Reviews

I really had high hopes for this movie. I wanted it to be a great rock film on par with "Almost Famous" or "That Thing You Do", and in a few ways it does get close. The period detail (cars, clothing and instruments) is really convincing, but the clichéd and messy plot, the writing, the acting, and the direction are the movie's downfall. I felt ZERO sympathy or empathy for any single character in this movie. The only time I actually cared for any character, was the girl who was committed by her parents because she tried LSD. I want to know what happened to her! That was a huge mistake leaving that sub-plot unresolved. I couldn't even bother to remember any of the characters' names for the sake of this review, that's how little I got emotionally invested.

Speaking of unresolved, the whole movie is essentially unresolved. The ending is the absolute worst. It doesn't even really end. It just stops on a cliffhanger and pans over to the drummer/singer kid's sister, who by the way, her acting throughout the film was absolutely horrendous, and it was a complete slap-in-the-face to end the movie with her staring blankly at the camera, clearly reading her lines from a cue card and then dancing in the middle of the road (poorly I might add). I guess David Chase was trying to sum up the overall point of the story with this ending, but he chose to do it in the absolute worst way.

As with any period piece, it's always strength to include great songs in the soundtrack, and the songs that they used here are absolutely some of the best of the era. Unfortunately, that's not the case with any of the cover versions or the original songs written and recorded for the film. They just don't sit well with the old songs, which is hard to do for most films. Some pull it off amazingly (again see "Almost Famous" or "That Thing You Do") and some fail miserably (besides this film, "Velvet Goldmine" & "Eddie & The Cruisers" also fail to deliver original music that could be thought of as representing the era in which their respective films are set).

So, if you're looking for a great nostalgic piece of work, I would steer clear of this movie entirely, unless you're an absolute David Chase or James Gandolfini die-hard, which I'm not. Speaking of unresolved sub-plots, Gandolfini, although he's got top billing, is barely in the film, and he also has not 1, but 2 unresolved sub-plots, about possible infidelity and terminal cancer, both of which, had they been resolved could have made this movie so much better! So, in a way, that describes the film as a whole... Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

This movie is just a mess. The plot and overall point of the entire film is just all over place. That being said, I thought the actors tried their best, the main problem there being Ewan MacGregor's attempt at an American accent being completely unconvincing. Some people have faulted Toni Collette's performance for the same thing, but if she's basing her character on Angie Bowie or Jerry Hall, both Americans who were well known for putting on an English affectation, then she was right on the money. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Christian Bale were both great in their roles, despite the lackluster writing, but as long as the movie is (just under 2 hours), I still feel like Brian Slade's character arc was a tad unresolved.

I liked the re-appropriation of Brian Eno, Iggy Pop, T-Rex, New York Dolls & Roxy Music songs in the film. However, the original songs aren't great, probably because any observant David Bowie fan could tell that they really wanted to use his songs for those particular scenes, and the story goes that Bowie outright rejected the use of his songs for the movie, because he didn't like the script. Frankly, I don't blame him. The writing and the direction are the movie's biggest faults. The costuming and look of the film were a mixed bag, some parts great, some not. Overall, I was unconvinced that I was watching anything that remotely resembled anything that could have come out in the 70's, mostly when it came to the live performances or the "promo video" sections.

From what I've read, it's a pretty polarizing movie, but I think I'm in the vast minority, because I really didn't love it or hate it. The flaws of the film keep it from being great, and the things the movie gets right keep it from being horrible. Overall, it was just eh. I do think there could be a better movie made at some point about the glam rock era, but this isn't it.

It's not the best movie ever, and it is flawed in some respects. That's not to say it was a bad film, far from it. Although, I'm nowhere near the age of the central characters (I'm 26 at the time of writing this, I'm assuming they're all late 40's-early 50's?), as an aspiring musician who has worked as a roadie, this film really struck a chord with me, as a reference point for where I'd want to end up or not end up by the time I'm that age.

The overall message I got from this film was, it's far better to work your a$$ off doing what you love and to be thought of as a "loser" or a "fool" by the ones who only appear to be "normal", than to settle for stability, normalcy and mediocrity, if it's only going to make you miserable. However, the narrative of this film makes that particular lesson a hard-learned one, as it should be in real life.

There are 3 central characters: Jimmy (Ron Eldard, sporting the exact same hairstyle he had in "Super 8", I'm assuming he worked on this film right before or after that one), Randy (Bobby Cannavale) & Nikki (Jill Hennessey), and all 3 seem to represent different paths in life.

I found myself hating Randy from the second he entered the film. From the word "Testicles", he reminded me of all the bullies from days of yore, and the fact that he was, in fact, Jimmy's school bully, only proves my point more.

Nikki, on the other hand, while I didn't end up despising her character, there was a two-faced-ness about her that rubbed me the wrong way. Her overall story arc and character traits remind me of the typical middle-aged "singer/songwriter" who hasn't gone beyond corner pubs and open mic nights, due to a cocky attitude, a lack of ambition and an alternate career path. But even Nikki says, in no uncertain terms, that while she doesn't quite appear to be completely content, she's happy with settling for what she has. "He's Queens, I'm Queens."

The main flaw of the movie is that it pretty much trots along pretty aimlessly for most of it, until the real lesson of the movie comes out near the end when all 3 of the characters ensconce themselves in a run- down motel with mountains of cocaine. It's here that we really get a glimpse of everyone's true nature. The tense dialogue and atmosphere here (which is also hinted at in other parts of the film) almost tries to pin Jimmy (and roadies in general) as the bad guy for their particular job choice. Meanwhile, Jimmy turns the tables and shines a bright light on Randy and Nikki's pitiful existence, by stating that he may have only been a roadie, but he got to do what he loved and really got to live the "rock star partying lifestyle" that Randy and Nikki only pretend to do on their weekends. Jimmy may not be established in a "sensible career path", but he certainly has lived a far more fulfilling life with probably some amazing stories to tell.

For me, that's where the true heart of the narrative lies, and I would far more prefer to be that guy in life than to end up a miserable coke- addicted car salesman or a wannabe singer/songwriter, but that's only my experience, and my ambition in life. I'm not here to say that settling down is wrong. Some people are just meant for that path in life for myriad reasons, and that's OK. Not everybody can be a musician or a roadie, but for those with ambitions in that field, I would say, be an original, but be humble, yet work hard for your dream, and screw any setbacks that may bring, because it will only make the end result that much sweeter.

This is not a film for everybody, and not easily understood. This is a film for fans of experimental films, low budget horror or science fiction (not big-budget PG-13 horror, sci-fi/action or sci-fi/fantasy), psychedelia, or hypnotic slow-moving narratives.

However, it may take a few watches to really get into everything that's going on. The film is clearly not meant to give us all of the answers. We're supposed to get our minds working and draw the conclusions for ourselves. And sometimes, we need a film to do that. Not everything can be clear-cut and concise, nor should it be. That's where I feel that most of you reviewers here missed the point entirely. Was "2001" clear cut? Or "The Shining"? Or "Altered States"? I'm not saying everybody should like this film, but it shouldn't be judged so harshly.

The cinematography, direction, set design and sound design are all first rate, and for a film that only had a budget of a little over $1 million, the solid work put into those aspects easily best many of those same qualities in many modern big-budget productions. This is clearly a film that was made with a lot of careful attention to detail and love by everyone involved, and not just something thrown together by a bunch of stoners in a weekend, like others have suggested.

The score by Jeremy Schmidt of Black Mountain & Sinoia Caves is, in my humble opinion, one of the best original film scores I've ever heard, which also makes this film a must-watch for Black Mountain fans or fans of psychedelic or progressive rock or electronic music in general. It's as much a listening experience, as it is a visual one.

So, my opinion may be heavily biased, since this film appeals to me on so many levels, and those levels may not appeal to everyone else, which is fine. As I've said before, it's not a film for everybody, but it is a film that was made by people who clearly love what they're doing, which honestly, you can't say the same about a lot of other films these days. So, if you haven't seen the film yet, but you want to see it, keep everything I've said here in mind. Hopefully, I've painted a fairer picture of what this movie has to offer more than the scores and reviews above already have.

How is this supposed to be a film celebrating the underdog? This station plays nothing but hits! Now if this was an FM rock station that was playing the REAL groundbreaking music of the 70's; like say... Black Sabbath, Yes, or Pink Floyd, instead of the commercial dross of The Eagles, Steely Dan, and Fleetwood Mac, then maybe I'd actually care a little bit about their plight against the corporate hostile takeover. But all I hear is phony-baloney FM rebellion over a backdrop of 70's AM Gold.

Granted, I wasn't alive in the 70's, so I'd have no idea what it was REALLY like, but I have expert help from older friends and family of mine who have gladly informed me that my opinion on this movie is correct, that this doesn't represent what really was the music of an FM rock station. And to be fair, this IS what FM "Classic Rock" stations are now, so do I really need to be alive in the 70's to know the difference? I mean, for the movie itself, the acting is just OK for what sounded like a pretty lackluster script, but the message just gets lost in the commercial bent of the soundtrack. I think what this movie tried to do and ultimately failed at, celebrating the independent spirit while having a good time with the music you love, was done correctly in both "Dazed and Confused" and "Almost Famous".

And, yes, while there are a lot of commercial songs from the 70's in both films as well, those soundtracks to those movies work better in terms of connecting with the character arcs and the overall plot, as opposed to just offering a backdrop of... "Hey Look! We're hip and cool! We got Jimmy Buffett and Linda Rondstadt to be in this film! But we're still sticking it to the man!"

It starts off with a good premise. Archaeologists dig up the bones of what appears to be a werewolf, and it spreads an infection that causes people to become werewolves themselves. However, within minutes everything spirals out of control with the introduction of the archaeologists; Yuri, a man of a one thousand and one hairstyles; Nick, whom we almost never see except to provide exposition; and Natalie; a terrible actress with a great set of ti(beeeeeeeeeeep!!!!!!)... ahem... Sorry, technical difficulties... I MEAN terrible actress with an unplaceable accent. Not to mention a cameo from... Martin Sheen? No, sorry. It's actually his brother, Joe Estevez, aka Charlie Sheen's uncle, who, besides an embarrassing hairstyle, looks and sounds almost exactly like Martin! And then about a half hour into the movie we're introduced to the "main character" of the movie, Paul. His storyline really just happens to enter the movie out of thin air. He's an author who just moves into town, seemingly randomly, and then goes to a party and meets Natalie, and somehow becomes "the last hope" for their archaeologists research. Wait a second? I thought he was an author? Does he have a lot of connections in the science community or something? Strangely, this is never explained.

The main plot begins with 3 diggers on an excavation who get assaulted by Yuri and one of the diggers unsuspectingly cuts himself on the bones that they dug up. OK, first off, if your boss is assaulting you on the job, you should probably call the cops and press charges. But that doesn't matter now, we've got a terrible film to get through. After finding out that the bones are of a lycanthrop, or watch the Native Americans in this film call "yanaglachi" (which includes Charlie Sheen's uncle???), and the apparent side-effects of coming in contact with such bones, Yuri decides to spread the infection to other people so he can... Get Rich? Take over the world? Nope. This is never fully explained. He also has a crush on Natalie. But in his many attempts to get into Natalie's pants, Yuri gets jealous of Paul, who is making some headway with Natalie, and beats him with the werewolf's skull. And Paul, just runs out of the room bleeding from his back. And that's it. Umm... They don't call security? Call the cops? Press charges for assault, maybe? Nope. Apparently people don't get arrested for anything like that in this universe of a terrible movie.

Anyway, Paul becomes a werewolf, somehow a lot slower than the other victims, and when he turns into one, he runs around and does stuff. I think he kills or rapes or bites a girl in the mud, but the acting is so bad that you can't tell. The only redeeming quality of this movie is a scene where Paul and Natalie are in a bar playing pool, and the outfit that Natalie is wearing almost makes me forget that I'm watching this silly movie. Almost. Anyway, Paul gets angry and Hulks out, I mean turns into a werewolf and runs around and does stuff again, and finally "kills" Yuri (I put that in quotations because the bad cinematography and directing suggest otherwise), and Natalie turns into a werewolf. The end.

This film is absolutely ridiculously stupid and completely unnecessary. Avoid except for Mystery Science Theater 3000.

As I've said in other reviews, I'm a big fan of Seth Rogen's work as both a writer and an actor. This isn't his best film, but still highly enjoyable. There really isn't much about this movie that I didn't like. In comparison to Rogen's previous action-comedy, "Pineapple Express", the storyline wasn't quite developed as well, but still solid, the comedy was spot-on throughout, and the action scenes, including Kato's "slow-motion analytical" fighting style, seemed way more enthralling and ridiculously over-the-top than "Pineapple Express", which at times added to the comedy. I could see where other critics might find fault with that, citing "The Matrix" as a prime example of that type of CGI being done to death, but I felt that they actually did it right and made it their own in this movie.

Seth Rogen and Jay Chou worked well together as a pair. In a way their becoming "superheroes who commit crimes" definitely looked like insanity, which to me was a fresh spin on a superhero story line, even though they do approach that in a similar way in Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies. However, since this was meant to be part comedy, in the midst of the action when the brief moments of clarity that come to the characters for the sheer insanity of their plot wasn't taken quite as seriously, but still worked in the context of the genre.

And it's also worth mentioning that, again, Christoph Waltz pulls off a fine performance in this movie. His character, Chudnofsky (later "Bloodnofsky" as an attempt to become a supervillian equivalent to "Green Hornet"), seemed to me to be almost as well-rounded as his Colonel Hans Landa in "Inglorious Basterds". The running joke of lesser criminals telling him that he's washed-up and not scary enough only adds to his own descent into madness about 2/3 of the way into the film. And the critical slaughter of Waltz was unfair. He can't keep playing the same character in every film he's in. While both Landa and Chudnofsky are both psychopaths, he approaches both characters differently, Landa being a master of language and cunning who loves to put on the psychological torture before murdering, and Chudnofsky purely being a criminal mastermind with a tendency to kill at a moment's notice. And the cameos by James Franco and Eddie Furlong (John Connor from 'Terminator 2' as a meth dealer, priceless) as Chudnofsky's victims are both spot-on.

The only real problem I had with this movie was Cameron Diaz. Her character was underwritten, purely only there to move the plot forward by giving Rogen and Chou advice on how to commit crime, and there's not much else to her character. Although, Diaz did a fine job with what she had script-wise.

And the use of songs by The Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, The White Stripes, and Van Halen really added an extra hint of excellence to their respective scene. However, the use of Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise", I believe, was only there to show off Jay Chou's voice, since he is also a pop star in Asia, which wasn't bad, just random.

All in all, I enjoyed it immensely. It's just pure fun and excitement. This is definitely a popcorn flick. Although I do think I over-analyzed it a bit in this review, it's really not meant to be taken that seriously as a movie, and overall I think that the critical bashing it received was unfair. As I said before, not one of the best films to come out of the Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen universe, but still fantastic. Go see it.

Another film I had the pleasure of watching through the eyes of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

This film struggles between 3 different genres (road movie, love story, and supernatural thriller to be specific), and fails at all of them. The acting overall is pretty bland, and the story seems to be made up as it goes along. Here's the plot in a nutshell. A guy (Jody) is on a road trip. Stops at a pond to eat lunch, sees a girl (Melissa), both of them end up falling in love, oh and it turns out that she's possessed by Satan and is 127 years old. He decides to leave, but then comes back and decides that he doesn't care if she is possessed by Satan. They screw, she almost dies, he turns to Satan to save her. The end.

What little horror and/or tension exists in this movie, is reduced simply to jump scares and underacting. The scenes with the burned grandmother/sister were predictable. Even during the witch burning flashback, the "big Satan curses you speech" was pretty underwhelming for what it was meant to be. But with all of it's faults, it's still not incredibly bad. It's bad, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film had it not been for Mike Nelson, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot.

But even without the riffing, the movie still held my attention somewhat. I'll admit the score was pretty interesting, and the overall plot was OK, but it could've used some really heavy tweaking. I would actually recommend watching this over some other world-renowned bad films like "The Room" or "Battlefield Earth". While those movies are both outlandish spectacles of poor acting, poor writing, and poor direction, this film really only suffers from severe mediocrity. Although it's still not worthy of a watch on it's own without MST3K. But then again, I don't think that this is available anywhere else besides MST3K.

Also, a little side note about the last scene, I wonder if the writer(s) of the film "High Spirits" starring Steve Guttenburg and Daryl Hannah ever actually saw this film. Not that "High Spirits" had anything to do with Satan, more like the supernatural in general, but there is a sex scene between Guttenburg and Hannah that ends with Hannah's character rapidly aging to match her "actual age", very similar to what happens to Melissa at the end of "Touch of Satan". Seriously check this out on MST3K, then check out "High Spirits". You might be surprised by the similarities.

Another Mystery Science Theater 3000 film. One of the worst cop films of all time! And they thought that they'd add a touch of class by setting the film in Malta? Give me a break. This film couldn't be classy if Joe Don Baker actually wore a nice suit or recited Shakespeare!

Speaking of Joe Don Baker, I'd like to ask Joe Don a personal question. Why do you insist on playing white trash in every film that you're in? Whether your a cop, a CEO, or just plain trailer park scum (not that all people who live in trailer parks are scum, but I'm referring specifically to his character in "Mars Attacks!"), you always manage to be the same annoying southern guy. What gives man? No sense of range?

Also, is it just me or does it seem like the same scenes keep repeating over and over again? Geronimo ends up in jail, gets up, passes the gate into the office, is told to not pursue Palermo, and goes ahead and causes trouble anyway and ends up in jail, gets up, passes the gate into the office, is told to not pursue Palermo, and goes ahead and causes trouble anyway and ends up in jail, gets up... You know what? I think you get the point.

The only change in plot is at the end when he finally meets Palermo, shoots him, and "unexpectedly" it turns out that Geronimo's superior officer is corrupt. My, what a shocker! Anyway, Palermo gets killed, and fade to black. Not a single plot point resolved!

Also, that theme song is horrible on so many levels. First off, it's just a terrible 80's pop song, badly produced and sung I might add. Second, the lyrics "You better run, you'd better hide". It's almost if the guys who wrote the song for this movie knew how bad both the song and the movie were going to be and tried to warn us! And last but not least, it plays in the film 3 times!!!!!! Geez! Didn't have a budget for more songs? I guess Joe Don Baker just wasn't enough star power to warrant that.

Anyway, screw you Joe Don Baker! You insulted my intelligence far too much. The only sanity I looked forward to was from the guys at MST3K. Anybody reading this, please don't bother to look up the film on it's own. I really don't think it matters if a few scenes were left out of the MST3K episode for content and time, they probably won't make the film any better. In fact, I didn't want to see anymore of this movie after it was over. I think I can go through life not having seen the shower rape scene or hearing any of the cursing uncensored. I think I have a pretty good idea of what word was usually following the phrase "son of a...", and the clumsy censoring is part of what made the MST3K episode so funny.

IT STINKS!!! Oh dear god, the constant plot shifting, the bad acting, the bad music, and the constant voice dubbing is killing me! What is the accent of these characters anyway? I know this film was produced by a Spanish film company. So were the characters supposed to be Spanish? Maybe French? English? American? Canadian?. You literally hear so many different accents in this film that you forget that they're speaking English half the time. Hell, the way that they talked in this movie, I'd believe that the people were the aliens and the "Pod People" were the normal ones.

As a musician and recording engineer, I was deeply offended by how awful the song was and how they presented engineers. According to this movie, we think everyone who records is the best, we never get laid and we all wear shirts that say "I'm a virgin"! (Don't worry, I'm not at all serious about this point.) Luckily for me I happened to catch this flick on Mystery Science Theater 3000, so my anger was then quelled by a sketch that pointed out all of the apparent stupidities of the recording studio scene, by not changing a single word of dialog!!! Anyway, here's another film that cannot be watched without the riffing geniuses of Joel Hodgson, Mike Nelson, and all the others involved. Thank you Mystery Science Theater 3000 for once again both entertaining and pissing me off at the same time! (And before anyone points out the obvious, yes I know that Mike wasn't on the show at the time that they did this episode. He was the head writer though, so most of the jokes probably came from him.)

UPDATE: OK, just saw the movie "Nukie". I can safely say right now that "Nukie" makes "Pod People" look like "Citizen Kane"! At least "Pod People" was enjoyable and was at least laughably bad. Oh no, not "Nukie"! "Nukie" has mentally scarred me! I am hereby changing my rating of this movie from 1 to 4, because I enjoyed this movie SO MUCH MORE than "Nukie" and it deserves a higher IMDb rating! "Nukie" can go to hell! It can go to hell and die!

Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic... "Future War" neither takes place in the future, nor is there a war. Discuss...

Thank you Jewish Mike Myers in drag, now for a serious movie review.

Once again, another piece of media trash that I came across via the schlock cinematic gateway that is Mystery Science Theater 3000. Crappy acting, no plot, really bad dialogue, and the film equivalent of shadow puppets, only with real (albeit poorly made) puppets! (I know that term is known as forced perspective, but shadow puppets are the reference that everyone unfamiliar with film terminology will understand.)

Here's the story... A guy trapped on a stock footage spaceship makes his way to Earth via an escape pod. He's tracked down by "cyborgs" with mullets, mustaches, and gigantic chins who like to travel with dinosaur puppets that like to feast on fat guys and the homeless. A nun hits the guy with her car and nurses him back to health, all the while he somehow is able to learn the English language in a matter of days and for some reason knows tons of random quotes from the Bible. After a while of plotlessness, they decide to try and kill off the cyborgs and dinosaur puppets, and then apparently they do that, I don't know the movie doesn't explain that much, and then the guy's shirt rips off a few times, and then the movie just ends with an article about the guy becoming a teen councilor (would that really be news-worthy, even for a small quarter-of-a-page-long article in a local newspaper?).

This movie just plain sucks! It's not at all original or clever in anyway. As the kind of bad movie that usually ends up on MST3K it's not campy, it's just crap. There's absolutely no reason to watch this on it's own without the riffing and occasional commercial or comical interruption. Believe me, it's necessary to give you a little breathing room, especially for this film. And the fact that most of the cast and crew hoped that the movie would eventually end up on MST3K just proves it's crappiness.

I loved this movie. Plain and simple. It's a solid comedy. But it's also a great road trip film, it's got real legitimate drama, and it's just got a great story in general.

Personally, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost can (almost) do no wrong (ahem... "How To Lose Friends and Alienate People"... ahem... "Star Trek"... ahem...). "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" are two of my favorite comedies. I don't get why some people are bashing this film just because Edgar Wright didn't direct it. Greg Mottola did a fantastic job. I'm not so sure this movie would have been so radically different had Wright directed it anyway. What matters is that Pegg and Frost still wrote it and the story, the acting, and the character development, big parts of the Pegg/Frost/Wright films, are all still here.

Speaking of the acting, this film threw some great players like Seth Rogen, Bill Hader, Joe Lo Truglio, Kristen Wiig, and Jason Bateman into some really fantastic roles. Yeah, the only real "fault" that I found with this film (if you can even call it that) is that, at first, some of the characters come off as cliché. We've got the dumb rookie cops, the overzealous veteran, the boss looking to get a job done no matter the cost, the geeks, the damsel in distress, the abusive father, but out of these clichés come characters of depth who in some way we can all understand their motivations, with the notable exception for Sigourney Weaver's character. She's not given much screen time, but she seemed to suffer from the same problem that befell Stephen Lang's character from "Avatar". After a while the motivation disappears and they just want to shoot and kill stuff, just because they're the bad guy. But once again, that's really the only problem I had with the movie.

I also found the central character of 'Paul' to be the best part of the movie. He's not just another special effect like Jar Jar Binks or the badly inserted Jabba The Hut from the Special Edition of the first Star Wars movie. He's actually a well fleshed-out character that makes me forget that he's an effect at all. And some have faulted him for being "too human" by having Seth Rogen's voice and picking up human traits like swearing and smoking, but you also have to consider the fact that he's been on Earth, cooped up in a military base for over 60 years.

The references in this film are all so well placed and well timed. I'm not going to give any away, but for the most part, when the references are made, they will absolutely have you laughing, if you're up on your science fiction films. And even if you're just a casual movie-goer, you may still enjoy them anyway.

Now if you're religious in any way and really don't like it when somebody who doesn't believe in god offers up his 2 cents, then you might just wanna go right ahead and skip the rest of this review and click on the 'not helpful' button.

I was happy that somebody finally considered the possibility of what discovering aliens might mean for our outdated belief systems here on the planet Earth. As someone who went to 12 years of Catholic school, and then afterward (almost literally) being hit over the head with a high energy dose of the real world, it scared the sh*t out of me that everything that I had been taught is pretty much wrong, outdated, and harmful to the human race, and that the universe is so much bigger than we can imagine and that the beliefs of the smartest apes on one tiny blue planet situated in the spiral arm of just one galaxy in a cosmos of billions upon billions of galaxies really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and whatever deity we had shoved down our throats during our childhood, probably doesn't exist, at least as we know it.

For me, they captured that shock and realization on film perfectly, in the scene when Paul gives Ruth the extent of his knowledge (was that a Doctor Who reference, Simon and Nick?) and the way her character finally opens her eyes (with a little assistance from Paul) to rational thought. And despite what you may think, no, I'm not trying to make everyone on the planet atheists, that would be irrational and spiteful. But people need to start waking up, and it's a breath of fresh air to finally see that some people in the film industry no longer have their heads up their (where the sun don't shine).

Also, some have faulted Kristen Wiig's character, Ruth, for cursing way to much after she receives Paul's knowledge. Yeah, it's annoying, but you still have to realize that she was a backwoods evangelical Christian who has been suppressed all of her life and is now finally waking up to the realization that none of that matters! If you were in the same situation, you'd curse like a sailor too! And just as badly if you never knew how to curse before. Also, I'd like to thank Wiig (or whoever was truly responsible) for the phrase "Dick Milk"! That was hilarious!

Anyway, if you are still reading and/or haven't given me a 'not helpful' response yet because of what I just said, then take it from me. I left the theater smiling. I was thoroughly entertained by this movie in more ways than one. If you're a fan of any of the people that I just mentioned, a fan and believer in aliens, or at least have an open mind, then go see "Paul".

OK, first let me say that, yes, I happened to see this film on Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

Nothing in this film works. The acting was terrible, if not almost non-existent. The script was all over the place, if again, also non-existent. Don't even get me started on the editing. (And a quick side note to the reviewer who actually went out of his way to buy the DVD. Yes the bad editing is there in the print they used in MST3K, but I'm guessing they tried their best to clean it up for the DVD. I don't know. I didn't like or hate this movie enough to go out and buy the DVD.) Most of the male characters were all miscast. The Buz and Critter characters were written (and written poorly at that) to be younger, around age 18-21, and the actors playing them are at the very least in their 30's.

And in the case of the females, while their acting and dancing skills are what contributes to how horrible this film is, the fact that a good majority of the film is just them "bouncing around on the dance floor" is what saves this film from getting a 1 rating from me. And yes, you can say it, I'm a sick and dirty pervert. But come on! You try to sit through a movie like this, even if it is on MST3K, and not get caught up in staring at a couple of voluptuous ladies, even if they are dancing badly.

I've also seen a few reviewers say that the music is terrible. In the case of the "songs" "sung" by "Critter", I totally agree with you (and yes I put "quotations" around those 3 words on purpose). However, the real rock songs aren't THAT bad. I mean, yeah, they're not very good rock and roll tunes, but I've heard WAY worse music to come out of the 60's. Although yes, it does get a bit annoying hearing the theme song after the 3rd or 4th time. But I'd rather hear that over and over again, instead of that sappy tune that "Critter" "sings" in the rain while flashbacks of Michelle just pop in and out for no reason. Although, another thing that saved this movie from a 1 rating from me was the fact that I'm a musician, and besides the ladies, I was interested in the gear that "the band" had. For me, the 60's and 70's was the Golden age of musical equipment. But it just goes to show you how bad a movie is when a music geek like me is more interested in seeing what kind of guitar amps they're using on stage instead of the movie itself.

And finally, the biggest thing that irked me about this movie was the ending. OK, so Critter corners the bad guys, and calls the cops. Then Critter decides that he might as well be a man and go to Vietnam, but first he'll get hitched to Michelle, but not before singing a terrible song accompanied by Michelle's terrible dancing. WORST ENDING EVER!!! OK, in the time that it would've taken the cops to get there, somebody could've done something. Any number of things could've went wrong for our heroes. But no. The scriptwriter decided to give us a nice happy ending with a crappy musical number. I agree with the other reviewer who pretty much describes the ending as sold out. But that phrase works on so many levels. Yeah, Critter sold out to Uncle Sam and joined the army. But the ending sold out to schlock. They could've at least had a big gun fight or a chase or something, with at least one or 2 main characters dying. It might've still been pretty bad, but it probably would've been a heck of a lot more interesting that the actual proceedings.

Basically, this film is not worth it unless you watch the MST3K episode. But then again, it's not THAT bad. I mean, it's REALLY bad, but there are still worse films than this.

Yeah, this movie sucks the big one. Read the other reviews, ALMOST everything that needs to be said has been said already. There is however, one big thing that other reviews have either not mentioned enough of or forgot about entirely, and that's how terrible the main character's parents are!

This kid is suffering with parents who lets the two older brothers take over his room for their stupid lawn moving business, not to mention buys them a new computer. And then there are the lectures about how the older brothers know how to make money and save money, while the younger son doesn't. Later on, the kid almost gets ran over, but luckily only his bike is destroyed, and the parents care more about the cost of the bike, than the safety of their child, and lecture him about protecting your valuables and ground him.

OK. 2 teeny-tiny eency-weency little things.

1: HE'S 11!!!!!!!!!! He's not even supposed to be saving money or making money at that age! You might as well be saying, "Well son, you've just finished kindergarten, so when are ya getting' that job?"

2: THOSE PARENTS SHOULD BE SHOT!!!!!! The only reason this kid is obsessed with money in the first place is because his parents are! And they ground him for nearly getting hit by a car and possibly seriously injured or even killed because he didn't protect his bike? I'd bet if he did get killed, they probably would celebrate because of the money they'd now save.

You know what, after having to deal with these parents, I'd say give the kid $1,000,000 and a hot chick! And sentence his parents to death by firing squad!

I'm not gonna talk any more of this film, because those parents disgust me enough. The rest of the film isn't any better.

Except for one little bit of trivia: The actress Karen Duffy (who was the only good thing about this movie) plays the character Shay, and then plays another unrelated character also named Shay in "Dumb & Dumber" which came out only 10 months after "Blank Check". Do you think the Farrelly Brothers did that on purpose to remind us that Karen Duffy was in this piece of crap? I certainly hope so. Because this movie sucks the big one! And if you do wanna see Karen Duffy, check out "Dumb & Dumber" instead.

Warning: I didn't see this film. I refuse to see this film. This is a review about the fact that this film exists.

This is one of those cases where filmmakers go too far with their craft. I'm a huge John Lennon and Beatles fan, and Lennon's murder was one of the saddest things to ever happen to humanity in general, let alone the musical community. I don't want to see a film about the man that killed him. What are the producers trying to prove? That Mark David Chapman had good reasons for his actions? No! He was a psychopath obsessed with killing John Lennon who unfortunately got to do his ultimate deed. Enough said. Why do you have to make a movie about it?

Were you not considering the feelings of Yoko, Julian, and Sean? Who wants to see a movie, let alone know that a film exists, about the guy who killed your husband or father? Famous or not. It would be the worst thing in the world to me. In that sense, I empathize with Sean when he was upset by knowing that Lindsey Lohan, whom he considers a friend, was partially responsible for getting this film green-lighted. What's worse about this is that this is EXACTLY what Chapman wanted. He wanted to be famous, and this is damning evidence to prove it!

I usually try to be a pragmatist and give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, but this is one subject that didn't need to and shouldn't have been explored beyond the usual historical media, such as news, documentaries, books, etc. But a dramatic feature film? It's just too much.

Unfortunately, there really isn't much anybody can do now though, seeing as how the film has been out for nearly 4 years already, except just to urge film buffs and Lennon/Beatles fans to not give this film or any other film regarding Mark David Chapman any consideration, and instead consider the feelings of Lennon's relatives and pay tribute to John by simply listening to and enjoying the greatest thing he could have left behind, his music.

Warning: I didn't see this film. I refuse to see this film. This is a review about the fact that this film exists.

This is one of those cases where filmmakers go too far with their craft. I'm a huge John Lennon and Beatles fan, and Lennon's murder was one of the saddest things to ever happen to humanity in general, let alone the musical community. I don't want to see a film about the man that killed him. What are the producers trying to prove? That Mark David Chapman had good reasons for his actions? No! He was a psychopath obsessed with killing John Lennon who unfortunately got to do his ultimate deed. Enough said. Why do you have to make a movie about it?

Were you not considering the feelings of Yoko, Julian, and Sean? Who wants to see a movie, let alone know that a film exists, about the guy who killed your husband or father? Famous or not. It would be the worst thing in the world to me. What's worse about this is that this is EXACTLY what Chapman wanted. He wanted to be famous, and this is damning evidence to prove it!

I usually try to be a pragmatist and give filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, but this is one subject that didn't need to and shouldn't have been explored beyond the usual historical media, such as news, documentaries, books, etc. But a dramatic feature film? It's just too much.

Unfortunately, there really isn't much anybody can do now though, seeing as how the film has been out for nearly 4 years already, except just to urge film buffs and Lennon/Beatles fans to not give this film or any other film regarding Mark David Chapman any consideration, and instead consider the feelings of Lennon's relatives and pay tribute to John by simply listening to and enjoying the greatest thing he could have left behind, his music.

I've read that Michael Nesmith considered "Head" to be the Monkees' crowning achievement. He must've really enjoyed working in that format of intertwining hilarious off-beat sketches and stellar music videos.

In that respect, it's not hard for this reviewer to see "Elephant Parts" as a companion piece, or even a sequel of sorts to "Head". Great songs with great visuals, and again some wry humor that in a way comments on the society of the late '70s, the same way that "Head" took on the '60s.

As much as "Head" poked fun at The Monkees' sudden fame, "Elephant Parts" seems to take on Michael Nesmith's current state of affairs, with his star of the Monkees faded, and having established himself in the world of country-rock as a serious artist in his own right, (in my humble opinion) as good as the likes of Gram Parsons and Stephen Stills. However, the music in this film seems to have Mike looking back at both the past with the doo-wop send-up "Magic" or the Beach Boys-flavored "Light", and towards the future with disco-flavored numbers like "Tonight" and "Cruisin'". My personal favorite on this collection has to be the Stephen Stills & Manassas-inspired Country-Latin fusion of "Rio". Always holds a nostalgic summery place in my heart.

Some of the sketches here are absolutely brilliant. "Elvis Drugs", "Marningrita and a Coff of Cuppee", "Abject Poverty", "Name That Drug", and "Rodan" are all hilarious in what they spoof, drug abuse vs. the shadow of Elvis's death, alcoholism, poverty (duh!), drug abuse vs. the moral questionability of the DEA, and Nesmith poking fun at his solo hit and Godzilla at the same time, respectively.

From start to finish, it's solid. The jokes are solid, the music is solid. It's just a great fun little sketch show. If you loved "Head", you'll love this. It's definitely something to watch, again whether in the present state or an altered one. Either way, enjoy the ride as much as you enjoyed "Head"!

I love The Monkees, probably the most underrated pop group of all time. Well known for being TV darlings in the '60s, but not as well known for trying their best to shake off the image by actually playing their instruments in concert (unlike the pop stars of today, but that's for a different website), writing their own songs, supporting some major breakthroughs in music like the Moog Synthesizer, and helping give (at the time) struggling artists like Frank Zappa, Tim Buckley, and Harry Nilsson a fair shake.

And for the evidence to everything I just said, look no further than 'Head', considered by many Monkees fans (including this one) and the Monkees themselves to be their crowning achievement. Yes, it is a plot less mess, but it's on purpose (or could you say "on porpoise"? Sorry had to get that joke out. Yes, it is terrible, but on porpoise. D@MN! Did it again, sorry, back to the review...) But within this plot less mess are some great shots taken at the entertainment industry, the faux spirituality that seems to run rampant with celebrities (And this was 35 years before Tom Cruise was promoting Scientology!) and the political climate of 1968.

For example; the dandruff commercial, Mickey torpedoing the Coke machine, the War! cheer, the punching scene, the black box, the Swami and Peter know-nothing speeches, the Frank Zappa and Cow commentary. All present various allegorical statements on their treatment in the media, and what they've come to know in the world of fame, and are done brilliantly.

As for the music and their accompanying scenes, top notch! First the Monkees' Theme parody "Ditty Diego-War Chant" is set to random television gridlock imagery. The scene for Mike Nesmith's "Circle Sky", intermingles footage of prepubescent female hormonal cacophony from a live Monkees show with the footage of war, "Porpoise Song" (written by classic songwriting team Carole King and Gerry Goffin), a song that's up there with the trippiest of pop songs, is set to solarized negative images of Mickey Dolenz and 2 mermaids, emphasizing the song's psychedelic nature. Great cover of Harry Nilsson's "Daddy's Song" set to an equally visually stunning dance number by Davy Jones and Toni Basil. "Can You Dig It?" by Peter Tork set to Middle-Eastern belly dancers. King & Goffin's serene "As We Go Along" is set to slow motion footage of The Monkees in the woods. And "Long Title: Do We Have To Do This All Over Again?" gets the best scene of all by subtly being overtaken by Mike Nesmith's grief during the trippiest of tripped out parties, only to end suddenly with Mike Nesmith berating everything, including Christmas!

So, in a nutshell, expect everything you know and love about the Monkees to be shattered! But enjoy this ride, in a present state or an altered one!

I grew up on Adam Sandler. SNL reruns on Comedy Central, "Billy Madison", "Happy Gilmore", "The Waterboy", & "Little Nicky". All movies that made me laugh when I was younger, and every once in a while, if I happen to catch one of them on cable, gets a bit of a chuckle out of me here and there. But with films like "Big Daddy", "Mr. Deeds", "Click" and "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry", Sandler got too serious (not counting his actual serious roles; "Punch Drunk Love", "Reign Over Me", and about 2/3 of "Funny People" were great, I f--king hated "Spanglish"!). Sandler's biggest downfall was trying to make his films clean, I'm guessing so his kids could watch his movies. What made those 4 early movies so funny to me was that they weren't quite based in reality and featured a good amount of inebriation, not quite glorifying or bashing drug and alcohol use, but really just being silly about it.

"Grown Ups" is simply the latest of Sandler's "serious clean comedies". And while it's nowhere near the worst film ever made, I would sooner watch "Battlefield Earth" or "The Room" before I watch this piece of s--t again!

I really expected more from the 5 lead actors. Adam Sandler and David Spade almost get in some good lines, but they're few and far between. Kevin James and Rob Schneider characters are nothing more than punching bags for jokes. Their characters are quite simply a fat guy, and a hippie vegan with a wife that's twice his age, and that's all that their characters are. I usually hate cardboard cutouts, but then again those 2 guys deserve it, since their acting repertoire includes such gems as "The Hot Chick" and "Paul Blart: Mall Cop". The only credible one out of the lot is Chris Rock, who, while I'm not typically a fan of his acting roles, I throughly enjoy his stand-up. And the actors who have portrayed so much better roles in much better films like Salma Hayek, Steve Buscemi, and Maya Rudolph, only makes this film that much more painful to watch! I really hope that deep down all of the credible actors in this film do regret working on this film.

The jokes are forced, if non-existent. The various subplots of the snobbish spoiled rotten kids, the sex-starved married couples, the frequent lying and unfounded suspicions, the stupid childhood rivalries, the Asian nanny foreign exchange student. And I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what other unfinished subplots this film entails. Come to think of this, there's barely even a central plot to being with! This film is nothing more than Adam Sandler wanting to go on vacation with his buddies and get paid for it, which would explain so much if it turned out to be true!

Another thing that bugs me about later Sandler films, including this one, is that they are always crammed full of your typical Classic Rock station playlist, but don't get me wrong, I actually like most of the bands that were featured in this soundtrack (ex. Bad Company, Jefferson Starship, Joe Walsh). But that kind of soundtrack worked for "Joe Dirt", because that movie was actually about the music. In "Grown Ups", it's just shading a false sense of nostalgia that's never even been established. The worst of that is the repeat usage of Joe Walsh's "A Life of Illusion", which was used to much greater effect in the beginning of "The 40 Year Old Virgin".

I've really had enough of these stupid Sandler films. You would think that after being involved in making such great films like "Punch Drunk Love" or "Funny People", that he would've hopefully gotten his priorities straight and tried to make a decent comedy with some substance and good writing and good directing and so on, but it's still so clear to me that Adam Sandler cares nothing more than to get the easy paycheck about 90% of the time, and only very occasionally will take a risk on a not-so-easily bankable movie. Yeah, you'd think after being fresh from working with Judd Apatow, that Sandler would've learned something by now about making a great movie. But no. That's not happening when you can command such a high salary for this s--t!

If this is what living in a small backwoods town is like, then I feel terribly sorry for you. It must be horrible living in a world where Ponzi schemes from would be door-to-door salesmen run rampant; people have no emotions; the home furnishings, clothing and technology are still stuck in the early 80's, and foreigners are complete stereotypes. But since this is the real world and not Hollywood, it's safe to assume that small-town life isn't really like that.

Poorly written script, terribly acted, and some parts of this film come off as a bit racist towards Mexicans! But I'll touch on more of that last subject later on in this review.

I don't find a single character in this film that I can possibly relate to in any way. Napoleon's constant exclamations of "gosh" and "idiot" which everybody just happens to love for some reason, just aren't funny. And what is the point of him riding on the school bus with little kids and dragging action figures behind the bus, or his constant need for Chap-Stik?. I'm quite convinced that Napoleon and his brother Kip are both mentally deficient, and their grandmother is just plain neglectful, as is their Uncle Rico who's called upon to look after them after the grandmother gets hurt.

Uncle Rico, especially, is a sad case indeed. A perennial loser who lives in a big orange van, just got dumped by his girlfriend, because he's still SO convinced that he could've been a major player in the NFL if he had just gotten his shot to play at a certain game in high school, who also is obsessed with filming and watching himself throw the football. Well, guess what, it didn't happen, and it never will, so quit dwelling on it, and boring us with your sob story! He's so sad that he buys a "time machine" to try and take him back to that fateful day, only to have it shock his balls and make him appear even dumber, because nobody has discovered time travel yet you idiot!

Anyway, again about the terrible actors, not one actor in this film gives a good performance. Jon Heder and Tina Majorino especially! The so-called "angry exchange" between them 2 over the telephone has to be one of the worst acted scenes in all of cinema history! And don't tell me that they meant to do it that way. Nobody in the real world is that bereft of emotion even if they're on major prescription medication!

And about what I was saying earlier about racism, look no further than Pedro! The most blatant Mexican stereotype I've ever seen! Not to mention his "cousins with the sweet hookups", who are portrayed as Chicano low-riders. This is the mid west suburbs, not East LA! Or how about Napoleon offering a fellow nerd "Pedro's protection", like automatically because he's Mexican that he's in a gang or something. Also the references to poorly pronounced Spanish or the snide comment made by the girl Summer towards Pedro about "making the school have to eat tostadas for lunch next year" or whatever she said. What was the point of that other than racism? I mean, I was offended, and I don't get offended by almost anything, and I'm not even Mexican or of any Spanish or Central-South American descent, but I know blatant racism parading as racial humor when I see it, and this is nowhere near racial humor.

And on top of that, this film is just plain boring! There's no real plot, there's no real struggle, it's just boring! Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring! And did I mention that it's boring? Because yeah, it's REALLY boring! Boring!

I mean, WTF?????? So many better cop films are getting their main plots stolen from them wholesale...

Cop counting the days to retirement, trying to get out alive, while being ridiculed by younger cops, that's Robert Duvall's character in "Falling Down"! Another cop trying to get out of the s--t of undercover work, "The Departed"! Yet another cop stealing drug money to try and fix his dire situation. Denzel Washington in "Training Day". Not the same details, mind you, but close enough, and that movie was made by the same fuquing director, and that movie was great!

The script is god awful! Practically every single possible piece of dialog that has ever been said in every possible cop movie that has ever been made has been said in this movie.

Granted, the first 2/3 of the film isn't that bad, it just seemed like your basic MAJOR suspension-of-disbelief-type blockbuster, but once you get to the third act, you'd practically have to lobotomize yourself to be able to grasp the amount of bulls--t that takes place.

Richard Gere walking towards the camera, freeze-frame, fade to black? What is that supposed to mean????? Even though Don Cheadle's and Ethan Hawke's characters were killed, they weren't killed in the line of duty, and their families probably won't receive their $100,000 insurance payouts, notwithstanding the felonies they were both in the middle of committing. Also, the film seemed to forget that Richard Gere's character was retired! Even though he saved those 3 girls' lives, he probably would've still gone to jail for murder and vigilantism! Not to mention that had Cheadle and Hawke survived at the end, they both would've been discovered for their respective crimes and did hard time as well! I mean does this fuquing director know anything about the law? (Ok, I'll stop making fun of the director's name for being so close to that other word that I can't type here. But after seeing that ending, I wanted that fuquer to give me my 2 hours back!)

The only redeeming quality about this film is that somehow they were able to get such a great group of actors together, yet every single character is so poorly written, to say that the characters were one-dimensional would be a compliment! Had this film been made with no-name actors, this would've been considered the worst cop film of all time, hands down. However, since it had such great actors attached to it, it's only destined to be known as a blatantly unoriginal cop movie with a cliché script that drastically mistreats it's talented cast.

In simple Hollywood terms, "Brooklyn's Finest" is to cop films, what "Envy" was to comedy. (Look for my review on "Envy" to see what I mean.) Avoid it.

What happens when you take 2 great comedy stars, 1 great comedy director and stick them in a movie written by a first timer? "Envy", which is Hollywood for "Complete and utter s--t!"

The only thing this movie's got going for it is the great cast. Stiller, Black, Rachel Weisz, Amy Poehler, Christopher Walken. This film had plenty of talent. Unfortunately, their acting chops can't fix the terrible writing, and completely implausible story. Stiller and Black just didn't seem to have any comedic chemistry like they did in "Tropic Thunder". Amy Poehler and Rachel Weisz are both reduced to nagging wives, even though Poehler's character tries to run for senate, that doesn't fix her character's one-dimensional-ness. This movie would've been better had it just been about Christopher Walken as a wise but creepy hobo, he plays that character to a T, even if his lines are complete s--t. It's also worth mentioning that Rachel Weisz didn't appear in a comedy for another 3 years after this. I bet this film had something to do with it.

Also, who invents a stupid invention like "Vay-poo-rize" and becomes that filthy rich? I mean, I can understand Bill Gates or Steve Jobs level of wealth from their respective advances in the world of computers. But the guy who invents a spray that vaporizes dog s--t? He wouldn't make THAT much! And the fact that it turns out that the product produces a lethal poison at the end of the film is completely implausible if you actually consider the real world aspects of it. If a giant corporation was going to by the product and market it, they would've discovered the negative side effects in laboratory testing, and that would've been the end of it. It wouldn't been sold on the market, and the inventor wouldn't have made dollar one! And even if something wasn't lethal and was bought up by a corporation, the inventor probably would've gotten the shaft like Robert Kearns did. (Robert Kearns was the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper, and his patents were stolen by Ford and Chrysler, both of which he successfully sued. They did a movie about that in 2008 starring Greg Kinnear called "Flash of Genius", but I never saw it.)

Speaking of lethal poison, what was the deal with the scene that featured the lady veterinarian with the incredibly thick Latino accent? The only point of that character was to make a joke about the way she pronounces the words lethal poison, which to Ben Stiller's character sounds like "little person". I call bulls--t! Guess what scriptwriters? That joke wasn't funny and I understood what she said the first time! Sorry, your joke bombed, as did your movie.

Avoid this. It's just not worth it.

Now, as somebody who liked the Farelly Brothers work in the 90's, I had high hopes for this film, but instead, all I get is kicked in the groin with judgmental rhetoric, and lame stereotype jokes. I mean, I wasn't "offended" in the traditional sense of the word, but I was angered by this black and white universe that the Farelly's present in this film.

You see Peter and Bobby, in our universe, there is a thing called "Diversity". It means that all types of people can be all types of things. Not every fat and ugly person is immediately charitable and nice, and not every person who looks physically attractive is a complete bore. That may be the norm in Hollywood, but not in the real world. I've known some real fatties in my day that were some of the most horrible people I've ever met. And I've actually met some very likable woman who also were physically attractive and made friends with guys who like to lift weights that weren't complete meat-heads.

This film also says that if you happen to be a little overweight, like someone of Jack Black's build, that you're not allowed to have standards and that only you will be attractive to fat and ugly people. There could be attractive women out there who don't care that much about body type and actually like personality. Granted, the "standards" reflected by Jack Black's character's scarred psyche were totally and utterly unreasonable, it still doesn't mean that all he deserves is only the overweight and physically unattractive.

Now, I really just want to talk in great length about one particular scene. The scene where Mauricio's girlfriend claims to have tickets to a "Beatles reunion", where, supposedly, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr reunited with Eric Clapton taking the place of John Lennon.

I have 3 VERY LARGE problems with this scene.

1: Eric Clapton does not sound anything like John Lennon in terms of guitar playing or voice. Whoever even thought of proposing that idea and putting into this script obviously knows nothing about The Beatles, or music in general. It was a stupid idea, and the Farelly Brothers were stupid for even thinking of it, let alone sticking it into this horrible film.

2. George Harrison died a few weeks after this movie was released. They should've cut that scene out of respect. You'd think that if some famous person that is mentioned in a film, passes away such a short time after the film is released that the filmmakers would've done something to pay their respects to the individual. Like... Cutting the scene altogether! It added nothing to the plot anyway, beside Jason Alexander's character being disturbed by his cute girlfriend's extra long toe, which he had already explained earlier in the film, rendering this scene absolutely pointless. If the Farelly brothers had any sense of respect for the Beatles (which they obviously don't seeing as how this scene is still in the film), they would've done the right thing. But unfortunately, they haven't, and we're still stuck with this horrible scene.

3. Even if you are mildly disturbed by a disfigured toe, George Harrison didn't die, and George, Paul, and Ringo decided to do a project with Eric Clapton (although it would be HIGHLY unlikely, almost to the point of blasphemy, that they would've called it "The Beatles"), you do not, under any circumstances, turn down an invite to an "invitation-only, acoustic set" of 3 of the Beatles and Eric Clapton! Even if you claim to not be a Clapton fan, it's still 3 of the Beatles! Mauricio was an idiot!

As for the actors themselves, Jack Black and Jason Alexander are both very good in their roles, as 2 slimy but likable characters. Gwyneth Palrow was miscast, I think. She's an attractive woman, don't get me wrong there, but I think that Rosemary, as Hal saw her under his hypnotism, should've been played by somebody who looked more attractive than anybody else in the film, which would've at least provided a valid excuse why Hal pursued Rosemary, as opposed to other women, who honestly (under their hypnotic appearances, of course) seemed to me to be more attractive both physically and emotionally. Paltrow just seems more like the Girl Next Door kind of beauty, as opposed to the "supermodel" archetype, which is what I think the filmmaker's were going for with the character, as she appeared to Hal's hypnosis.

Anyway, to sum up, nowhere near as good as any of the Farelly's 90's movies. Represents unrealistic and hurtful stereotypes about certain types of people. A scene which spits in the face of the Beatles. So, watch Kingpin or There's Something About Mary and skip this one.

As a musician and a fan of most of the acts portrayed in this film, I was intrigued. And indeed, it is a good biopic of sorts that does justice to Little Walter, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Chuck Berry, etc., and the way that those great records were made. Adrian Brody and Mos Def are especially fantastic. I rarely ever get disappointed with their movies, except for "Predators" and "Be Kind, Rewind", respectively. The former was just overall terrible and the latter was boring.

"Cadillac Records" does however have one MAJOR drawback. Beyonce. For starters, I can't stand her voice. Doesn't matter if she's singing her crappy pop music or doing Etta James songs. Also, she can't act. Comparing this role to her role in the travesty that was "Austin Powers: Goldmember", where her lines were nothing more than stereotypical blaxploitation toss-offs, in "Cadillac Records" all of her lines are the usual music bio-pic rigmarole. And in both films, they're delivered with the emotional range of a piece of cardboard.

So, if you like musical bio-pics or are a fan of any of the people involved with either the story or the movie itself, give this a go. But be sure to fast forward through the parts with Beyonce. You'll thank me for it later.

This movie is just kinda average. Not too bad, not great either. It's a compelling story, but it goes in 100 different directions: Eddie and the keyboard player in-fighting, the sax player dying of a heroin overdose, the sexual tension between Eddie and his girlfriend, etc.

But that really isn't my major problem with this film. Coming from a purely music production standpoint, the filmmaker's were absolutely lazy! It's supposed to take place 1963, yet the music CLEARLY sounds like it was recorded in 1980's. Take a listen to some actual music released in 1963, (some fine examples: The Beach Boys, The Beatles, any Motown or Stax records, or since this movie is about a New Jersey band, The Four Seasons). You would notice that those recordings sound very raw compared to the supposed "music of 1963" they flaunt in this movie.

I don't mean to nitpick, but there are some other films about musicians, to some degree, that at least tried to better represent the "sound" of the period that they're representing. "Almost Famous", "Still Crazy", "This Is Spinal Tap" are just a few examples of period pieces that actually do get it right when it came to making original music that actually sounds like that it could've been made in the late 60's to early 70's (depending on which movie you're watching). They could've at least had John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band record their songs with 1963 technology with 1963 instruments, most of which was still readily available at the time, or at least tried to get a sound on 1983 technology that could recreate how a record made in 1963 would've sounded. It really wouldn't have been difficult.

It's absolutely appalling that the filmmaker's didn't even try. Besides the soundtrack, the sets and settings weren't done very well either. I guess they didn't have the budget to be authentic. They just threw some music together, not caring about if it's right, threw a guy into a leather jacket and slicked his hair back, and called it a movie about 1963.