Reviews

"There's always free cheese in a mousetrap." Damn, I love that line! Lots of other quotable lines are mixed in this movie. I'm glad they chose Phillipe for the part. At least he's better than Freddie Prinze, Jr. He has more of an edge anyway. Anyways, I love seeing people bleed to death and I enjoy watching C-sections performed with bullets wizzing by the doctor's head, so I really liked this one. I think I'd take this delivery over the more conventional one I saw in DR. T & THE WOMEN. I think my heading says it best here. I'd recommend it, but I think a few weeks from now, I'll hardly remember it.

This review is about as tired as the movie itself. I don't even know why I'm writing this review, I'm telling you the same thing you've heard from everyone else. When the dancing's not going on, the movie sucks. At one point, a dancer says to another something to effect of, "hey, we can't work all the time. Let's go have some fun!" At this point, I sighed and said to myself, "why don't you keep working to keep things fun for the rest of us here in the audience?" The cliched characters and the sheer predictability are also demerits, but you already knew that. The dancing is really good, though that final number is unbelievable as hell. That's it, I think.

Cute enough and harmless enough to qualify as passable family entertainment, this movie aims for the kiddie humor, and succeeds. Shelley Long is a delight, and Craig T. Nelson portrays, well, Craig T. Nelson. This isn't great by any means, but high-spirited and upbeat.

Yeah, sure, Swayze's got the ingredients and Jennifer's quite the dish, but this movie doesn't deliver the goods in my cook book. How 'bout I knock off this urine-poor food analogy and tell ya' what I think of the movie. The dancing's great, but some nakedness would have scored some extra points with me. And even if that ending song would have actually been released when the movie takes place, I don't think that people would have been dancing to it. The song's pretty lame, and so is the movie when the dancing's not goin' on.

For a standard, cliched, predictable teenage cheerleader flick, this was entertaining. It never really got boring, and all the girls were a pleasure to look at, especially Eliza Dushku, who has changed considerably since her turn as the curiously bald-patched daughter of Robert DeNiro in THIS BOY'S LIFE. I laughed at the movie, but for not one moment did I really care about any of these people. If only movies like this gave their characters actual human "centers," then perhaps this genre wouldn't feel as tired as it does. This was good, but please God, no sequels.

The film evoked a few well-deserved chuckles but it was overall blandly constructed. The forceful acting doesn't seem to fit the laid back feel of the film. There are some films that it's great when I don't know what is going to happen next. There was a point in this film when I actually reached that point. But I also didn't seem to care what happened next either. Hoffman is great here, though.

If Wes Craven would have waited until now to make this movie, I believe that he would have had a much more effective product. It's so routine in terms of suspense and gore and character relationships, that it's hard to care about what's going on in parts. Freddy is great, however, and successfully runs a chill down my spine every time I see him (just in this movie, mind you, as well as 2 and 3, I guess). This just wasn't the psychological thriller I was hoping it would be. Instead it was just another teen slasher flick. But it still scares me, though, so what the hell am I really complaining about? And just in case you don't know already: Stay away from 4, 5, and 6. Dreadful.

Peter Seller's banter with the hot dog vender in this movie won me over, but the rest was hard to take. Along the road of twisted laughs, I found many roadblocks. One was Ringo, who did not impress me here (note: I wasn't expecting much from him either). Another was the incoherence of the storyline. At times I found myself lost, and even bored. I still have to recommend this one, though, for all the disturbing yucks it does garner are far funnier than any Hollywood stable movie of the time could offer.

The first shot of Aldo Ray in the bowling alley sums up the whole movie for me! He's all excited in that shot because he just... Wait a minute, did I just mention the word 'excited?' This is my review for HAUNTS, right? Oh, okay. Well, let's leave words like 'excited' in the bag. Hmmmm, let's see, what other words do I have in here? Here's 'awful.' And here's 'atrocious.' 'Spellbinding,' what the hell's that doing in there? Yeah, 'awful' and 'atrocious' work. So does lame, boring, hepetudinous, pointless, and confusing. But, anyway, hooray for Aldo Ray!!!

The "Poor Albert" montage alone is worth the price of admission. The relationship between Albert and Alice is bittersweet, and I found myself wanting them to end up together for some reason. The guy just killed her mother and I totally forgot about it! Zooey Hall is a real find and that little girl is so adorable. And I totally love Albert's wardrobe. He's like a psycho dressed in pimp's clothing. And that hat? Oh, my God, I just love that hat, it's just so...

The film's cheesy too, by the way. And it has the tendency to get boring in spots. It also has the tendency to be stupid too. And not all the acting is as good as Zooey's. But why carp, it's great!

There are days when I just want to lash out at Hollywood and scream, "why!! Why in God's name, why do you make movies like this?!?!" I don't follow through because I already know the painful answer. Movies like this have a target audience who pay their good, hard-earned (in most cases anyway) money to see what they want to... oh, the hell with it! It's terrible!! My God, don't you people see how bad all of this is?! Can't you see it? Can't you? It's no use.

Did anyone really watch this? I mean, REALLY watch it? Or was everyone just so captivated by the special effects that they failed to see what a bad movie this was? In all my days, I have never seen such great visual artistry put to such waste. No characters got any sympathy from me. Not even Wolverine, who was nicely played by the Aussie find Hugh Jackman. His character would have been great if the screenwriter had developed one for him. Instead we get another mad mutant guy with a troubled past, and blah, blah, blah... All the good guys fighting the bad for world domination and blah, blah, blah... I even saw this movie for free and I feel I've been ripped off. I could've spent that 104 minutes changing the oil in my Tempo.

This is a pass-the-time, laugh-every-few-minutes Sandler vehicle that comes off marginally better than his first effort, BILLY MADISON, and marginally lesser than THE WEDDING SINGER. Sandler's gentleness is his greatest quality on screen, and when he takes to screaming to no avail, it all seems unnecessary. Here, he gives ample amounts of both, explaining the hit-or-miss feel of the film. It's a funny movie, though. I'd recommend to anyone looking for a few cheap laughs.

The other night, some of us guys were talking about what is the definitive youth movie of the 1980's. KARATE KID was mentioned. DIRTY DANCING and FOOTLOOSE were uttered as well. And all those frat house/youth oriented comedies like PORKY's were also spoke of. Amidst the haze of movie titles came a shout out of for RAD. That's when social hour came to an end. We dragged the unidentified boy out back and beat him until he nearly died. Needless to say, RAD is not held in high regards in this particular circle. And for good reason too: The movie sucks. Bad.

GLADIATOR is more or less, a "tuff" movie. It's an excuse to showcase some brutal violence, as well as to showcase a knock-out performance by that one guy who broke up Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan for a little while. Oh yeah, that's Russell Crowe. That guy is "tuff!" Every scene he's in, he finds a new way to show the audience that he's a hard-ass. It's really funny when I think about it. That I'm writing the 1128th review for a movie that's as harmless as the latest installment in the LAND BEFORE TIME video series. This movie should not be the topic of debate. It matters so little. It's a neat, "epic," dumb action movie. How many of these do we see a year? This one just happened to have Russell Crowe. God, that guy's "tuff!"

With as many hits as misses, SCARY MOVIE is an obvious acquired taste. Fortunately for the film, I had an open mind going into it, excepting it for what it was right off the bat: an at times clever, but utterly tasteless shock comedy. The Farrely Brothers are probably pretty upset right now for throwing out all those extra penis, semen and pubic hair gags because they were in bad taste, so this one could snatch them all up and cash in on a now totally desensitized society. The gags that work are pretty funny and this film definately delivers to its target audience, while offending a few (if not a lot) stragglers aside.

I'm sure that the final shootout in this movie was originally written by Tarantino to be a farcicist romp, but Tony Scott makes no light of that. Instead of showing violence as absurdity, he shows it as a glamorous way of dealing with one's aggression. In fact, Scott's direction almost made me not like this film. The camera never stops and the fanatical editing is overkill. This just goes to show you that no one can direct a Tarantino script other than Tarantino himself. Old QT would have made this movie violent and funny, instead of violent and silly. The acting cannot be faulted, though. Gary Oldman, Brad Pitt and Christopher Walken are the best of the bunch. I've never cared much for Michael Rapaport, and would've much rather seen someone like Steve Buscemi play this part. And about Tom Sizemore and Chris Penn: Was I supposed to feel for these guys in the movie? I know that they're cops, but they weren't likable at all and they're introduced about three-fourth's into the film, seeming like they've come straight out of another movie. So all in all, the good things: The acting. The script. The bad things? The direction. The editing. And I'm sorry, that ending too! What cheese!

John Candy was his funniest playing the sweet simpleton type who always found a way to humiliate himself. Akroyd was only funny when he did the cocky, suave, self-sufficient type who always found a way to humiliate others. Now when these two are cast in their ideal roles for a comedy and the thing isn't funny at all, ya' know that there's something wrong. Seriously wrong. Just like in SUMMER RENTAL, John Candy is wasted amidst a trifle of a movie. He was just one of those performers, too, that never got blamed for his movies being so bad. We as an audience always felt sorry for the guy when we saw him in an awful movie. I think here, though, he may have been at fault just as all the others. But not as much. The directing certainly didn't help. I won't rate this film on a general scale, for I don't want to sound too cruel. So I'll rate it on a scale of one to ten in terms of limpness. A 10! A perfect 10!

Murnau's astounding direction guides this famous chiller along. His impeccable detail and placement of his characters in the frame is just phenomenal. In listening to the audio commentary on a DVD copy by a Murnau historian, you will know that almost every shot with Nosferatu in it has him entering and/or leaving into the center of the screen. And also listen in the commentary for the scenes where the vampire is (eek!) seducing the Jonathan Harker character, and Johnny boy is awaiting the sexual advancement with great anticipation. But besides all of that, a landmark. But you already knew that.

In terms of satire, SHOWGIRLS is pretty limp. What exactly is satiric here? In terms of parodying our sexual desires and all that mumbo jumbo? Please, if this were parodying society's addiction to sex, than I think some more actual sex would have been in the film. As full-throttle sex scenes go, there was only one, and to say the least, it was ridiculous. Whatever anyone says on here, the filmmakers were quoted to say that they made this film with the most serious of intentions. Never was the word satire or parody used in their wordplay. As far as Elizabeth Berkely's acting talent? She's a good lap dancer.

DEAD ALIVE (Braindead) is a comedy, not a horror film. There is nothing scary here. It is along the same lines as a Farrely Bros film, made to shock it's audience out of it's complacency. Only this film is crafted better than a Farrely movie, and is more disgusting. So if any of you are complaining because the film is more funny than it is scary, then that's the whole point. Peter Jackson wants you to laugh when you see this movie. If he wanted to frighten you, he'd make the film along the same lines as his other masterpiece HEAVENLY CREATURES. But, I'm sorry to say that as a work of seriousness, this film would be neither funny or scary. Just atrocious. An 8.

Pachelbel's Canon in D has never been used so movingly than in this picture. And the fact that the music is played (not very often at all, mind you) as an accompanier rather than an accelerator of the story is a grand achievement. These performances are so rich and beautiful that the small amount of music in this film could be deleted and the film would not be fazed in the least. The opening sets the tone, with the emptiness of the lake, the singular piano strum (?) juxtaposing the family in their isolated world of depression, unfulfillment and unspoken words. Hutton displayed versatility here never matched again after. Moore is menacingly effective as the mother totally devoid of emotion. Sutherland is the man trying to hold it all together, and comes off as the most effective of the bunch. And for some odd reason he was snubbed by the Academy. An absolute masterwork of communication and conflict tactics amongst upper-suburbanites.

This is Stanley's most intense work. Now if only Jack Nicholson were cast in the lead role instead of Douglas, we'd have ourselves probably the best war film ever! The girl singing in the end is particularly shattering. Steven Spielberg noted that same part as the quintesential Kubrick moment in film. An immense work, worthy of the greatest accolades, and the receiver of none.

To all the users who enjoyed this film: Good for you. You can spend the rest of your life, now, knowing that you enjoyed an unnecessary film. How funny it is, huh? That a film matters so little. That it isn't even worth the price of the film it's on. That's great for you guys. Go on loving this movie. Quoting Leonard Maltin, I'll just say the movie was as interesting as "watching a camel spit-dry." Horrendous, pretentious, awful, atrocious, agonizing, etc., etc., etc.

Even better than the original in my book. Even when the monsters aren't in sight, the film is interesting as a multiple character study and as a metaphor for the civilization of mankind. A chilling study of how we adapt, how we live and breathe as a functioning unit, and how we inevitably come together as a family as a response to being isolated. These characters are actual human beings. That's what makes this film so horrifying. It tells us as a society that no matter how strong the bond we weave together as a family, anything can tear it apart. The fact that it's dead people is only the macguffin of the story, the cover-up of the family drama/social satire. It's these reasons that the film is among the greatest of horror films.