Reviews

American Pie: Beta House is sort of in limbo between genres. On the one hand, it's a comedy with no plot and few genuinely clever jokes. On the other hand, it's porno that's a tad too soft-core to actually turn on any viewers. Essentially Beta House is a collage of sex scenes - some humiliating, others just lame attempts at humor - with a couple thin plot points thrown in an effort at cohesiveness. The characters are barely even two-dimensional, most development relies on knowledge of Naked Mile, and the "important" plot scenes are so far apart that you wonder why the writers even felt the need for a story.

In all fairness, I did not go into this movie without expectations. I liked the original three American Pie movies, and thought Band Camp and Naked Mile were solid rentals. I thought Naked Mile was almost good enough to be released in theaters, and so when I saw that some of the same characters were returning for Beta House, I was excited to see this installment. I was aware that there would be numerous scenes of debauchery and sexual humiliation in multiple forms. And I was fine with it, because in the past, these scenes were backed by the story and were well integrated into the plot. In Beta House, however, it's almost as if the writers forgot why the formula in the other AP movies worked. They spent too much energy working in the nudity that they forgot to actually write a story.

This movie is a disappointment and not even worth a one-dollar rental. The jokes are lame, the story is non-existent, and the porno-aspect is too tame if that's all you really care about seeing.

Let me be clear about one thing: This is not a good film. The narrative is sorely lacking in places, the dialogue is nothing special, and in some parts the acting is almost painful to watch. In too many cases the director attempts to cover up bad writing with disgusting and disturbing special effects - a sad trend in today's horror cinema. And speaking of horror, outside of those special effects, very little in this movie is actually scaring. There are no ominous moments, nothing to psychologically shake the viewer, and what few genuine scares the film does contain are all pretty much ruined by the all-too-obvious accompanying music cues.

That said, if you watch this as something other than a horror film, it can actually be fairly entertaining. This is more along the lines of something like Evil Dead 2, Planet Terror, or Army of Darkness - each of which has about the same amount of realism as The Hills Have Eyes. This movie features a mixture of comedy and action similar to the previously mentioned movies. The violence gets quite comical at parts, and the fight sequences are pretty well-coordinated. While THHE lack's the clever catchphrases that make Ash so popular, it does manage to maintain one's interest throughout the movie. In fact, if the creators had spent more time molding the movie into something like Army of Darkness, this would probably have turned out to be a much better film. Unfortunately, it suffers from attempts to keep it in the horror genre, and the makers do not have enough imagination to make that concept work here. As an action-thriller-comedy, however, it's worth a rental.

I would estimate that I've seen over a thousand movies in my lifetime. FeardotCom may very well be the worst of those films. The acting is bad, the dialogue is worse, and the editing is terrible. The film lacks coherence, cohesiveness, and, in some parts, comprehensiveness. The film manages to maintain its unwatchability for over an hour, but by that point the viewer will probably have already logged onto www.feardotcom.com in hopes of ending the misery. If I had been able to give this movie less than a star, I would have done so in a heartbeat. Do not make the mistake of renting this movie; there's a small chance it may scare you, but the odds of that happening are not worth sitting through 90 minutes of some of the worst examples of film-making.

After reading many of the comments by film critics, I was hesitant to pay to see this movie in the theaters. It was only by chance that I ended up in a theater with two and a half hours to kill, and where The Ring 2 was the only film with a soon-enough starting time that I had any interest in seeing. I went into the film expecting it to be horrible.

I ended up being surprised.

The Ring 2 is a completely different movie from the first one. The first Ring film was a psychological thriller about a mysterious video tape that seemed to kill whoever saw it. Despite the fact that it left a number of key plot points unresolved - for example, how a little girl was able to transmit her thoughts into a VCR-ready tape in the first place is never explained - the first one became a huge success because the horror was from an unexpected source. How does someone who knows they only have seven days to live unless they solve a bizarre mystery is an interesting take on the survival horror genre.

I only write so much about the first film because it is necessary for a proper explanation as to why people may have disliked the second film.

The Ring 2, despite any reports you may hear, is indeed a true sequel. There are a number of plot points that someone who had not seen the first one would not clearly understand. In fact, without seeing the first film, the second would probably seem so bizarre that viewers would be bound to dislike it.

While The Ring 2 is indeed a true sequel, it is not done in the same style as the first film, and I believe that turned critics who were expecting more of the same away. The horror this time is not in beating a time limit to stave off some unforeseen consequences. As many of the reviewers have hinted, the horror this time around is in the possibility that Naomi Watts' son is somehow causing the trouble. One could say that, if anything, this would be a mother's worst fear.

Most of the scares come from Watts' struggle to figure out what is going on around her, and why her son has suddenly developed a cold that lowers his body temperature. Again, very different from the first movie, but still effective.

Furthermore, while this would likely enrage horror film purists, the filmmakers do add a little bit of depth to the story. Themes of domestic abuse, the connection between a child and their need for a mother, and the power of love are all explored to some degree during the course of the film.

I do not pretend that The Ring 2 is better than, or even as good as, the first one. It's not. There are too many loose ends that get conveniently tied up, some of the events even after being explained still seem unclear, and there are a number of ways the ending could have been more powerful. Overall, however, The Ring 2 was an enjoyable experience. It was different from the first one, yes, but different is not always bad. If anything, it should come out on DVD soon, so at least give it a rent. You might be surprised.

I'm not sure whether or not Pumpkin was a good movie. It could be artistic genius, or it could be a group of writers, directors and sound guys who just do not know what they are doing.

If the film was indeed intended to be artistic, then the acting was not so bad because most of the most of the actors can be excused for not adding depth to their performances. The fact that the actors who play the two lead roles, Pumpkin and Kent, actually do lend better than stereotypical performances to this film, however, makes one wonder just how intention was the suckiness provided by the other actors.

Overall, however, his was a decent film that keeps audiences watching, and the filmmakers should be commended for doing a movie on this particular subject. Sadly, when we see films centered on mental illness, they usually involve some rare disease unknown to most people. While I do respect the fact that those movies are made to increase awareness on those diseases, I would like to see more films made about those people like Pumpkin who just have basic mental retardation.

The film could have been better if they had treated this subject more seriously. Random inexplicable plot events, horrible sound effects and terrible choices in background music do not a good movie make.

I'll say this much: This is one of the better shows on television right now. But that's not really saying much, as television programming has been pretty sad lately.

For some reason I decided to sit down and watch the first episode of this series. Then, for some crazier reason, I sat down and watched the second episode. I'm still trying to figure out why I came back for the second viewing.

It wasn't because of the acting. Don't get me wrong, Peter Gallagher and the guy who plays Ryan, the main character, both did excellent jobs. They were the only two performances that really stuck out at me, however, as everyone else seemed either typecast or just one-dimensional in their performances.

And I didn't return for the second episode because of the dialouge, either. The writing was probably the worst feature of the show. It is entirely possible that some of these actors appeared so awful because there was so little they could do with the lines with which they had to work.

And it wasn't because of the realistic premise of the show, either - I remember high school (I went to one in an upper class city), and it was nothing like depicted on the show.

So what was it that brought me back? The story. Not the dialouge, which, if anything, takes away from the story, but the plot in itself was very intriguing. The idea of a pro bono lawyer taking in a troubled teen is interesting, and I am curious to see how it plays out. The relationship between the lawyer's son and the homeless teen is also something that could become interesting to watch.

So, I guess that a good plot can overcome other glaring weaknesses, but not for long. Fox basically has luck on their side that there are so few quality television programs on the air right now, that one that shows even the remotest sign of potential can draw in viewers. But how long these faint traces of quality can sustain a show, only time will tell.

If ever there was a movie that was completely ruined by it's ending,

Unbreakable is it. Instead of spending the film on a real ending,

they spend time filming unimportant scenes that make the movie

slow moving. I kid you not, there is an entire scene where Willis'

character pours himself a glass of orange juice that has NOTHING

to do with the plot. The important stuff comes after he pours the

glass, but viewers have to suffer through the wasted film anyway. It

had a great plot synopsis, great acting, and a lot of originality. But

all this is thrown away by an unsufficient ending that leaves you

wondering, "I sat here all this time for THIS?"

In all honesty, this could have been a really good movie. The build-up was great, the actors were excellent, and the plot was a cool idea. However, if there was ever a movie that was ruined by its ending, this is it. Without spoiling anything for you, I'll just say that the movie should have, and very well could have, gone on for another half hour. Instead, the director wastes so much footage on things that people do not need to see. For example, at least a good minute is wasted on watching Bruce Willis pour orange juice. There's no dialogue, nothing going on central to the movie, just the pouring of orange juice. Again, until the ending it was a very good movie; If the director had just better juggled which scenes were neccessary and which weren't, and then used the extra film to actually give the viewers a conclusion, it would have been better. As it is, it's not that great.

When I rented this film, my friends and I had read the back of the box and mistakingly thought it was a comedy. Although it in some ways does spoof con movies, it really isn't that funny, and thus we were disappointed. However, as a con movie, it isn't half bad. The film keeps taking plot turns with helpful (or, if you're like me and have a good memory, annoying) flashbacks that keep the viewer in to the picture. Seth Green is very good, playing the quirky but brilliant room mate, and the Brad Pitt look-a-like is a decent actor. My only two complaints, and they weren't small ones were as such: 1) If you weren't paying full attention to every single moment of the film, you would miss out on something that would be brought up again later on. I didn't mind that, but most of my friends were confused by several crucial plot changes because of that. And then 2) It was too predictable. Again, that's just my opinion. I was calling the ending LONG before it happened, but the other people I was watching with didn't pick up on that, so it might be that I'm just too smart for my own good. Stonebrook is not the best con job film ever, but it definitely does not suck.

If you view this film as an action film, you'll be very disappointed. The overall intent of the picture is to more or less spoof action films-therefore you get very cheesy dialogue, cliche scenes, and a lot of dramatic irony.

Even if you view the film as a comedy, you're still likely to be disappointed. It is by far not hilarious, and I've seen Arnold in funnier roles. But, as a stand alone spoof, it is definitely worth a look, especially late at night with some friends who aren't looking to get anything serious out of the film.

That said, The Last Action Hero is not a bad film. There are several scenes that are pretty funny, including an early parody of Hamlet with Arnold portraying the title character. Also, the running gag of Arnold not knowing that in Danny's world he is a huge action star remains funny throughout the film. References to this, such as the famous video store scene filled with cameos, do evoke a few chuckles.

In conclusion, The Last Action Hero is not to be taken very seriously. It's not an action film, and it more or less tries to be a spoof. Although it's not the greatest movie ever made, it is the kind of movie that you can just gather around with a group of friends and get some meaningless enjoyment - which, in my experience, is one of the best ways to watch movies.

Critics, IMDB voters, and realists threw this film away for it's bad jokes, awkward script workings, and unbelievable plot set-ups. Odds are, the same people who did this are the same ones who watched the show on television for the exact same reasons when they were younger. The show, often compared to "The Simpsons," was based on horrible puns, unbelievable plots, and awkward scripts. This film does a masterful job of recreating the television series. So, if the movie doesn't strike you as quality, you probably also will dislike the cartoon series. And if you weren't too crazy about the cartoon, the movie is not going to be any better. However, the film is basically one long version of the cartoon. The only thing that disappointed me was that there was no interrupting "Fractured Fairy Tale," Sherman and Peabody didn't make an appearance, and the film ended without awful puns referencing future 'episodes.' Otherwise, this is a delightful film that will bring back fond memories of the classic television show.

Seriously, this is the funniest movie I have ever seen. True, judging by the name alone you can tell it has to be pretty funny. If you haven't lost it by the end of the prologue, you have no sense of humor at all. I mean, the whole scene (not just the concealed items in the fro part) is very comically well done! The movie alone beats anything Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, or Chris Rock have ever done. This is the comedy that beats all comedies. It--- Huh? It's supposed to be a horror flick? Huh. You learn something new every day. Well, it's funny, and a fun way to spend a Friday Night with friends who do not take everything seriously.