 2, but maybe the real problem is the horrible, pointless "bliss" endings tacked onto both episodes. What a waste of dramatic space. I was looking for some meaning to draw it together, and got nuthin.

Laura Dern's character is full-on nuts, and not in a good way. The character is completely repellent and impossible to relate to (even though I am also a somewhat off-the-wall "seeker" who well understands that the road is filled with lots of ugly potholes). There seems to be nothing trustworthy or honest about her, so how can we care? As an example of a repellent character who never fails to fascinate even into his 8th season, Greg House has his audience in the palm of his hand -- because we see the line of authenticity. Why should we watch this marginal character Amy? By the end of the 2nd episode I should have known the answer to that question. But she's already been so insane I don't know how the writers could possibly bring her back to a believable place where she's worth watching, unless they put her on medication. (In episode 3, she's toned down, for the most part.)

The premise is intelligent: being "enlightened" is a worthy goal but no walk in the park. I really want to like this show, so I'm hanging in and feel rewarded by the latest episode. Some viewers may be put off by the clash of comedy with the deeply serious nature of Amy's quest, but in real life this stuff IS funny (while you make plans, God laughs) and the first two episodes really didn't seem to know how to pitch this, just throwing everything at the wall. Finally in episode 3, Laura Dern's character Amy becomes someone I can relate to, even if she's still just hanging on by her fingernails. I love Luke Wilson's scenes as her ex-husband, but he wasn't in the third episode, which is probably good for Amy's health. His character provides an excellent historical perspective on Amy, and scenes with her mother show honestly how parents can both be supportive and drive you crazy.

Bottom line: This is an original drama with a big cast of possibly fascinating characters. It's worth watching to see how these characters develop. However, it's a weird show and may not find an audience in time to avoid the axe.

Ryan Gosling fans be warned: He is not enough of a reason to see this movie! I have no idea why Gosling would attach himself to this abysmal project. I usually love him, but this was a very repulsive character that never seemed real to me.

Although Kirsten Dunst was mostly a pleasure to watch, the direction was so slooooowww and painful that I felt like committing murder myself by the end of the first act, trapped watching awful (mostly insane) characters making awful choices.

Following a tedious start, with the droning voice-over of a lawyer questioning the main character, the lackluster script never improved. The repetitive, melodramatic plot just kept going from bad to worse. I very much regret wasting an evening on this.

From the get-go, I knew this was going to be a standard lightweight boy-meets-girl piece of something forgettable, but with pickings being so slim at this time of the year, I was willing to leave the house for some good scenes at least of salsa dancing and soundtrack. Save your money and rent Havana Nights instead... although the original soundtrack included some great rhythms, the one or two short bits of dancing could have been easily missed if you dozed off -- entirely possible given the very tired plot and phoned-in acting.

The Israeli (Italian?) lead actor looked promising but delivered zero sex appeal, while his Mexican leading lady was strictly a buffoon from beginning to end. No satisfaction whatsoever, guaranteed.

From the first minute I was irritated by the voice-over of idiotic narration that simply broadcasts hideous laziness on the part of Woody Allen. Why would he assault us this way? What does he think he added? He apparently just wanted to make subtle showing of character unnecessary -- but then why bother making the movie at all? Let's see: Maybe he thinks no one can make Scarlett look as good as he can. Or maybe he thinks Javier Bardem is overrated and set out to prove it by forcing him to talk like a robot and squelch all his sexual power. Oh, I know: maybe he just wants to show that he's such a genius that it doesn't matter what the actors do; they're really little more than mannequins, really, for him to hang his designs on. I imagine him squeezing the spirit out of the greatest actors alive, and can't understand why superstars like Bardem and Cruz would agree to work with him. Except for Penelope Cruz, Allen has managed to turn his whole talented cast into body-snatched versions of himself, as usual. I'm fed up with him.

This mini-series has to be one of the most painful things I've ever forced myself to sit through-- terrible, long-winded, and clearly badly directed (I never think about direction, but I guess like focus, you only really notice it when it's godawful).

For some reason, one of the salesgirls at blockbuster highly recommended this and when I saw it starred Richard Dreyfuss and Zooey Deschanel, I took the 2 dvds (containing the 3 parts plus special features). I've liked Zooey since I first saw her as SJP's sidekick in "Failure to Launch" but I've failed to see her play anything but since then and I'm now officially bored with her feisty cool chick routine. She hammered her one note throughout. Dreyfuss was the biggest disappointment though -- nothing but melodrama from him.

Kathleen Robertson offered up her usual soap opera yawning melodrama. And what is with that hideous botoxed mask of hers? She's a flat mannequin and it's just awful to behold.

To be fair to the actors, it was an awful script with the most repetitive, stilted dialog I've heard in a long time. How many times and in how many ways were they forced to utter, "There isn't much time!" Please--shoot me now!! The worst part of all, though, is that it ran to over 4 hours and should have been half that. Repeated, long, drawn-out sequences of walking through woods, fighting mobats or other predators, infuriated me and I had to fast-forward through many minutes to get to the inane dialog.

I can't imagine why anyone thought this would be worth the investment to make -- certainly not to watch. Please get the original Wizard of Oz -- nothing compares to it!

I was very pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the screen adaptation of what I thought was a really lame novel.

There were several factors that made for this success, the primary one being that the plot and script offered some real shape and intelligence. I remember the book as a pointless whinefest -- what was missing was that "anthropological" (albeit tongue-in-cheek) angle so beautifully developed in the movie. Not to mention a much more satisfying ending!

What a superb cast came together for this picture: Scarlett, I must say, was pitch-perfect for the role -- another surprise, as I'd begun to think of her as a one-note actress with whom I've been growing bored. Laura Linney delivered a great performance, and the kid really brought home the pathos necessary to remind us that there was more at stake than just a mixed-up twenty-one year-old trying to find herself. Alicia Keyes was yet another delightful pleasure in a supporting role.

The icing on the cake was in a double theme of parenting: The movie was obviously about the nanny's employers, but it was simultaneously a commentary on the nanny's relationship with her own mother, with both of them learning some valuable lessons through this experience as well.

The virtual invincibility of powerful evil forces in modern society is portrayed frequently in films, and here it's explored with Israeli flavor, to satisfying effect.

A depressed former hi-tech dropout and his surgeon wife have a violent encounter with road rage, and after trying to take the matter to the police discover the good citizen's route is not going to get them very far. They could cut their losses and get on with their lives, except that the emptiness and anger they've been feeling lately doesn't leave them much life to get back to anyway.

It's "Network" ('I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!') meets "Eastern Promises" and "Rambo" on the streets of Tel Aviv.

There are points at which my suspension of disbelief was somewhat strained, but I accepted these minor weaknesses in the spirit of the fable of someone refusing to be further beaten down by the corrupt systems of all our lives.

I read the book several years ago, and didn't remember much of it, beyond being fascinated by the psychological-philosophical explorations of the legendary characters and intrigued by the migraine issues that Nietszche and Breuer attempt to solve. But the book is deeply intellectual, and it was difficult to imagine it translated to the screen. Unfortunately, the director's interpretation falls very limp indeed, despite valiant attempts by a cast of worthy actors.

Melodrama substitutes in most scenes for subtlety and quiet depth. Two-dimensional beauty in the female characters substitutes for the much harder to convey inner beauty.

I found the heavy-handed artificial accents maintained by all to be especially distracting, if not constantly irritating -- the thick German/Austrian/Russian accents were like bad scenery pulling the focus from any authentic expression of the characters. The wisdom of Nietszche is disappointingly obscured in this mediocre effort.

"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Although I was disappointed in my expectation of a lot of big laughs, this relatively quiet, odd movie has grown on me since seeing it a couple of days ago. It was like being riveted by a car accident, in a way ... open-mouthed in awe, we watch as the characters' disastrous lives quietly unfold.

The punchlines are not real punchlines; somehow, they're too real and sad. But then you see the "victims" emerge from the "car-wreck" and they're okay, just a little bruised. And you feel quietly uplifted that things can work out even if your life looks pathetic and hopeless. With lowered laugh expectations, I think this movie can be very satisfying. The problem for me was the marketing of "funniest movie of the year" or some such. It isn't.

This is definitely the most banal piece of work I've seen in a long time. Although I wouldn't call "Breaking the Waves" banal, I mention it because that was the last movie I remember being so widely praised both by critics and public and totally leaving me cold. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves" -- another miserable study in desolation -- you'll probably like this one. Why anyone would find this movie interesting is beyond me. I found it completely bogus. Bill Murray's character was fascinating and I wanted to know more about him, but the young woman was a complete and utter empty bore. So a couple of lonely, depressed people in disappointing marriages find someone acceptable to spend a week with. Big whoop!! She didn't have anywhere near enough substance to make this real or interesting to me. And another thing: A big deal was made of Bob being married 25 years -- how many people have you heard of that are married 25 years and have two young kids? I could definitely have seen him married about 10 years to a much younger woman who was getting fed up with him and his lack of attention to his needy family, but after 25 years it's not about the kids anymore. But I guess it had to be "25 years" to be a HUGE contrast with Charlotte's measly two, as if that puts him in a position to pontificate. Hey, news flash kiddies: Marriage is HARD and often depressing. DUH. And a guy of 50 isn't having a midlife crisis, by the way; he's way past that particular milestone. Calling it that just puts the cherry on this huge, pretentious piece of McBanality. Oh, and what did he whisper to her in the last scene? Who cares already?! It seems the relationship between the two was the main event for admirers of this film, but for me that was what destroyed it. It should have been Bill Murray's movie, a study of his state of mind, and Charlotte should have been, like the bar singer, only a supporting role, one of the ways he attempted to assuage his pain. 3/10

As an absolute non-fan of Will Ferrell's comedy, I was dragged kicking and screaming to this movie, so my enjoyment of it came as a huge surprise. Turns out it's more of an adult movie than a child-pleaser, and some good jokes were lost on my 11-yr-old daughter (though she loved the World's Longest Burp). There were some very funny bits, but my greatest delight came from James Caan as the straight man in this script -- after I saw him a completely phoned-in goon in "Mickey Blue Eyes" a few years ago, I never wanted to see him again, but he was terrific in "Elf". Peter Dinklage is dynamite as a very full-of-himself bestselling author. And Will Ferrell was cast so perfectly that I thoroughly enjoyed him, too. Yes, it's schmaltzy, but hey -- it's Christmas; the timing is perfect. 8/10

I'm not in the demographic that should love Honey, but I enjoyed it. I certainly wouldn't recommend paying night-out prices for it, but it'll be a decent rental, and was very enjoyable for my 11-year-old daughter (the one who insisted on seeing it on opening day) -- she gave it a 9. Jessica Alba plays a Mother Teresa-as-hottie type character (think Cameron Diaz as "Mary", minus the comedy), Mekhi Phifer as a barber (as IF!), and a few cute ghetto kids who dance... all pretty much 2D stuff, but as eye candy it works for kids or innocuous dates. The movie's been compared to Flashdance, and I guess one could hardly fail to notice the homage in Alba's off-the-shoulder 80s style. Alba is part Jennifer Beals for the new millennium and part Jennifer Lopez pre-J.Lo attitude and Affleck, but she's gorgeous and she's got all the moves. You could do worse.

Jeremy Northam makes this movie worthwhile. He smoulders throughout, every line velvet that envelops seductively. His performance is masterful in its subtlety, including an exquisite scene with a child, when he grabs your heart seemingly without effort. Breathtaking. The other leads are all fine, though most seem artificial next to Northam. Action-lovers will find this a snoozer, but literary types will be intrigued. 7.5/10

An interesting (if slow) movie, my viewing suffered from being a noisy copy from the video store -- but I sat through it anyway in deference to Michael, Helen and Bob. Along the way, there were several touching life lessons to be considered, and it was worth the trouble. Probably hearing the soundtrack better would have made that interminable road trip less painful, and much of the rest of the film had the static nature of a stage play, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. 7/10

I loved this movie so much I immediately knew that I'd buy it when it comes out on video -- or I'll record and keep it, first chance I get. Because I'm thinking about how standup works and researching it, fantasizing about actually getting up and doing it, wondering how you develop material, and looking at the "great ones" like Seinfeld and Romano and wondering how their magic works ... this documentary was an amazing gift. I was very touched by the utter existential pain of these guys I see as comedy gods. When we see their finished product, it looks so smooth, so easy, like anyone could do it. The truth is finally revealed here! Early in the film, Seinfeld allays the uncertainty of another neurotic comic, and then at the end we see him getting the same reassurance from his idol, Bill Cosby. The circle of life... perfect. This movie is obviously not for anyone who's looking for a comedy, a plot, some escapism -- which appears to be the problem with some people hating it. See this if you want to know how standup comedy happens, and what happens to standup comics. Despite the noisy soundtrack often drowning out the conversations, it's a 10.

I'm a gossip addict, but this tv shlock was a disappointment, with second-rate casting -- particularly a zero sex appeal JFK Jr. who looked far too young and puppy-doggish to be the peer of his supposed colleagues -- and an insulting mocumentary-type format. Not to mention And the obnoxious and tacky framing concept of two idiotic bystanders commenting on every part of his life. The whole thing was so substandard as to make the viewer wonder what anyone ever saw in the subject himself. 5/10

I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.

I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???

Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10

This movie was so beautifully shot, but so superficial in so many ways. The characters were all cardboard, especially Richard Gere, gorgeous as ever to look at but so wasted. The godawful Helen Hunt was par for the course (so to speak), simply pounding her one-note repertoire endlessly. The list of caricatured roles played by otherwise great supporting actors is pathetic, and the script is a two-dimensional outline. Altman's opening scene of the dr's office is brilliant, but then he just gets boring.

I got bad news for any one who thinks prior expectations are what make this movie seem like junk. I watched it on a big screen in the health club having no idea what I was watching until I saw the great Angela Bassett reduced to melodramatic mugging and the normally wickedly hilarious and talented Eddie Murphy spouting campy crap. What a sad waste of resources! This is not funny, not dramatic, just nauseating in every way.