Reviews

If you a fan of Green Lantern, you should love this movie as I thought it truly captured the spirit of the comic. I bought the Green Lantern comics back in the '60s and early '70s and this film nailed him pretty well. There are also elements of more recent Green Lantern stories with Parallax and Hal Jordan's family. It integrated the new elements with the old pretty well. Essentially, it's a super hero movie with a twist of sci-fi. There is far less comic relief in this movie than in most super hero films. All the comedy can be seen in the previews for the most part. The depiction of Parallax may be a bit silly, but a little suspension of disbelief should make for a very entertaining and enjoyable film.

Badly written episode. It logically failed on every level. First off, the writers seem to think that each comic book is the original art. They are not. They are far removed from the original art. The original art is copied, inked, photographed and shrunk down, colored and printed. There would be no reason to forge the artwork. If one wanted to create a forgery, one would scan the original and reprint it, not redraw it. Why would you need to redraw it?

A comic from 1962 is supposed to be the rarest and most valuable? WTF? The rarest comic books are going to be from the 1930s, not the 1960s. Why was there only one in existence? Since the stupid premise of this episode was that a comic had to be redrawn to be reprinted and there was only one copy in existence, how did the forger redraw it if he didn't have that sole copy? Did this not occur to any of the producers of the show or do they not care.

What was the point of placing the stolen original comic in the auction? I'm assuming it was to explain how the original was acquired which seems pretty thin to me. The simple action would have been to send the original to the artist's wife anonymously after the artist's death. No explanation required. Going along with the auction premise, the real stupidity was placing the original in the auction for them to buy. Why? They already had the original. Buy a forgery and later you could claim the original was the one you bought at the auction. Again, it makes zero sense. It's just embarrassingly bad.

Incredibly stupid episode and easily the worst episode of the series. It's just stunning that nobody seems to notice or care how badly written it was. My best guess is that an existing script dealing with art forgeries was lazily adapted and changed to comic books to make it more unique. A lot of the lapses in logic could then be explained away. Just awful!

For the record, I have never used the word 'stupid' more in a review than I did for this one.

Coming off the 'incredible' "Iron Man", Marvel Comics produces "The Incredible Hulk". Unfortunately, 'incredible' is a slight exaggeration. Don't get me wrong, it's an entertaining film; far more than the 2003 "Hulk" film which tended to take itself too seriously. This is the Hulk. Hulk smash should be the top priority of a Hulk film. For this reason, this film is a reboot rather than a sequel to the 2003 film. The Hulk's origin is told through still photos and captions during the opening credits and this origin tends to echo more of the TV show than either the comics (gamma bomb exposure) or the previous film (a convoluted mess). The CGI seemed a little sub par. At times I felt I was watching a cartoon. At least they rendered the Hulk a darker tone instead of the Shrek coloured green from the previous film. I suspect it will look better on the small screen. Comic fans will likely enjoy the loads of references to Marvel Comics characters, most notably, Captain America's super soldier formula. The film boasts an 'incredible' cast and everyone does a more than adequate job. I look forward to seeing what Marvel can do with their next project, Thor.

I really can't believe how bad this film was. "Raiders of The Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade" are both great and highly entertaining films. "...Temple of Doom", unfortunately, was an exercise in excess; most everything was over the top or just plain corny. At times, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" falls into some of those same traps but what's worse, that is the least of it's problems. The script is an aimless mess that is made worse by the terrible dialogue. It would be easy to blame Lucas for all the film's shortcomings but the direction is just as bad. Many scenes are incredibly contrived and feel like a bad made for TV movie. Spielberg's direction of Karen Allen as Marion is particularly bad as she smiles and acts over the top completely oblivious to what is going on around her. The film takes place in 1957 and to make sure that everyone is aware of this, they cram every '50s stereotype into the first third of the film. I think the fact that there was a caption saying Nevada 1957 got that notion across. Despite the presence of Harrison Ford and the occasional strains of the Indy theme fanfare, it seldom feels like an Indiana Jones film. It was tedious, predictable, badly written, and poorly directed. Even the special effects were substandard. There isn't much nice to say about this film. And what was up with the monkeys and prairie hogs?

Romantic comedies are, by nature, formulaic predictable fluff. "Music and Lyrics" is no exception. Guy meets girl, guy loses girl, guy gets girl. That's the plot. What makes this film better than most in the genre are likable characters performed by amiable actors in a story that doesn't feel forced with enough funny smart gags to keep you entertained. Particularly amusing was the mock '80s music video that opened the film. Grant and Barrymore turn in their usual likable performances as leads Alex, a former '80s pop star, and Sophie, his protégé lyricist. Brad Garret does a wonderful job as Alex's manager. Who really stole the show, however, was "3rd Rock" actress Kristen Johnston as Sophie's older sister. Fans of the genre should seek this one out.

The film "Cloverfield" seems to have a polarizing affect on most; people tend to love or hate it. Reading through the comments and reviews the past week, it seems that a lot of the folks who love it made up their mind before they even saw it. The folks who hate it all seem to list the same reasons such as the motion of the hand held camera, the ending, the lack of any sort of exposition, or elements they found improbable (i.e. surviving a helicopter crash, the battery life of the camcorder, or the survival of the video after the bombing). I didn't have a problem suspending disbelief for most of the film. I found most of it quite believable save for one element. The character Hud is videotaping the exploit because he feels it is important and people will need to see it later. This makes sense. The movie took place over a 7 to 9 hour period with Hud turning the camera off and on during this period and actually only recording less than 90 minutes of the experience. Apparently, nothing important happens at any time when the camera is shut off and the camera is shut off 90% of the time. And the camera is always on BEFORE something important to the story happens. I found this form of narrative extremely forced and felt it didn't work. Although I appreciate the effort to try something different, it isn't really original as it had been done in "Blair Witch Project". On the other hand, I found the novel way they mixed what was already recorded on the tape and the events being recorded over it to be extremely clever and interesting. That's the highest praise I can give the film, though. I thought most of it was a little dull and, being a fan of the genre, was really disappointed with it. It's understandable how the ending frustrates so many but most will realize how it will end at the beginning of the movie. So I'm one of the few who neither hated it or loved it. It's somewhere in the middle.

Frustration humour is a term me and a pal of mine use to describe comedic situations that rely on the protagonist constantly being put in awful situations (often, but not always, by their love interest). We began using the term in connection to "Green Acres" and "I Dream of Jeannie" many years ago. A recent film examples of this would be "Meet The Parents". If done properly, it can be funny ("You, Me and Dupree"). If the correct balance isn't struck, it's just frustrating and annoying ("License to Wed").

"Love Stinks" pushes it about as far as it can but it's resolution leaves you feeling satisfied. Bridgitte Wilson and French Stewart are both fantastic in this film. I'm truly amazed Wilson hasn't become a bigger star. The film begins with Seth and Chelsea meeting and the chemistry is immediate. We all know that euphoric feeling of early infatuation and it's captured perfectly in this film. I felt myself falling for Chelsea. But as a relationship matures those feelings fade and reality sets in. Sometimes, it isn't pretty. This film is about one of those times and it's truly hilarious. I'm sure most of us has dated someone who turned out to be a little looney. It's always nice to be able to laugh about it later.

I saw this movie at the theatre as a kid and, thanks to regular television airings, multiple times through the years. I practically have the film memorized. And yet, I bust a gut laughing every time I see it to this day. There are so many memorable scenes and lines that will immediately bring a smile to anyone's face who has seen it; "Texas isn't even a state, how big can it be?", "The coward attacked him from the rear", the slapping scenes, the arrow in the rear, Joey Bishop as an Indian, Rosemary Forsyth in a wet blanket, "No Comanche is a friend of mine", that '60s guitar music whenever the Comanches are around, "Only read Kronk", and the oft quoted "ARUHROAR HAR!". Simply put, this film is funny. It's a horrible injustice that this film has not yet received a studio DVD release. I long to see this film again in a wide screen presentation without the awful pan and scan.

I got up and walked out. And I saw it on an airplane. OK, I didn't literally walk out, but I unplugged the head phones and stopped watching. Sitting in total boredom during the flight was preferable to this feeble attempt at a film. I had just seen the predictably asinine romantic comedy "License to Wed" on a flight the week before and thought that it couldn't get any worse than that. It most certainly did with "Hot Rod". Amateurish best describes the film. It looks like what a film might look like if a group of high school kids got together and made a movie. I stopped watching after about 30 minutes and there was nothing even remotely humorous in that time. Based on the silence on the plane and comments from the few who actually listened to the entire film, nobody else on the flight found anything amusing either. The rave reviews found here for a film so obviously flawed and deficient are extremely suspicious. I suspect many of the reviewers are the same person, likely involved in the film. Check the reviewers history and see how many have never written another review for the answer. The rest are mind dead teens who think "Snakes on a Plane" was a great film.

This film has absolutely no redeeming values. Ignoring the fact that the premise is beyond ludicrous, the film's other shortcomings are innumerable. Once the initial premise is set up, it's a series of all sorts of snakes going on a random killing spree on a plane. There is no suspense. It's not funny. There is no characterization. It's an insult to any half-way intelligent person. Any direct to video b-movie you watch on the Sci-fi channel will be far more entertaining and probably have just as good special effects. It is just amazing to me that a major studio could produce such a horribly offensive movie. What is truly disturbing is the number of people on this board who actually claim they love this film. What a sad state of affairs.

I started watching "Silent Hill" on cable tonight and after half an hour I was completely amazed how utterly awful and unbelievable it was. I came to IMDb for some explanation for the character's actions and got my answer; it's based on a video game. I read many of the reviews and was quite surprise that there are actually people who like this film. It quickly became apparent that everyone who did like it was a fan of the game. Apparently, if you are a geeky fan boy who spends their spare time playing video games and want to watch a game re-created in movie form; you will probably enjoy this movie. If you want a sensible plot with interesting characters with credible motivations; you will recognize it for what it truly is.

I caught this movie on cable the other night. I hadn't actually intended to watch it but the female lead is exceptionally attractive and caught my eye so I started watching and I'm glad I did. Generally, subtitled comedies don't make the transition to other languages as well as other films. Language and cultural nuances often get lost in the translation. The humour in this film is simple and often visual and little to nothing gets lost. The plot involves a simple young man who has moved to the big city to try and make it as an actor. He meets a beautiful struggling actress and becomes smitten by her and goes well beyond the call to help her with her career. This isn't a cerebral comedy; it's just funny. On top of that, Claudia Albertario is stunning.