Reviews

I have loved Bill's show for decades, but lately he began to shift to uncomfortable positions. I became worried that he would turn into a new Dennis Miller.

The main problem is his covid stance. He applauded the Swedish approach even when it turned out that they only killed more old age people than any country around them and did not gain anything in return, because herd immunity did not work. (Same in Britain, the only major country with worse covid statistics than the US.) Now he declares the pandemic over while 1,400 people die from it every day and thousands of hospital beds are occupied by the unvaccinated, so people with other problems miss out on essential treatments.

Also, according to Bill we can either take a vaccine or use a mask, not both. That's just stupid.

On the same show, Bill allows certified liar Sean Spicer to keep spouting his election fraud lies for minutes on end without cutting him off or being able to present him with the real facts. If you don't want to do your homework, don't invite a guest who will lie you under the table.

Also, Bill seems to be both for and against cancel culture. The fact alone that he spends half his time on this topic is helping Republicans. They love nothing more than Democratic infighting on this fake controversy.

Good thing Jon Stewart is back. Someone who still has his wits about him, and his heart in the right place.

I will miss Real Time.

There is a lot wrong with the whole premise but particularly the execution of this movie, although it shows some elements of a heart warming and original story. Unfortunately, the project ended up in the hands of an inadequate writer and/or director and a wooden cast.

The only redeeming factor in Breakfast with Scot is the wonderful performance by Noah Bernett, who plays the role of Scot. He shows a wide range of emotions and is exactly as over-the-top and camp as his character demands, without going over the top as an actor. Yes, even a camp boy can still be all boy at times.

I read a comment from someone who doubted that a boy this age would act this way. My advise: go to YouTube and look around. You will find kids Scot's age or even younger who act just like him and often even more camp. Welcome to the 21st century. Scot is the only believable character in this movie.

The basic idea behind The Happening could have been written down on a single sheet of paper and sold to a producer to turn into a good movie. Unfortunately, it ended up being worked out as a script and filmed by a writer/director who has completely lost his way. Intervention for M. Night Shyamalan, anyone?

The acting is wooden, no exceptions, and reminded me of some of the worst porn movies I have... heard about. Had I not seen Wahlberg and even Leguizamo in much better roles before, I would have written them off as serious actors on the basis of their performances in this film. I can only imagine how bad they must feel about their decision to get involved with this project.

There is no internal logic to any of the actions of the characters. Many scenes are just loose ends without any contribution to the plot development. That includes the few scares, which mainly consist of cheap tricks. Some of the horror effects made me laugh; half way into the movie I began to wonder if the surprise Shyamalan had in store for us this time, was that it was in fact a black comedy. No such luck.

Please, M. Night Shyamalan, stop writing and directing. In stead, sell your pitches to people who know how to write a script, direct actors and basically, make movies.

I don't mind these kind of movies when made by the likes of Rodriguez or Tarantino. They have the decency to inject some comic relief on one or more levels, so we can forgive them for being over the top, full of gratuitous violence and lacking any sense.

Unfortunately, this director seems to take himself and his movie serious. It all starts out promising enough, apart from the sentimental soundtrack that accompanies the sad scenes, but soon the whole plot falls apart. Look at the forum if you need a list of all the stupid ideas in this movie (as someone else mentioned, you do not learn how to shoot a gun by pointing it at the stuff in your shed and looking mean, but that is just one of about a thousand blunders).

I was amazed by the sheer beauty of the images in this made-for-TV movie. The views are breathtaking. Everything looks simply wonderful: the island, the sea, the villas ('our' family moves to a new house whenever they feel the need arise), the locals and an interesting flock of visitors, and of course the abundant wildlife on Corfu.

The story is quite funny sometimes, and at one point even moving, the acting is very good and the direction and editing are spot on. What matters is that non of it gets in the way of what this movie tries to accomplish.

My Family And Other Animals is about the beauty of nature, as seen by a boy. After watching it, you can understand why someone like him would spend his life studying that subject. This movie feels like a breath of fresh air, bringing the viewer back to the days when such a thing existed. Every boy (or girl) should be able to spend his youth this way.

This is not the animated series that many readers may know, and which is still being broadcast around the world, but the original live action TV-series about little Sébastien and his dog.

I can't remember anything about the story. What I do remember is being glued to the television screen every time an episode was on, as a young kid. It is a typical French children's story in the tradition of Hector Malot's novel Sans Famile, so expect some very emotional moments.

Young Mehdi El Glaoui, who played the leading role, was/is the adopted son of co-director and writer Cécile Aubry. He also sings the title song l'Oiseau.

I look forward to watching the series again, as it appears that it was recently published on DVD.

Where did Osama Bin Laden come from, and why does he hate the American way of life? Why do the American neo-conservatists want the public to believe in a world wide conspiracy of evil, operating from vast underground complexes that look like a James Bond film set? In a world that has just witnessed the worst natural disaster in known history, why are our nightmares filled with images of bearded men and dirty bombs? This three-part documentary gives the answers. In a cool, factual manner, it goes back to the historic roots of both sides in this lukewarm war, and shows us how eerily similar they are. That is what is really scary about the war on terrorism. This series is essential viewing for everyone who wants to understand the most important conflict of our time. Which should include you.

American TV shows have always had a tendency to be formulaic, predictable and boring. Even if the pilot for a new series was well written and directed, a few episodes later I found myself looking at the same old, tired plots that I remember from my youth. Fortunately, a new breed of shows has emerged recently. Nobody could confuse Sopranos, Six feet under and 24 for Bonanza, The six million dollar man or Ironside. But Huff really outshines them all. The story is original, very well written and beautifully acted (kudos to the casting agent). The characters are rich and complex, the dialog is razor sharp and the plots keep you guessing and waiting for the next twist. My main fear is that the quality of this show will prevent it from finding a wide enough audience. Oh well, I will enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts.

Put Seven and The Cube in a blender and make an audience drink the dribble that comes out.

There is a clever twist near the end of Saw, but it is hard to enjoy if by then you have lost all interest. This movie wants us to believe in a madman with not only superior intelligence, but also unlimited resources and time to create a world full of electronic gadgets, props and puppets that Q would be jealous of. His opponents/victims are either incredibly stupid, or turn from rational beings into sobbing idiots at the snap of a director's fingers.

Movies like Seven stand out for a reason. It is not hard to think up stuff that shocks and upsets. A good plot twist is a little harder to invent, but anybody can do it. The real challenge is in trying to construct a plot that an audience can believe in. It is like walking a tightrope: set one foot wrong and you're dead. Saw tries to reach the other side hopping, skipping and jumping, but ends up flat on it's face.

Team America: World Police has a lot going for it. The idea of using puppets is in itself ingenious, well chosen and very well executed. Much more fun than the original, both puppet-wise (Thunderbirds) and actor-wise (live action hero movies). Where it horribly fails is in it's morality. In the end, this movie is much like the Fox 'news' department in that it seems to take the views of the neoconservatives as gospel, thereby turning itself into a weapon of mass manipulation. When people in the entertainment industry turn into liberal spokespersons, most harm they can do is bore us to death. On the other hand, when people in that same industry turn into propagandists of a regime that is suspect at best, and may someday be exposed as McCarthy times a thousand, they are playing with fire. Leni Riefenstahl would have struggled to make such a reactionary endorsement for her favorite 'war president' of that era. Satire should be independent and critical of regimes, not endorse the worst forms of conservatism and bigotry they represent. The uneasy feeling of hearing views expressed that are shared by the people who pull Bush's cords, spoils what could have been a great cinematic experience.

Stepford Wives is a feeble attempt at a comedy-thriller. It contains some very funny moments, but not enough to carry the movie, and I can recall only one real scare in the whole movie.

What I do remember is the look on Nicole Kidman's face at the end of the opening sequence, when her old life is starting to fall apart. It is a long, drawn-out close-up that deserves to be made into a short.

At the moment, Nicole is an actress in a class of her own, as this scene shows. Unfortunately, it is not enough reason to go watch the movie, unless you are in a silly mood and have the right company. The rest of you will have to wait for that scene to be made into a short.

Ever since I first saw Jim Carrey in the TV-show In Living Color, I knew there was something special about him. It was hardly a surprise to see his movie career take off. What was surprising, were the kind of roles he picked. His early success relied heavily on his rubber face, and it would have been all too easy to stick to movies like Ace, Dumb & Dumber and The Mask. Fortunately for us, he didn't.

In The Cable Guy and The Truman Show, he showed that he had no fear to take on more serious, darker material. Those movies were still covered in thick layers of Hollywood plastic, but seemed to hold a promise of better things to come. Even more telling, at least to me, was Carrey's TV-appearance with Ruby Wax. He was more honest, vulnerable and... real than any other guest before him.

Still, nothing prepared me for his role in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Here, Jim Carrey fulfils his early promise in full. His portrayal of an insecure guy in search of some happiness hits home. This is a breathtaking performance, because we do not see Carrey acting, but just being himself - or so he makes us believe.

But let us not focus on just one actor, wonderful (and promising) as his role may be. All the actors in this movie are great. Winslet is simply wonderful. Dunst, Wood, Ruffalo... all are surprisingly good. Even Wilkinson, one of those lesser known actors that you like to tell your friends about, is at the top of his game here.

However, this is much more than an actors' movie. Writer Kaufman, co-writer/director Gondry and editor Óskarsdóttir have together produced a chef d'oeuvre that shows a way out for an industry, stuck in a loop of formulaic, CGI- and special effects-driven fast food. Let us hope that others will pick up the vibe, and not turn this into a new formula, but use it as an inspiration to create more original works of art.

The story of Peter Pan is a true classic, but I had never seen a Peter Pan movie that I really liked before. The animated Disney version was not bad, just over the top and too 'Disneyfied'. Spielberg's Hook was simply awful; casting an old guy in the role of the eternal boy was one of the biggest mistakes he has ever made. However, most of his colleagues made matters even worse by letting old women play Peter. Reviewers of those movies sometimes applaud the fact that adults 'and even some children' in the audience managed to suspend their disbelief. Hey, wouldn't it have made more sense to cast a Peter that you could simply believe in?

Director P.J. Hogan has certainly managed to do that in this new version. Lead star Jeremy Sumpter was born to play Peter Pan. His role is simply the best by a young actor that I have seen in many years. Let us hope that he will not be pigeon-holed for years to come, as happened to Haley Joel Osment. Somehow, I have a feeling that we do not have to worry about that in Sumpter's case.

The rest of the cast is equally good, some are even excellent, but fortunately none of them distract from the story (as Dustin Hoffman did in Hook). The same goes for the action and CGI sequences. It all blends together in a wonderful movie that is capable of keeping both children and adults like me glued to their seats. This Peter Pan is exciting, moving and breathtaking. It is a movie that I definitely want to see again. 10/10

Nobody acts or reacts like a normal person in this movie. Not once. Not because this movie is meant to be funny or off-beat, but because both writer and director were either too stupid or too lazy to come up with any decent plot twist or believable character. What is worse, there are no real scares or laughs at any time.

Watch this one only after all other movies have been eaten by some film-eating bug. Then destroy it.

If all movies had to be destroyed and only one could be spared, Death in Venice would have to be it. It is a monument in movie history. Much criticized for being slow, boring and too obvious in stating it's point (an old man discovers beauty in a young boy and is tragically destroyed, first mentally, then physically), we should appreciate this movie for what it is. 'Morte a Venezia' was shot over 30 years ago, and it portrays a period even further back, at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Life was slow then, compared to now. People were supposed to behave in a certain way, hiding their true emotions even from themselves. Director Visconti and Dirk Bogarde, the leading actor, admirably succeed in showing how the aging composer Von Aschenbach discovers his romantic interest in a young boy. For a man like Von Aschenbach, in his time, this must have been a shock too powerful to come to terms with. We see his inner struggle, mostly on the face of Bogarde, against the beautiful backdrop of Venice and accompanied by the most wonderful music, composed by Gustav Mahler.

This movie is slow, there is no denying it. No special effects, car chases or fights to keep the audience pinned to their seats. No perverted sex scenes either; the interaction between man and boy is limited to stolen glances from afar and the occasional smile.

So, basically, nothing much happens in this movie? Not if you want your senses to be hit like a base drum. If you want them to be played like the strings of a violin in a romantic concerto, this is the movie to do it.

Rise of the Machines is, all things considered, a worthy sequel to two of the best action/sci-fi movies in history. Sure, it has it's flaws. A longer (and different) introduction before the two terminators arrive and hit the action button, would have made it look less like Terminator 2. And it is a shame that Nick Stahl has to play a wimp for such a large part of the movie. This is not how I remembered John Connor from T2, and Nick does not get much chance to show he can play a tough guy too. Still, the action is amazing, as are some of the plot twists - especially the ending. All in all, I was pleasantly surprised. Will you be? Hard to say, as this depends on what you were expecting. I recommend giving it a try: you would not want to miss that chase...

This is one of the best movies ever made. It is beautifully shot, has great music, an amazing story and it is deeply touching. The first time I watched it, in a movie theater, I just sat there after the film had ended, emotionally exhausted. Since then, I have seen it on TV and on a bad copy of a VHS tape, neither of which do this wonderful movie justice. So the question is: why is there no DVD available of one of the best movies ever made? Someone must own the rights; or are they in an insane asylum?

Edit: Since I first wrote this comment, the DVD has been published. I advise anyone who likes great, artistic movies to do as I did and buy it.

How can this movie get such a low rating? It is really well made, has some very funny moments and the casting is excellent. Dennis is cute as a button and totally believable, his parents are.. well, just perfect and mr Wilson is the best mr Wilson you could wish for. The same applies to many of the smaller roles. And then there is Christopher Lloyd in one of his best performances ever. I loved this movie, both the first and second time I saw it. It deserves at least an 8, so I gave it a 9 to boost the score.

This movie, about a young boy who discovers he can play chess by just watching others play it in the park, follows a well known formula: young athlete with natural talent is discovered, quickly rises to fame, then finds seemingly unbeatable opponent and decides it is better to give up than to be beaten. Will he conquer his inner fears, come back and beat his opponent?

What makes this movie different is the fact that it is not about a hard hitting baseball player or boxer, but about a sweet, intelligent and sensitive kid with a beautiful mind.

The movie is very well made. For most of it, the director and great cast never miss a beat. All the characters are believable and multidimensional, the script is very well written and there are some very clever shots, all resulting in a wonderful, emotionally moving picture.

This could have been the perfect sports movie, but in the last part, where the final showdown takes place and everyone is rooting for the boy, it just goes slightly over the top. A small blemish, keeping me from voting this movie a 10 out of 10. It is still a solid 9, and for me by far the best sports movie ever made. As others have noted before, it also stands the test of time and bears repeated viewing.

This movie is not as good as it's sequel Aliens. It is infinitely better.

Alien has set a new standard for SF horror movies. It works on many levels: atmosphere, photography, acting, sets, scares, plot twists, story, sound and music are all great. What sets it apart is it's realism.

For starters, there is the mixed bunch of characters; nobody is flawless and they all interact in a believable manner. Then there is the way the crew is split up in staff and support, each disliking and distrusting the other species, with engineers playing little power games to boost their self esteem. Another great concept, and quite new in SF at the time, is how new technology is presented as a matter of fact, and often does not work.

This, together with the way the movie is directed, shot and cut, results in a first part which is simply unique in movie history. From the awakening of the spaceship crew right up to the scene where the alien first rears it's ugly head, these images belong to the best ever created for the big screen.

The rest of the movie is not bad, but this is where I usually drift off when the movie is rerun on tv. I try to be back for the final scene on board the escape module, which is also a classic. If the part in between would have been slightly better, this might have been my favorite movie of all time. As it is, it is still in the top 20.

Every now and then, a haunting little harmonica solo creeps back into my mind. It starts out as a simple sequence of double notes, then changes gear and turns into a beautiful melody. That haunting solo is the theme song from Midnight Cowboy. It's arrangement - and indeed the melody itself - are reminiscent of early Bond movies. Which makes sense, as it was composed by John Barry. But what makes it into such a heartbreakingly beautiful song is the inimitable style of harmonica virtuoso Toots Thielemans.

There have been greater movie scores, but never a theme song which captured a movie's atmosphere better than this one. Midnight Cowboy tells the story of a country boy who sets out to conquer the big city, only to discover he is no match for his opponent. A theme that has been told before and since, but never as well as in this movie. Sad and funny moments are mixed with just the right amount of irony and realism. Outstanding performances by Hoffman and Voight and great direction by Schlesinger make this movie a true classic. And Toots will never let me forget it.

This documentary about the use of guns in American society will touch the soul of every true human being. The sad thing is, although most Americans belong to that category, a majority of them keep falling into the traps of the twisted and sick minded who tell them that the poor and underprivileged should be held down, not helped up. Spreading fear as a way to control the world, indeed. Every bad guy in history has done that.

Will I live to see the day when the USA comes to it's senses and starts helping people in stead of excluding and executing them? Probably not, but at least Michael Moore gives me a spark of hope. Thanks for that, and for doing it in a really smart and thoughtful way.

What a complete waste of time. I watched it because of some raving reviews here. I wish I could erase them to spare others from wasting their time. After the first scene I wanted to turn off the DVD. I didn't because I did not want to miss the good stuff that - according to the reviews - was in there somewhere. Well, it wasn't. This movie is not realistic, scary, interesting or even funny. It is utterly boring. The only good thing about it is that it ends.

Death in Venice is a movie I need to see once every ten years. It is always different, because I am always at a different stage of life.

The movie is about art, beauty, longing, death. Some scenes are painfully slow, others simply annoying to watch, especially if you have seem them before. Yet I would not want to miss a single frame. The music is repetitive, the main theme of the adagietto from Mahler's fifth is used again and again. Yet I would not want to miss a single note. When the last image fades, the last note dies, I am left numb and exhausted.

This movie is a monument to film making. As with most really good movies, the saturday evening crowd should stay away from it. And this is simply the best movie ever.

I like this movie. It is different, interesting and unpredictable until the end. It is also hard to fit into any category. Isn't that nice? If you like your movies neatly packaged and labeled, this is not for you. If you like to be surprised, it is.