dragoneyez01 Reviews

No Way Out (1950)

Intelligent, Groundbreaking Film

[8/10 · 20 March 2005]

After watching this film on television a couple weeks ago (TMC is the best), I was surprised how obscure 'No Way Out' really is. However, I wasn't exactly surprised.

The film follows Dr. Brooks (Sidney Poitier), an ER doctor whose first real-world experience is as intern in the prison ward of a New York hospital. While on duty, the brothers Biddle (the older of which is played by Richard Widmark), come in following a confrontation with the police. Both suffer from superficial injuries, but the younger brother's health is declining rapidly due to what Brooks diagnoses as a brain tumor. The kid dies while Brooks is operating, feet away from his brother. The racist Ray Biddle soon accuses Brooks of murder, but won't allow an autopsy to be conducted on his brother to determine the cause of death.

Poitier turns in a great performance as the hard-working young doctor, who is debased by the hollow accusations of a bigot. They dig at his core and bring up insecurities that would be common to anyone in the medical field, but are aggravated by the pure hatred of Widmark's equally well-played character.

While the script borders on stereotypes at times, you have to remember that these stereotypes were very real during the time it was written. The writer does a fantastic job of adding depth, personality, beyond the paper figures. Brooks is a practical man, who supports his family and tries to not let the circumstances bring him down. Behind the veneer of hatred, Biddle is a deeply insecure and misguided man who has let circumstance blacken his core. Mankiewicz and Samuels do an amazing job at bringing life to a situation that was taboo for the time.

Aside from the competent acting and well-executed script, the film featured a moving and well-choreographed race riot that fully captures the raw hatred that can surface between groups of people who face the same everyday problems and circumstances, but are torn by one difference (color, or creed, or religion).

This is definitely a film well worth seeing. For its time, the movie was groundbreaking for its portrayal of both racists and their victims. While today the movie may seem tame, it undoubtedly struck some sensitive nerves during its release. The film deserves to be more widely known, if only for its content.

The Rich Man's Wife (1996)

Turn It Off Before the Last Sixty Seconds

[5/10 · 19 March 2005]

Josie and Tony Potenza are your typical (Hollywood) upper-crust couple. The middle-aged Tony (Christopher McDonald) is somewhat of an apathetic husband and an alcoholic, but is an otherwise loving husband with a thriving career as a film executive. Josie, the wife about half his age, feels neglected by him, but hides her concerns because she still loves her husband (and the money, let's not kid ourselves). Their flawed, but satisfactory life goes awry one night when Josie admits her marital problems to a Cole (Peter Greene), a total stranger who she becomes acquainted with after her car breaks down and he helps her out. Unfortunately for Tony, she also admits to Cole she sometimes wishes Tony was dead. Despite taking the comment back, Cole appears to take Josie's words seriously, and the problems ensue.

The cast, especially the supporting actors, bring a rather pedestrian script to life. Halle Berry is not only beautiful, but a competent actress in any role (aside from Catwoman), and in the context of the first 93 of the films 94 minute runtime, she does extraordinary as a woman lost in a situation which is totally out of her control. Christopher McDonald is great as usual, and fits the role of a wealthy, apathetic husband well. Peter Greene and Clive Owen (Josie's boyfriend) both work with what they have, and Clea Lewis (who I never heard of before this film) brings some mild humor.

The plot itself is nothing particularly new or original, but it grabs your attention slowly and when it has you hooked, it doesn't let go. While most of the material is recycled from previous (and better) films, it's presented in a manner that's still refreshing, and the characters hold it together.

Of the crew, the cinematographer, Haskell Wexler, displays his talents the best. There are many great sweeping shots of the mountains and forests, and the film as a whole has a glossy, well-composed look to it.

And there you have it: the good. The film's first 93 minutes is time well spent. The plot is interesting, the acting is above average, and film is well-shot.

Unfortunately, the last 60 seconds, yes, sixty seconds, is the film's undoing. I won't spoil the "surprise," but it is a twist ending that will cause you to scratch your head for a few minutes, and then make you wish you hadn't wasted your time. It seems like no thought went into the twist ending, and it was just tacked on because it was a popular thing to do. And with the twist at the end, gaping plot holes are left in the film. Horrible to end to an otherwise good movie. So, please take my advice. It's not such a bad movie, but skip the last 60 seconds or you'll feel cheated out of your time and intelligence.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Yeah, It's Different; But Good?

[6 September 2004]

I tend to avoid any movie suggested to me by self-confessed film fanatics and washed-out "I'm working on a script with dreams of fame, but right now I'm cleaning out toilets" co-workers. This film was suggested to me by the latter, and guess what? I broke my own rule. Well, I waited a few months and saw it on cable, so maybe I didn't. Or maybe I did since I actually did see it. Well, it doesn't matter.

The Royal Tenenbaums is one of those artsy quirky-for-the-sake-of-quirky movies. I really haven't seen to many (the aforementioned washed up film "connoisseurs") of them, but this is certainly one of them.

The basic plot that I grasped was that an selfish, aging man who's lost his family and fortune decides to make a stab at redemption and make up with his estranged wife and children. He comes back to find one son hating him, his wife with his former business partner, and the rest just drifting along in the stream of life. The plot makes many twists and turns, as do the quirky subplots.

The main plot itself is PAX-TV fare. Old bad guy tries to make everything right before he dies. Overall, nothing new and innovative here; but the sub-plots (one son's breakdown, adopted son's drug-use, etc.) keep some of the interest while the main plot languishes.

The actors all turn in minimalistic performances (the screenplay doesn't allow for much else), but they're all fairly good at what they do, especially Anjelica Huston and Luke Wilson. The style of the movie is what most contributes to the humor. Almost retro '70s style, though it's set in present times.

And... the "humor" (or lack thereof) is what most irks me about this. As a straight drama, the movie is more than adequate. But the comedy is mostly wooden. It's all cerebral humor, which really isn't a problem normally. I "got" the humor of most of it, but none of it was especially funny, and it left nothing buy an afterthough that says "Well, that was supposed to be funny..."

This film is best for the aforementioned connoisseurs, who think anything highly stylized and with Oscar buzz is good. For anyone else, take it by ear. If you see it on TV and there's nothing better on, it's worth watching. Anyone who likes humor with more body that's not as flat, you'll hate this as a comedy.

Rating: 5/10

Homeland Security (2004 TV Movie)

In Extreme Bad Taste

[1/10 · 11 April 2004]

Why must every network jump the gun in releasing tv-movies based on recent events. First there was the DC sniper movie. Then you have the Lacy Peterson movie. Both of which came out BEFORE the trials had been completed. And now, barely two years after 9/11, we have a 9/11 movie. Before the (un-necessary) War in Iraq and the abandoned War on Terror (or, according to our esteemed Mr. Bush, "War on Terra") have even accomplished their goals, before the investigation of the government's mess-ups has been completed, and long before the conspirators behind the attacks have been brought to justice (I'm even starting to doubt they'll ever be brought to justice).

Anyway, network greed and my own personal opinions on the events don't have any bearing on this movie. So, I digress and must comment on the movie.

All things considered, the plot of the movie goes all over the place. The direction and writing is short-sighted at best. We're given various twisting plotlines, that, by the end of the movie, leave tons of loose ends with no real solution (maybe its because the real-life plotlines haven't found a solution either...).

We're presented with Scott Glenn, a veteran FBI or CIA or something agent, who's on the border of retirement. Following 9/11 those plans go out the window (obviously). We're also shown another CIA agent, Marisol Nichols (most notably the scatter brained Griswold daughter in 'Vegas Vacation'), who's on stake-out outside a terrorist hide out. Needless to say, the FBI rains on her parade and kills one of her suspects. But, she takes the other one, giving the FBI a friendly greeting as she goes. Then we have Beth Broderick (the aunt of MJH in 'Sabrina: The Teenage Witch') and Tom Skerritt, who's daughter almost gets on one of the doomed planes. We are also shown various scenes from Afghanistan, which contribute almost nothing to the failing plot. Thankfully NBC didn't completely sell their soul to the devil. They didn't actually show planes crashing into buildings... just news footage of smoking buildings.

Overall, this is a short-signed, quickly done, low budget movie that tries to capitalize on fear and headlines: stock footage, low grade actors, and all. I guess I could've forgiven the greedy pigs at NBC, had they not further trivialized the events by including product placement (don't we all want to chug Minute Maid Orange juice when we find out girlfriend might be dead?).

I doubt NBC, or any other network, will re-air this turkey. But, if by chance they do, skip this. Well, unless you do want to see your two/three-year old nightmares interpreted by a bunch of greedy network execs and thrown back at you.

Rating: 3/10

From Justin to Kelly (2003)

Worst Movie Ever For a Reason

[1/10 · 6 December 2003]

I'm thankful I wasn't one of the [few] people to see this in theaters, or I would've left five minutes into it and demanded my money back. However, at a party I saw parts of this movie. I can only say WTF to how bad the movie is, and another WTF goes to the person who rented the movie for the party. WTF!?!?!?

Anyway, if you weren't under a rock during the summer of this year (2003), you probably already know how bad this movie is (or is supposed to be)... same goes for 'Gigli' (which I'm glad I never got the opportunity to see for myself). The movie must've been written by someone who must be mentally handicapped, cause it well... it sucked. No real plot. The music was poorly dubbed or something. Lip-synching was horrible too, and the acting was pretty bad. Kelly should've stuck to dancing.

I hope they don't make a movie with Clay and Ruben, cause, that'll just be sick. Avoid this movie like the plague.

The Good Son (1993)

Disturbing and Flawed, But Overall Average Thriller

[4/10 · 24 November 2003]

The first thing I noticed about the plot of this film is that it's awful similar to 'The Bad Seed,' in which a young girl is the homicidal child. The subject of 'The Good Son' is kind of disturbing and also somewhat unrealistic.

The plot is basically as follows. Elijah Wood plays a young boy who's mother died and his father leaves him with his uncle and his wife's house in Maine. There he befriends his cousin, played by Macaulay Culkin. Soon Wood discovers his cousin's homicidal tendencies (kills a dog, causes a pile-up, etc.). It comes to a whole new level when Wood finds out Culkin's character killed his baby brother several years ago, and plans to kill his younger sister. He threatens to tell his aunt and uncle, but Culkin makes it clear he won't allow that.

Overall, 'The Good Son,' is an average thriller. Some chills here and there and a decent climax, but the film has many flaws. First, the script isn't that great, and the dialogue is unrealistic (esp. Macaulay's character, which seems more like an philosophical serial killer than a disturbed child). The plot itself is unrealistic (I doubt there have been very many homicidal children). The acting is also mediocre, neither of the leads show any real talent in their roles.

My biggest problem with this film is that it's subject matter is extremely disturbing. Who really wants to see a movie where a young boy - that could be their son, nephew, grandson, etc. - kill off his siblings? I'd have to wonder what disturbed minds in Hollywood thought out this film. I could've probably forgiven this film's poorly thought-ought plot, had everything else about the film been good.

Want to see a great thriller? Check out Hitchcock or something along the lines of 'The Sixth Sense.' This movie is a low-end thriller with very little thrills and overall, isn't too entertaining.

Rating: 4/10

Virtual Nightmare (2000 TV Movie)

Interesting Film

[10/10 · 19 October 2003]

I saw this on cable awhile back when I had absolutely nothing else to to do. For a low-budget TV movie, this one is interesting, thought provoking, and over-all good.

The plot is along the lines of books (and their movie adaptations) 1984 or BRAVE NEW WORLD, with some key ingenious changes that make the film unique and interesting. It is sometime later in the 2000's, and the world is perfect and sugar-coated - or at least seemingly perfect. There are some strange things in this perfect. People can buy "brand new" cars (most of them from the '50s and '60s) and the music used is mostly from the '50s. On top of this retro world there's modern appliances such as a wide-screen TV's, and the main character, Dale Hunter, is a advertising agent working on a new project, Arora (purposefully mispelled). But when Dale starts seeing strange things, like numbers and labels written over everything, he begins to suspect something is wrong. He and a librarian, Natalie (who also shares the opinion that something is wrong), try to uncover the truth behind their perfect world.

None of the actors seem to be very well known, but they show how talented they can be in this movie. The plot is well developed (though in the middle of the film, it got a little confusing). And the special effects are good, especially for a movie with such a low budget. The only problem I have with the movie is the ending. It seemed rushed and unrealistic. For the rollercoaster ride the movie was with so many twists and mind-challenging ideas, the ending seemed a little unsatisfactory.

Great movie, and one of the best TV movies that I've seen. If you can catch this movie on TV, I recommend that you watch it. It's an entertaining and interesting movie. Something that a lot of similar films, with even higher budgets and bigger stars, fail to achieve.

Rating: 8/10

Gods and Generals (2003)

Disappointing, Boring, And Overall Bad

[26 July 2003]

I rented this out of random curiousity about what it was and why they were making it so many years after 'Gettysburg'. All the while I was watching it, I was thinking "What the hell were they thinking?"

The plot is pretty simple. The movie is a quick overview of the first two to three years of the Civil War, before the events at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (as portrayed in the first movie, 'Gettysburg'). It was a promising story, since 'Gettysburg' was a generally good movie. Sadly, they didn't execute the movie very well at all.

First of all, it's been ten years since the first movie. Most of the actors that reprised their rolls have aged at least slightly. Remember, this is supposed to be before the events in Gettysburg, not after. Also, they replaced a good number of the actors who played characters in the first movie. Most notably, they replaced Martin Sheen with Robert Duvall to play Robert E. Lee. Big mistake. Though at first glance, the casting of Martin Sheen as General Lee in the first movie seemed odd, but he portrayed his character well and it turned out great. Robert Duvall sticks out as a sore thumb in this movie.

The plot is really underdeveloped and the script seems like a patient at a psychiatric ward wrote it after reading the "How and Why Wonder Book" on the Civil War. Lee, who played a major part in the war, is underdeveloped. We don't really get to know him in the movie. Also, General Lee is only given maybe twenty minutes of screen time in an almost four hour movie. The movie also seems to spotlight on General Stonewall Jackson from after the first hour straight on through to the end. Something different for a Civil War movie, but this is a big mistake. Who really cares about the little girl he befriends? It's just another pointless part of the plot that prolongs an already long, boring movie. It also re-introduces Jeff Daniel's character, to only leave the guy hanging for the rest of the movie. Daniels isn't my favorite actor when it comes to serious rolls, but, really, he deserved more than twenty minutes of screen time.

I also dislike how they did the battles. If it wasn't for the little text blurbs about what was going on, you couldn't tell the difference between the different battles. It looks like they shot one huge battle once from different angles and used the same footage for all of the battle scenes. Very boring. I'm positive that all the Civil War battlefields didn't look exactly the same (since I've been to a lot of them). All this left me wondering what was going on. You miss one of the text blurbs, and you'll probably be lost as to what's going on in the scene.

And, yes, another thing that bothered me about this movie. No blood. No guts. Come on. This is the Civil War, not a picnic. People got shot, people were hit by shrapnel, walked into bombs, etc, but in the movie when this happened, there was no blood. I have got to wonder why this happened. They must've desperately wanted that PG-13 rating, cause that's just very unrealistic.

And yet another thing, nearly all of the major characters ended up having at least one big preachy speech. I guess these speeches were an easy way to show the audience what the characters felt? Well, it just turns out looking very boring and it's a cheap way to develop characters.

The makers of this movie got ninety million dollars to work with. So, they must have spent a lot of money on casting big names, and skimped on the plot, script, locations, production, etc. I don't see any other way that this movie could've turned out this bad. It's like a long drawn out history lesson that's being given by someone who doesn't know anything about the Civil War. No point, their just trying to look smart.

Since, I did all this bitching about the movie, I think they deserve to know what they could've done better. For one, actually do some research before you write a script. Get a better script-writer. Be more realistic - even if it means a little blood and an R rating. This movie should've really been done as a TV Mini-series. It's a half an hour shorter than 'Gettysburg', and 'Gettysburg' was portraying just one battle. If they had made the movie maybe six hours or eight hours long and done it as a mini-series, they could've done more character development, and made the movie's battles a little more realistic and look different from one another.

My advice to you. If you want to learn about the Civil War, pick up a text book. It won't be half as boring as this movie. Ted Turner must be getting heartburn from all the money he put into this movie just to have it flop as badly as it did.

Rating: 1/10

Planet of the Apes (1968)

Great Cautionary Tale

[20 July 2003]

I've heard of this film for a long time, but never felt motivated enough to bother watching it. The remake came out, and I still wasn't motivated to watch it. LOL. I was a little biased, because I've seen clips of the sequels to 'Planet of the Apes', and seeing as those sucked, I figured this movie wouldn't be much better. But, today I actually sat down and watched the movie on cable.

The special effects in Planet of the Apes are very dated, showing their age. But, the film is almost fourty years old, so, what do you expect? The ape costumes look great, though. It must've been very time and budget-consuming to dress all of the actors who played the apes and chimps every day. For its time, Planet of the Apes' special effects must've been mystifying, just from its ape costumes alone.

The story is basically this... George Taylor (Charlton Heston) is an average man, who became dissenchanted with the world, and when offered an opportunity to take part in space travel, he jumped at the chance. He and three other astronauts remained in space for a long time, and they crash on a mysterious planet. One of them dies in the incident, and the rest survive to find they've aged slightly while in space. They explore this new world and find that a legion of advanced apes have taken over. I won't reveal any more, because, I don't want to spoil the movie for you.

Unlike most science fiction movies (which run on plotlessly about cliche subjects like aliens, space travel, etc.), this one is thought provoking, bring up issues about the way we treat others, religion, and more. Despite the age of the film, these issues still remain relevant. And if we don't face them, things could turn out the way they did in 'Planet of the Apes'.

Aside from a strong plot, great themes, and good special effects (for its time), the acting in 'Planet of the Apes' is very good. Heston pulls off a great performance. And the actors that portrayed the apes did well, despite being in tons of make up and costumes. Even "Nova" was great as the average female human in year 3978, who cannot talk and is relatively primitive.

'Planet of the Apes' is a great, thought provoking movie.

Rating: 9/10

Fatal Error (1999 TV Movie)

Entertaining, Not Much Else

[27 June 2003]

I remember TBS playing this movie about 20 times following it's premiere. I caught it twice... Not because the movie was good, but because it was semi-interesting and I had nothing better to do at the time.

The plot is simple. A new cable system that is starting to be used in various electronics including TV-conferencing, ATMs, all the way to cable television systems. It starts mysteriously killing people. Two random people have to investigate this. And, I'm not giving you any major spoilers, cause you learn all of this in the first 15 minutes (if not 5 minutes).

The special effects are pretty cool, considering this is a TV-movie. The opening scene is really good. The acting is pretty bad, though. I never even heard of the actor/actress who played the protagonists before seeing this movie. Neither did a really convincing portrayal. The screenwriter of this movie goofed up, a lot. This probably accounted for the aforementioned bad acting (at least part of it). The plot is underdeveloped and predictable. But, Janine is HOT, so, that kind of made up for the movie's bad points.

Overall, entertaining movie. Don't come into with high expectations, you won't be that disappointed. Funny how TBS whored this movie when they first made it, but i don't think they've played it since.

Rating: 6/10

The Ring (2002)

Movie Left Me Confused - Not Frightened

[20 June 2003]

I rented this video recently after some of my friends told me it was an "awesome movie" and it was "really scary". I remembered seeing the trailer all over TV when it originally came out, and figured I'd give it a try. I'm not a big horror fan, but if there's a decent horror movie, I'll watch it.

The plot is this... Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) is a reporter who's cousin dies recently of mysterious causes. With some investigation she finds out that three of her cousin's friends died the same night, at exactly the same time - 10 PM. She also finds out about an urban myth of a strange video tape that once you see it you get a phone call with a strange voice saying "seven days". Seven days later, you die. Rachel finds the tape and watches it, then brings her ex-husband (I think ???), Noah, a video expert into it. And together they try to track down the history behind the tape.

'The Ring' has a very atmostpheric mood to it, which makes the first hour or so of the movie seem creepier than it is. The video tape is a series of disturbing images which slowly begin to make sense as the story unfolds. All of the actors seem to do a good job in their roles, but three quarters of the way through the movie I got lost. I fell off the "wagon" and wasn't able to catch up with anything that was going on from then on.

The movie's plot is very strange. I know it has something to do with a girl who is adopted by a couple who own a farm on an island. There they breed horses, and the father abuses the child. Then the whole horse disease by-line is introduced and it gets more confusing. And the girl supposedly is telepathic or something. The confusion ruined whatever chances I had at comprehending what was going on with the rest of the movie.

The last ten minutes in particular were horrible. I won't give away anything, but, then again, I didn't quite get the whole jist of the ending anyway.

Overall, a decent horror movie, with an indepth plot which can easily get confusing. There are some truly scary scenes here and there. And there are some scenes that are supposed to be scary that just end up getting confusing. The explanation for the video tape and the young girl's death the writers come up with towards the end doesn't quite add up.

The movie has great cinematography with a moody atmosphere. Acting is good, also. The plot, though, is too confusing - at least for me. And the confusion spoiled the whole movie for me. Rating: 5/10

Bats (1999)

Bad, Could've Been Worse

[5/10 · 26 May 2003]

I watched this movie on a Saturday afternoon when I didn't have anything to do for a couple hours. It was on TV - so, I technically didn't have to pay anything to watch it. Just from the name of the movie, I wasn't expecting much, and I wasn't overly disappointed because of this.

The basic plot is this... A mad scientist (played by Gunton) invents a new breed of bats that the US military hopes to use as a super-weapon. Unfortunately for a small Texas town and its sheriff (Lou Diamond Phillips), the scientist lets the bats loose. They soon start killing animals, and then people, causing havoc in the town. A doctor (Dina Meyer) and her assistant join the party (Leon Robinson) to try to destroy the homicidal bats.

The acting throughout this film is bad, but not as bad as other films (even some with larger budgets). Special effects in this film are average, but could've been a lot better for a theatre release. The plot is thin and flimsy and has a lot of wholes in it. And the dialog is unrealistic and cheezy... not much thought seemed to go into the script.

This is the type of movie that would've fit in better as a TV-movie or a direct-to-video release. I'm surprised they bothered releasing this to movie theatres.

If I had spent the $7 - $10 to see this movie when it first came out, I would've felt cheated. If I had spent the $3 - $5 to rent this movie, I would've been disappointed. But, I didn't spend any money to see this and I didn't expect much to begin with. If you are into the sort of movie that seems so bad it's funny, it might be worth it to you to rent this movie or to see it more than once on TV. Anyone else, if you are bored and have nothing better to do, this is a good time waster and it will keep you entertained. But after you see it, I doubt you'll want to see it again.

Rating: 5/10

Total Request Live (1998–2019)

Packaged Cookie Cutter Music...

[12 April 2003]

You really can't judge the show without judging the music that is on it. Carson was a decent host. Not great, not bad. The whole slew of new hosts that have taken over for him in the past couple months are not great, and not bad, too. The show's concept is not unique, but it was a good idea from whoever came up with it in the beginning. The show itself has some flaws; but most of the flaws comes from the music it plays itself.

First of all, I don't claim to be an expert of TRL history. I've only seen maybe 15 episodes my whole life. I've never voted. And most of the times I've seen the show is during the summer when I wasn't doing anything at the moment, or if I got home early.

TRL seems to present its audience with maybe 30 or 40 videos to chose from at any given moment. You can pretty much count on it that anything outside those 30 or 40 videos won't ever get on the countdown. As a result of these restrictions, it's no doubt that the same brainless mush manages to get on the countdown. TRL doesn't present its audience with any unique or different music. So, it's audience (mainly kids between 10 and 15) never votes anything unique or different on the top ten.

TRL is also strictly placed into one demographic - kids between 10 and 15, so, anyone outside the demographic, or people inside the demographic who like different types of music, is turned off by the show. And since these people don't watch (and vote) for it, there are no other outside influences. Basically, TRL is stuck in a small airtight bubble with the music it plays. Recently this has changed slightly, but, not by much.

What TRL plays on its countdown is just stale and doesn't fully represent what is out there, right now. It's regulars include Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, Avril Lavigne, Britney Spears, B2K, the boy bands, Jennifer Lopez, etc. Only one of these regulars actually plays an instrument and writes songs. The rest either write no original songs, play no original instruments... or have written or co-written one or two songs on their albums. Not very much artist integrity, huh? Recently TRL has embraced pop-punk and mainstream rap. But, really, these genres are also focused on TRL's demographic.

If TRL really wants to dig itself out of the drudgery of its music and ratings, it needs to try to expand its demographic. Otherwise, this show will be stuck as a show for pop hungry pre-teens and younger teens.

I haven't watched TRL very much at all, and I won't ever. Out of interest, I've watched it a few times, and I don't like what I see.

For those of you who have yet to define what you think is good music. Or, if you think what TRL is playing is good music (you're entitled to opinions)... this is a show for you.

If you don't like what gets played on TRL, don't watch it. There's always CDs and MP3s.

Rating: 3/10

Wanda at Large (2003)

Could Become My Favorite Comedy Show

[4 April 2003]

There's only been two episodes of this show, but, from those two, this show is one of the best comedies - definitely the best comedy to come out of the last few years.

Wanda Sykes plays Wanda Hawkins. She lives in the same apartment building with her sister-in-law (Tammy Lauren) and her sister-in-law's son. Her wit and sarcasm lands her a job at a local TV station as a reporter.

Wanda Sykes is HILARIOUS. Both episodes kept me laughing from start to finish. If you aren't watching it, I really suggest you do. With the crazy stuff going on today, we need a good laugh. And this show delivers with excess. It's not just a show for black or white, young or old, etc.

Great show so far. Has the makings of an all-time best comedy show.

Rating: 10/10

The Last Brickmaker in America (2001 TV Movie)

I Feel Bad for Sidney Poitier

[4 April 2003]

Poitier managed to get involved in two predictable piles of TV-movie mush within two years (1999's The Simple Life... and this). I remember watching this over a year ago on TV. The movie continues Poitier's career doldrums. He contributes a good performance, but writing and the overall horrible movie overshadow whatever attempts he makes.

Poitier plays Henry Cobb, a man who makes bricks the old fashioned way to make a living. He has a recently lost his wife and is depressed about how his career is becoming obsolete. Then he meets a young boy who works for him over the summer to meet a deadline for bricks. And the usual "bonding... wise old guy teaches kid stuff" plot continues on and on.

The rest of the cast isn't memorable, and don't contribute anything to rise the movie above below average / marginal. The writing was hurried and the dialogue is unrealistic for the most part. Poitier is a great actor, but, his talents are wasted.

I watched it once a while back, and will never watch it again. I wish Hollywood would give Poitier a roll in a movie that gets released to theatres where he can actually shine and show his full ability.

Unless you like sappy family oriented TV-movie of the week's like this ... or, you are a fan of Sidney; avoid this like the plague.

Rating: 3/10

The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn (1999 TV Movie)

Typical Hallmark Movie, Very Unrealistic

[4 April 2003]

Decent TV-movie, but it's unrealistic and this is not my type of movie anyway. There are very few (if any) Hallmark movies that I enjoy, because, again, it's not my favorite genre of movie.

Sidney Poitier plays a 91 year old local carpenter and legend, Noah Dearborn who is still in good health and is always working. Developers try to buy him off his land, including up-and-coming lawyer Christian Nelson (George Newbern). He brings his girlfriend and psychologist (Mary-Louise Parker) to try to prove Dearborn isn't of sound man in order to get him off his land.

Decent, mushy, sweet premise that will attract some people, I guess. But, the plot holes are numerous. Supposedly Dearborn was born in 1909, yet his house looks like something out of the late 1800s. Dearborn never gets sick. Oh yeah, that's believable. Everybody gets sick once in awhile, it's inevitable ... especially if you're a laborer and work outside a lot (even more likely during winter, which he does). Dearborn is a major figure in the community and goes around town a lot, yet he'd never heard of the Beatles. Also, the film would've been more believable if they'd actually casted someone who was actually 91 years old - at least it would give some credibility to the film. Of course, there is no actor that old who isn't in as good mint condition as Dearborn. (Poitier was born 1927, almost 20 years younger than the character he plays.)

Though full of plot holes, there is one good point. Sidney is a great actor, and he pulls this roll off flawlessly, despite horrible preachy lines that kind of weaken the work he put into his roll. As far as the rest of the cast... Well, for the most part, their acting is flat. The writing in the film is also flat (probably the cause of the bad acting). Another reviewer wondered why Poitier's talent is being wasted on these types of movies. I have to ask that too. He's one of the best actors ever, yet, gets sappy rolls like this that weren't thoroughly thought out.

This movie really should've been thought out more. But, I guess the audience this movie targeted really don't think about the holes in the plot. I wouldn't ever bother seeing this movie again.

Rating: 4/10

Thinner (1996)

Decent Thriller, Doesn't Live Up to Book

[31 March 2003]

I saw this movie on TV a few years back. I'd read the book before seeing the movie, and I've read the book a second time recently, after seeing the movie. And I think I can safely say that 'Thinner' is a decent attempt, but doesn't live up to the book.

The movie is based on Stephen King's 'Thinner'. It is based around an obese small-town lawyer, Billy Halleck (Robert Burke), who has a curse put on him by a gypsy (Michael Constantine), after running over his daughter with his car. Halleck leaves his wife (Lucinda Jenny) and daughter (Joie Lenz), to find the gypsy and get the curse that is steadily making him thin reversed, before it is too late.

Like another reviewer said, this movie seems really TV movie-ish. The only actor I recognize in this movie is the typecasted Joe Mantegna. The rest I've never heard of before or since this movie. For the most part the movie is faithful to the book. But, it lacks much of the vivid detail of the book. Also, the main character is far more tame in the movie. Though, as I said, most of the actors I've never heard of before or since, they do a very good job in this movie. After seeing the movie, I can't picture anyone else playing the roles they did. And the make-up effects are amazing.

Overall, a decent movie. Could've better captured the spirit of the book. You could find a worse way to spend two hours.

Rating: 7/10

Geronimo (1993 TV Movie)

Best Film Portrayal of Geronimo Ever

[9/10 · 31 March 2003]

I remember seeing this movie on TNT when it originally aired and really enjoyed it. This is one of TNT's best original movies ever. Sadly, TNT never airs this movie, and I think they have buried it, since it doesn't appear on their website as one of their original movies either.

This movie really properly portrayed the plight of the Apache during the 19th and even into the 20th century. Something that it's all-star cinema counterpart failed to do. Native Americans really got screwed over by the US government. None of the actors are very well known, but Joseph Runningfox (who I assume is an actual native american) did a great job as the Apache hero.

This movie manages to stay interesting, yet remain historically accurate and not portray the Apaches as unprovoked savages as in most movies about the legend. I wish TNT would play this movie again, or at least put the movie on video.

Rating: 8/10

The Car (1977)

Great Thriller About a Killer Car

[31 March 2003]

This is a simple thriller. A car shows up, kills people, has some thrilling and shocking scenes, and then is blown up. Simple premise. Simple conclusion. But, a really entertaining ride.

A generic car (that doesn't really resemble any other car ever made) arrives in a rural desert town and begins to kill others. It threatens a parade and even kills people in their home. A really young James Brolin stars as the town's chief of police and Kathleen Lloyd is really hot as his wife and a teacher in the town's school.

The movie kept my attention straight through and some scenes had me on the edge of my seat the first time I saw it, when I was ten or so. I've seen it several other times since then, and I still enjoy watching this movie. There are some real big surprises in this low budget flick.

This is a memorable horror thriller that you'll remember for quite awhile. And, as someone else had said, the car's horn will really stick in your mind. Not great, but entertaining.

Rating: 6/10

Dead Calm (1989)

Highly Recommended Thriller

[30 March 2003]

I've seen this several times over the years, and I must say this is a really good thriller. It always keeps me interested. Also, since I'm interested in the sea and ships, that's probably part of the reason why I like the movie so much.

A young Nicole Kidman plays Rae, the wife of John Ingram (Sam Neill), who are taking a sailing trip in the Pacific after losing their only son in an automobile accident. They are having fun sailing through the ocean when they come to a sinking schooner with a man paddling frantically towards their boat in a lifeboat. The man, Hughie Warriner (Billy Zane), turns out to be a crazed lunatic, and when John goes off to check the schooner, Hughie kidnaps his wife and his ship. They are in the fight of their life.

Nicole Kidman is both beautiful and talented. She doesn't say much in the movie, but her expressions and actions are well portrayed. Billy Zane is a convincing psychopath and Sam Neill is a good actor also. The cinematography is great and the scenery is really beautiful. The only real problem with the movie is the plot.

The movie's conflict could've easily been resolved had it not been for stupid mistakes. The script relies too heavily on these stupid mistakes. Nicole's character gets numerous chances to kill the psychopath, but she never takes them. And anyone in their right mind wouldn't leave their wife with a stranger to check out a strange ship. The characters' lack of common sense is really what keeps the story moving.

But, these plot holes can be forgiven. The acting is great, the direction is great, the cinematography is great. The script could've used more work, but that is forgivable. If you enjoy thrillers or are interested in the sea and ships, I suggest you check this movie out. You won't be disappointed.

Rating: 8/10

Nick of Time (1995)

Well Done Hitchcock Styled Thriller

[29 March 2003]

I remember watching this movie several months back on TV and was pleasantly surprised. The directing is great, the characters are well developed and dynamic, and the acting is better than average.

Johnny Depp returns to Los Angeles with his daughter (Courtney Watson). When he stops at the train station he discovers his daughter is missing and comes across Mr. Smith (Christopher Walken) and Ms. Jones (Roma Maffia). He is told he must assassinate Governor Grant (Marsha Mason) within an hour or his daughter will be killed.

There are many interesting plot twists in this movie that kept me on the edge of my seat. Christopher Walken is perfectly cast as "Mr. Smith". He is always cast as the antagonist, and he always carries it out perfectly. Roma Maffia brings wry sarcastic comedy. And the rest of the actors shine in this under-rated thriller.

If you catch this on TV, or can rent it, I recommend it to you. You won't be disappointed. It'll keep you on the edge of your seat for a good hour and a half or so.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and hope I can catch it again sometime.

Rating: 9/10

Miss Congeniality (2000)

Great Comedy

[8/10 · 28 March 2003]

Sandra Bullock produces and stars as Gracie Hart, a tom-boyish FBI agent, who is reluctant to work by the rules. This attitude gets her in trouble when her actions get another agent shot. But, she is given a second chance by fellow FBI agent, Eric Matthews (Benjammin Bratt), who is heading investigation into a bomber. When it is found his (or her) next target is the Miss United States Pageant, Gracie must become a contestant to solve the case.

Sandra Bullock is one of the funniest actresses that's currently a major actress. She does and says many things in this movie that are really hilarious and kept me laughing. Most of the characters are flat, but the movie overall is funny and entertaining.

Sandra has had a few bad movies. 'Speed 2' made me laugh, but in the wrong way. 'Hope Floats' was way too awkward and sappy for me. And 'Forces of Nature' had a few laughs, but the ending was strange and even more awkward. But this one is really one of the greats.

I highly recommend you rent this movie or see it on TV. You won't regret it.

Rating: 8/10

In the Heat of the Night (1988–1995)

Possibly the Best TV Cop Show Ever

[26 March 2003]

I remember watching the last season on CBS, then later catching re-runs on TNT. This show is amazing, with many memorable shows that caught my attention and didn't let go until the show was over. Many great performances by actors who sadly disappeared or were stuck in guest appearances after this show.

Basically, the "In the Heat of the Night" show picks up where the 1967 series ended (with some minor plot changes, and the show was updated to the times). Chief Gillespie (Carroll O'Connor) is much more comical and light-hearted than the 1967 character. Virgil Tibbs (Howard Rollins) has settled in Sparta and brings his wife, Althea (Anne-Marie Johnson) along. There are also many stand-out characters in the police department, including Bubba Skinner (Alan Autry), Parker Williams (David Hart), Lonnie Jamison (Hugh O'Connor), Wilson Sweet (Geoffrey Thorne), and Luanne Corbin (Crystal R. Fox). This show also broke ground by introducing Harriet DeLong (Denise Nicholas), who becomes involved in a relationship with Gillespie.

This show presented the south (and the police) very well, and consistently produced shows that kept your attention - even to the very end. There was also an element of comedy to each episode, that helped the show not to be dragged down to the over-dramatic. But, the comedy also doesn't make the show overly corny or stupid.

Everyone in the cast contributed great, consistent performances. It's a shame that most of the cast couldn't find work after this show.

Hugh O'Connor (Carroll's adopted son) committed suicide only months after the show was canceled.

Howard Rollins died shortly after the show was taken off the air from cancer.

Carroll O'Connor left acting for a few years, making guest appearances once in awhile, and died of a heart attack in 2001.

Anne-Marie Johnson has done several voice-overs, and I remember seeing her in a telemovie, 'Asteroid', a few years back. Other than a recurring roll on the now-canceled TV show, 'Grace Under Fire', Alan Autry, has disappeared. David Hart, Geoffrey Thorne, Denise Nicholas, and Crystal Fox have also disappeared after this show.

In the Heat of the Night was a great show. It was also a seemingly cursed show. None of the actors have gone on to "bigger and better things". And three have since died. R.I.P. TNT still re-runs this show, so, if you catch it, I recommend you watch the show. You won't be disappointed.

Rating: 9/10

Pearl (1978)

Sappy, But Entertaining Miniseries

[9/10 · 24 March 2003]

I remember watching this on the Family Channel (yes, the family channel) a long time ago when I was little. At the time I wasn't sure what I was watching, but I did like the movie. I had time to waste, and this wasted time while being entertaining. I've seen the miniseries at least five times since then, when it's be re-run on various cable channels.

Whichever TV channel broadcast this originally, put a lot of work into it. On location filming, many of the biggest stars of 70s, and good special effects. With all this money put into these parts of the movie, the plot is slightly thin and melodramatic, and they "borrow" many action scenes from 'Tora, Tora, Tora' (good movie, but much more boring than this miniseries).

Angie Dickinson plays the bitchy wife of a colonel (Dennis Weaver), who tries to have an affair with a southern captain (Robert Wagner), and ultimately is involved in an affair with a private. Lesley Ann Warren is a doctor who is saved from suicide by Wagner. A local journalist of Japanese origin (Tiana Alexandra) is involved with a private (Adam Arkin). There's also a load of notable B actors that you can recognize from other films. All of them find themselves under attack on their island paradise of Hawaii.

Angie Dickinson and Lesley Ann Warren are both really attractive, and contribute decent performances considering the thin plot. Wagner and Weaver are both okay too. A pre-ER Adam Arkin contributes a good performance. And Tiana Alexandra is really under-rated. Sadly she disappeared after this miniseries. The supporting cast are all good, also. The plot is thin, though. They send Angie off on a long taxi ride in the middle of the series. Most of the relationships are unrealistic. And some of the historical facts are skewed (for the most part, because we learned more about the occurrences at Pearl Harbor after this miniseries was made).

Overall, if you have six hours to waste, take a look at this. Over-dramatic, but entertaining. You want a more historically accurate movie, see 'Tora, Tora, Tora'. More interested in actors who are still making movies and computerized special effects, see the even sappier (and, in my opinion, horrible) 'Pearl Harbor'.

Rating: 7/10

Play'd: A Hip Hop Story (2002 TV Movie)

Good Hip-Hop Industry Related Telemovie

[10/10 · 22 March 2003]

VH1 did a good job at creating this fictional East Coast / West Coast rap war movie. It's very similar to the real-life events involving Bad Boy and Death Row records in the mid-90s.

Quick plot summary. The movie surrounds Jaxx, part of a rap duo who is enticed by Domino Breed, a record exec tyrant, to join Breed's record label to pursue a solo career. Jaxx does so, but in the process, begins a relationship with up-and-coming R&B songstress, Yanesha, and destroying his relationship with his wife, Shonda. When an east coast / west coast rap war begins, Jaxx becomes threatened.

I enjoyed seeing two real-life musicians playing rolls in this movie. Toni Braxton (who's had hits like "Unbreak My Heart" and "You're Makin' Me High") and Sharissa (her first single, "Any Other Night", did decently in early 2002), both contributed good performances in this movie. The rest of the cast did well, though I've never heard of them before this.

Overall, VH1 created an above average telemovie that is loosely based on a real rap war. Good performances, a good soundtrack, and good direction.

Rating: 7/10