To Die For

This does not hold interest. The best appeal this movie has is NicoleKidman. If not for her sex appeal, I would not have wasted my time all theway to the end of the movie. The climax is near the beginning of themovie,and even that was a disappointment. Go see a Pee Wee Herman movie to findmore gripping suspense.

From director Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting, Psycho remake) comes aquite interesting idea for a film. Telling a story about a woman who iswilling to do nearly anything to be recognised and consideredbeautiful, or "to die for" in this case. Basically Golden Globewinning, and BAFTA nominated Nicole Kidman plays Suzanne Stone Marettowho is a normal everyday house wife married to Matt Dillon as LarryMaretto. She wants to get a really high paid job presenting the news,or at least being a weather woman. So one day she goes to Ed Grant(Basic Instinct and Space Jam's Wayne Knight) for a job (being aweather girl) and she lets her have the job. She starts off well, but Ithink it's house problems and not being too popular making her go alittle mad in places, or something. Also starring Joaquin Phoenix asJimmy Emmett. Nicole Kidman's performance as a bitch is terrific andthere is great music from Danny Elfman. Nicole Kidman was number 21 onThe 100 Greatest Movie Stars. Good!

I really enjoyed this sharp, entertaining, witty comedy/drama/suspensemovie. She is evil, corrupt, smart, and you just want to either hug her orsmack her. I would recommend this movie to anyone. Watchclosely!

I have been through several bad movies- Tank Girl, The Great White Hype,Class of 1999, etc. The difference between those films and this one isthatI never walked out of those. This was the first movie I ever paid for thatdrove me from the theatre. Nicole Kidmans’ role was dumbfounding- Whatthehell did she want? Everyone seemed to be playing in slow-motion. In all,itwasn’t even worth the air-conditioning.

And it came from the same director as Drugstore Cowboy? Weirder thanwierd.

This "satire" has Nicole Kidman playing (cough cough, Nicole Kidman) alocal weather reporter who, all of a sudden, wants to get widespread mediaattention so she hires three offspring to wipe out her husband. That’s whatthe movie is about. The reviews beefed this up, describing it as a satire ofthe media. "What anyone would do just to get 15 minutes of fame." I’m afraidthat’s been done before.

We’ll always remember Peter Finch’s line "I’m mad as hell and I’m not goingto take it anymore" from Network, about the News Reporter so angry and fedup that he made Travis Bickle look stable. But this movie was amisconstructed mess lacking any style or subtstance.

I completely disagree with both the opinions I have read and theaverage mark given to the film. I believe it is a highly original andfunny comedy, with good acting (well, maybe Nicole just plays herselfon the film) and a great atmosphere. I saw it quite a long time ago, soI cannot remember too well why I liked it so much, but the CHARACTERSof Suzanne (the shark: deadly, cold and greedy) by Nicole Kidman, Larry(innocent, catholic, primary and with really bad taste, but really inlove with Suzanne-Nicole) by Matt Dillon and Jimmy (even more primary,slightly retarded, a tool for Suzanne's ambitious dreams) by amagnificent Joaquim Phoenix (his best role so far) will stay in my filmmemory forever. Watch it and judge for yourself. You'll have a laugh.And maybe a tear. I am sure you'll be touched by this extremely acidcomedy.

This is the worst film I have ever seen. I absolutely hated it. NicoleKidman plays the most diabolical film character ever. Apparently if youdespise a movie villain, that means they’ve done a good job. However, ifthat was the case, you would have to empathise with the supporting cast.Inthis film , they are all the most undeserving of sympathy in cinemahistory.Who cares who dies? They all should, at least that would have left mewithsatisfaction. The best movie villains are the ones you can like, or haveheroic individuals who you can support up against them. Instead, you getanegotistical lead, some slimy support and a detestable backing cast. Toldinflashbacks, which is never a good idea, this film is appalling.

My Rating: 1/10, but if the site would let me 0/10

Not a bad movie, but a grade b one. The acting is ok. Some of the story istoo shocking or over board. This movie is like watching the Jerry Springershow, I believe that was the films intention. The stroy keeps one watching,but the film itself is not that great. Worth renting not buying. Kidman getacross as mean and cold, such women would scare anyone. Regreatably thisPulp fiction become real life news every once in a while. Those Tab styleshows love these stories. This is a 6 out of 10. Hey it’s better thanIshtar! A good second rental after watching a newer movie. I just hope theynever make part 2. I wonder if Cruse had any involvment in thisfilm?

To die for is one of the best thriller i ever seen, Nicole Kidmann playispart so great.This Movie has to be more sucesfull then it was.I recommend it at all the fans from Nicole Kidmann, it is the start tothecareer of Joachim Phoenix to.

This is a perfect example of messy film making. It looks like Gus Van Santtried to shoot the film in like three days, because everything seems sodisjointed and awkward. It really stinks because this was the first filmthat Nicole Kidman got praised by critics in, but I really dont know whatthey were thinking. The script is shallow, the characters are corny andplastic, so the film really just never gets off the ground. It has a lot ofwell known actors in it, but thats about it. ** out of****.

read comments (0)

Twelve Monkeys

this was the only single movie where I fell asleep… twice.the first time I woke Jim (the guy Willis plays) was on his originaltimeline (again) surrounded by macroscopic bionic eyes that allowed thescientists to watch him. what??? I didn’t got it. What was the purpose ofthat things?? Why did they had to see trough that things?

Second time I woke up New York was being invaded by animals. Elephants,Lions, Giraffes, whatever, you name it, they were all there..

First reaction: "What the … are we still in the samemovie??"Anyway animals tend to call me down. just seeing them running away in thestreets made me fell sooooo sleepy…Need to say more?

the movie made no sense, was very run together, and you had to watch everysecond to make (no) sense of what it was about. bruce willis’ worst movieyet. i dont get into sci-fi that much so i couldnt even stomach the wholething, i had to turn it off. not even worth a rental, just wait for it tocome on cable/sat., you wont want to waste your money on this flop….themovie industy sure did!!!

Yech, what a horrible, sordid story. This is ridiculously disgusting,right from the start and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It is afuturistic sci-fi story about a man "James Cole" (Bruce Willis) goingback and trying to find out about a virus that killed five billionpeople and sent the remaining humans on earth underground.

Suonds interesting but the first half an hour (at least, because Ididn't last a whole lot longer with this) takes place in a cruel mentalward. Brad Pitt plays "Jeffrey Goines," an extremely hyper, disgustingperson. Add in the gross scenes and profanity and this is an extremelyunappealing movie to anyone with any sense of taste.

Over rated movie!Not The worst I have seen but imdb 7.8 hell no!What is sooriginal about this one?I predicted most of what was going on!Come onpeople(especially the ones who praised this movie to high heavens at the usercomments portion.If it is the quality of the movie regarding the questionofones reality,it was weak there!I never ever seriously doubted that he wasfrom the future man!Did any one?If any one seriously did that person whoactually thought that is so naive!!!They praise it for being a thinkersmovie.It does make you think BUT it is nothing deep at all.I should say itmight be a dumb persons thinking movie.That is what it is!It is a moviefordumb people who feel like watching a movie that makes them think but isactually lightweight enough so as not to leave that dumb person too farbehind.If you want a real time travel thinking movie,watch TOTALRECALL.Howabout BACK TO THE FUTURE (all 3).12 Monkeys had great acting.That much Icansay.All the leading actors did their part and gave it their all.But thewaythe movie was done was wrong.The story,as predictable as it is,is notreallythat bad but the torturing style they did trying to be a modern Hitchcockmovie ruined it.Peace out…….

talk about confusing..which this movie was.. i watched it and i was Totallylost.. it made no sense what so ever to me.. im wondering why Bruce Willisand Brad Pitt would want to be associated with such trash??

i think Terry Gilliam should have just stayed with comedy and not evenattempt to make this one.. what was he thinking?? the way things went backand forth just confused the heck outta me… nothing made sense at all.. iwas disappointed in Bruce and Brad for doing such a turkey of a movie.. theywere the reason i rented it too.. it was just Way to weird for my liking , iDONT recommend this movie to anyone …

This is the worst movie I’ve ever seen! When I finally got through thismovie I had the worst migrane in the world! Now I like Bruce Willis andBradPitt but.. what were they thinking with this one?? What a horrible film. Ifyou havent seen this movie yet, count your blessings!!

This "plot" verges on incomprehensibility, but is not brilliantlycomplex. It’s OK though, since you really don’t empathize with any ofthe characters anyway. When I watched the scientists from the futurewho force convicts into "volunteering" for deadly assignments break outinto a chorus of "I found my thrill on blueberry hill" to Willis whenhe comes back from yet another time trek, all I could think about wereall the morons who actually like to watch stuff like that. What timetravel, the psychiatric world, and animals rights activists have incommon is unexplained from start to end and each of these themes aren’texplored and converged to produce anything stimulating. What’s more isthat nobody on this site or elsewhere can seem to explain that, or atleast give a thoughtful, provocative, or at least more than superficialanalysis of why this movie is any good. They’re all the mindlesssputtering clichés like, "what a masterpiece!," "Gilliam is a genius!,"Brad Pitt is brilliant!" I did notice quite a few people who wrote thatlike many of Gilliam’s films, this movie is actually more enjoyable towatch the second or third time around. Well, so are Freddy Got Fingeredand Episode I, so I’d have to say this film is in good company. To knowthat this movie is in the Top 250 behind other forgettable "classics"such as Toy Story 2 and Eternal Sunshine is unf***ingbelievable. Thankyou lowbrows for once again recommending anothersigh-of-relief-once-it’s-over movies.

This movie is hardly the fantastic film that many people make it out to be.The story line in worn out, the constant changes in time and location onlyadd to the confusion, characters are undeveloped, and the movie just overallfalls flat of my expectations. Even though I consider Bruce Willis a goodactor, even he was unable to raise this movie above the level of a bad hackjob.

I could not believe how bad this movie was. The overacting, especiallyby Brad Pitt, was truly awful.

Plus it was way too long. It was like never ending torture.

I am shocked that others on IMDb apparently liked it. It was really,really, really, bad! All persons who were involved in the creation ofthis movie should hang their heads in shame!

To summarize: 1. Worst Movie Ever! 2. Overacting! 3. Too Long! 4.Torture! 5. Bad! 6. Shame!

Oh the humanity!

I would gouge my eyes out rather than watch it again.

I give it zero monocles!

Looking for trite, manipulative, "attempt to confuse the audience to hideineptitude of the film" flicks for your next get together? This is a musthave. Poor acting, predicable characters, and Brad Pitt.

I liked "Le Jetee" but this is just a trainwreck.

read comments (0)

The Net

Annoying film about a young woman (Sandra Bullock) who stumbles upon somedangerous computer software and then becomes the target of a sadisticassassin (Jeremy Northam). This film was made in 1995, when the Internetwas becoming a curiosity with people around the world. Anall-over-the-mapscreenplay and confusing direction do not help out in the end. Bullocktries hard, but she cannot save the film’s wild screenplay. Dennis Millershines in a small supporting role. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

You could get into the nitty gritty of this film, and say how it couldn’thappen, or how could the main character just walk into offices and startusing computers etc without someone noticing and really pick the movie tobits…or you could just sit back with a bucket of popcorn and enjoy thestory and the acting. Personally, I prefer the latter, I live real life andwatch the news with all it’s doom and gloom, and so would much rather beentertained by my movies, and see the bad guys get their just rewards. Don’t take it too seriously, and you can thoroughly enjoy thisfilm.

This Movie is a warning to all people sat surfing the internet on atypical day at the office. My Warning is ,Do not reveal too much aboutyourself, 2 Be careful who you cross!! ,there are spies on thisinternet thing. I thought that it was so scary what that man and womancombination did to poor Angela Bennett, I did not realise that somebodycould take ones life away in one click of this mouse Angela I thoughtdid a sterling job of outwitting Jack Delvin and that awful girl myquestion is, why does that computer make that noise when it works? likea clicking sound mine does not do this or this one. This film alsotells you that there is fraud on this internet Also why couldn’t Angelado the virus destroyer programme at a CyberCafe? I also thought thatlike all computers the transfer rate to disk was slow that is correctlyportrayed in this film when you save the programme to your floppy diskthe bar only moved slowly!!! I quite liked Angela’s house at thebeginning of the film as well Why did no one believe Angela???

Wow! In my opinion, THE NET is an excellent, nail-biting,edge-of-your-seat techno thriller that will leave you feeling good allover. When I first saw it, I was feeling good all over for days. WhenAngela (Sandra Bullock) went to Mexico, I thought to myself, "That is areally nice place to vacation." From the moment Jack (Jermey Northam)and Ruth (Wendy Gazelle) began chasing her, I thought to myself, "Don’tlet anything bad happen to her! Please!" I also took quite a few deepbreaths to prevent myself from screaming any more than I already had.On the bright side, if you ask me, the house was very luxurious andspacious. In conclusion, I give this excellent, nail-biting,edge-of-your-seat techno thriller four stars.

Unless you are a Sandra-Bullock-lounging-around-apool-in-a-bikini-fanatic, this is a truly forgettable movie.

No, I really mean it, folks!

All I can recall in The Net is that it was a cash-in movie (designed to"cash in" on the whole new Internet craze of ten years ago). Along withthat, I remember that the movie fell apart in logic and pacing–youknow, the way high concept movies so often do once the initiallyintriguing premise wears off.

I read the cast list on the title page here on IMDb and I was surprisedto see that Dennis Miller was in it. Miller is an enjoyable performer,but I have no recollection of his being in The Net.

They're showing it on TNT or TBS or WGN this month and I'm tempted towatch it just to see if it's as bad as I remember . . . or don'tremember.

Or care.

This is a solid underrated little thriller, that has thrills-a plenty,with a cool story, Sandra Bullock is terrific!. All the characters aregreat, and I was surprised by how unpredictable it was as there wereonly a few predictable moments, plus Sandra Bullock is simply amazingin this!. Jeremy Northam played an awesome villain, and I know whatBullock's character in this is all about, because I'm kind of the sametype of person(I hardly ever go out), plus this is pretty well made andwritten for the most part. This should be higher then 5.5 in myopinion, plus Denis Miller was surprisingly better then expected in hissmall role. The scene where Northam terrorizes Bullock on his boat wasquite suspenseful, and was one of my favorite moments, and I also likedthe chase scene in the carnival, plus I liked the ending too, as it wasquite well done, even If i did think Northam was defeated too quickly.There are lots of other good chase scenes as well, and it's also cleverat times too, plus there are quite a few shocking moments as well, Thisis a solid underrated little thriller, that has thrills a-plenty, witha cool story, Sandra Bullock is terrific, I highly recommend this one!.The Direction is great!. Irwin Winkler does a great! job here withexcellent camera work, adding good atmosphere, good angles and keepingthe film at a very fast pace. The Acting is fantastic!. Sandra Bullockis amazing as always and is amazing here, she is extremely likable,tough as nails yet quite vulnerable, and I was able to feel for herbecause as I said I'm sort of like Angela,I hardly ever go out, Ireally enjoyed her work in this movie! (Bullock Rules!!!!!!!). JeremyNortham is excellent as the villain, he was sneaky, unpredictable andvery menacing, he was great. Dennis Miller is surprisingly OK and nonannoying in his small role, and managed to bring some comic relief.Rest of the cast are fine. Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2out of 5

I loved this movie!

Movies and plays fulfill their purpose when they expose social,political, and other problems that affect the majority. This movieserved that purpose.

I identify with the plot and know people to whom this has happened. Atthe time this movie was made, concepts presented in this flick wereadvanced for the public, yet had already happened to friends of mine byway of people in powerful positions. And, I know what it is like whenpeople do to you what they did to Angela Bennett, because they havedone it to me.

I greatly enjoyed Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of Angela Bennett/RuthMarx. She portrays a pretty, intelligent, and witty young woman who hasthe courage to avoid giving up to overwhelming odds, fight hard to keepher sanity and restore her life, and try to protect those whom sheloves. Losing her self-concept and succumbing to that age-old attemptto bolster a sagging self esteem by indulging in sex with a strangeradded a poignant touch of reality.

The climax of the plot reveals the only real solution to this kindproblem.

We can conclude that there are 10 types of people in this world.

Those who understand binary and those who do not. Those who understandbinary put this movie to its grave along with hackers, while those who doenjoy this movie for the sake that none of this crap could happen. Ever.

For a movie to attempt to be a modern movie with fiction applied to it. Ithas failed. Horribly. Only a 11yr old and below can enjoy and only 30yr andup could be scared to have their identity taken. It losses out on the mainmarket for a resale value(i watch it now it is more boring than when it wasfirst released).

Computing . Can there be anything more boring ? Sitting in front of acomputer all day typing away at some keys all day every day , tap taptapping . That’s much of the problem with this movie , the heroine sitsin front of a computer VDU tapping the keys and no matter how manylooks of agitation she gives , or how much suspenseful notes thecomposer strikes or how many extreme close ups the director usesthere’s not much excitement down to the fact that there’s few thingsless exciting than watching somebody on a computer

There’s a few other problems too much of them factual errors regardinghow c
omputers work . Is it possible to hack into a computer that isboth turned off and not connected to the internet ? I guess that whenTHE NET was made 10 years ago very few people would understand howcomputers worked so the screenwriters would have been able to BS atlength but since we now live in a global village where nearly everyhousehold in the western world has their own computer the audience arecertainly very clued up on the factual errors of this movie . And ofcourse there’s too many instances where someone acts stupid or out ofcharacter at crucial times in order to progress the plot which makesTHE NET a very mediocre movie

Rating: *1/2 out of ****

"The Net" is one of those films that won’t remain in your mind till the nextone hour. Well… Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It’s a mediocre,miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of thoseadjectives I’ve just used above is the reason which made me add 1/2 a starto the one I would have given. So is it a case of ’so bad it is good’? No.It’s a case of ’so bad it is laughable’.

Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, acomputer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn’t haveany friends and her neighbors don’t know her. Suddenly, she sees herselfinvolved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the samething almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, areall deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even thegovernment and… Wait! Haven’t we seen this before? Yes, thousands oftimes. "The Net" tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the ’90s, showingthe computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just apretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boataccident. I just laughed when the camera started to getslow…

What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is!Has she already made a decent film? "A Time to Kill", okay. But she is stilla bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of herpictures.

The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in "2001:A Space Odyssey", the best, most intelligent and most complex film evermade. It’s not needed to compare "The Net" with it, isit…?

The only reason to see "The Net" is to laugh, as I’ve said, and to see whatit tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.

DELETE this film from your mind!

read comments (0)

The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain

It’s hard to understand why this film was ever made, because there is noreal point to it. It’s an endearing film, the characters are all likeableand performances are good. But the predictability of the film really takesthe entertainment and afterthought away: there are almost no surprises, andthe film has been dragged out to last long enough - mainly by Grant’sacting, a genre of its own from which it seems he will never escape. Smallmovie, small theme and very light entertainment.

I thought that movie was interesting and funny to watch. I can just seemyfather or some other members of my family arguing that their hill is amountain and be ready to add some height to it if so needed! Hugh Grantisactually not that bad in this one.

8 out of 10.

This was a very simple film. I felt at first it was going to be anenormous "chick-flick", the story is actually much deeper than just thelove connection between Grant and the local girl. It is actually astory of a town and the strength of their belief. It also portrays asmall town coping with the loss of so many young men and boys to thewar. While I thought it was going to be nothing but the usual HughGrant film, it was less about Grant and more about this little town inWales.

Based on a true story, I watched with amazement as townspeople putaside their differences, put aside their hatred, put aside their lives,to create a mountain from a hill. This mountain represented more tothese people then money, then jobs, then anything that we now take forgranted. Could you honestly say that if your hometown asked you tobuild a mountain that you would join, or would you wonder first if youhad the time?

I am impressed with this style of film. I have only seen a handful offilms that have the theme of community as their central focus, one isgoing to be my movie homework, another is a great British film calledSaving Grace where a community comes together to help a local widow.

I did have some issues with this film. One big one was the title.Please, if you are ever going to make a film do not make the title alsothe plot. I mean, I think you can gather from the title what the entirefilm is going to be like. Another problem was that this film was toosimple. I felt that some deeper sub-plot could have been created tobring some depth to this community. I think the director tried to dothis with the story of the local boy who had gone to war only to returnmentally unstable. I think this could have been such a greatsentimental story, but it just was not developed enough. I needed tosee what this boy had seen to understand his anguish and mentalproblems. I had to see more about his life to fully understand andfully tear up at the end when he chooses to help his neighbors buildthe mountain. This goes the same for the girl that Grant fell in lovewith. I felt that it was well too rushed. It only seemed that near theend of the film they truly loved each other and wanted to marry afteronly spending three to four days together.

Maybe times were simpler back then, and perhaps that is another smallertheme, but I think this was a much deeper film. Deeper than I couldhave imagined. Bravo to "Star Trek" man Colm Meaney with his portrayalof Morgan the Goat. He stole this film away from Hugh. See this film ifyou have the chance.

I don’t think you will all like it, but it is worth watching at leastonce.

Grade: *** out of *****

Lots of spoilers.

A weak movie. The main theme is that the villagers love their"mountain." The movie pounds that drum over and over again, ad nauseam.And yet, the viewer is left asking, "Who cares?" When a film has towork so hard to sell its central idea, you can be sure it's becausethere's little substance to it.

Despite the soaring, almost-but-not-quite inspiring soundtrack, theviewer is still left asking, "Who cares?" There is a conflict betweenMorgan and the Reverend. It goes undeveloped. If the narrator didn'ttell us they weren't speaking to one another, we'd never know.

Hugh Grant falls in love after having a single beer with a woman he'sjust met. Grant plays the same role he's played in every movie he'sever been in: the befuddled, bemused ironic observer who can't seem tounderstand why the people around him are befuddled and bemused.

All we see of the villagers are a dozen men in a bar. Until the end ofthe movie, when hundreds of villagers suddenly appear on screen.Where'd they come from? Prior to those ending scenes, the village wasmostly a ghost town aside from the few main characters.

None of the characters are particularly likable.

And there's a glaring point where the plot falls apart–after beingtold how important the mountain is, and how it has protected the Welshfrom invaders for centuries, we learn that it wasn't the mountain thatprotected them after all. It was the torrential Welsh rains. So whichwas it that saved Wales? The mountain or the rain? It has it'sentertaining parts. Here and there.

A movie about life in a Welsh town would've been much, much moreinteresting and enjoyable.

I know this wasn't a huge success. Grant committed to doing it beforehis huge hit Four Weddings and a Funeral, but it was fun nonetheless.

The conflict between the uptight Englishmen and the Welsh villagersover whether they had a hill or a mountain was extremely funny, andtheir solution - getting Ian McNeice drunk and keeping Hugh Grant busywith Tara Fitzgerald, who also played Grant's wife in Sirens added tothe hilarity.

The randy barkeep comes up with the solution to the problem, ostensiblyto sell more beer, but it gets the whole town working together and makefor an enjoyable film.

I know the area where this film was made and I have met many of thelocals who's lives were affected by the film crews. People's windowswere removed and replaced with older looking ones, some residents weresent on fully expensed holidays and telephone poles were taken down.

Most of the remarks I heard were quite negative, but at least the localpubs and hotels were full. Hugh and the other stars stayed at the LakeVrnwy Hotel which is about 7 miles away from Llanraedr Ym Mochnant thevillage where the pub, garage etc were situated.

The pub in the movie wasn't a pub at all, but it is now. After the filmcrew packed up, the Hargest sign in the shop next door was left and isstill there.

The police station was fake and is actually the village bus shelterwhich had a structure built around it.

The butchers is real and a very good butchers it is too. Run by RogerEvans for many years now, his wife played a small part in the film, sheappears at the school and announces "we've come for the children".

The mountain which is shown in the film looming over the background ofthe village, is actually three miles away at Peny Bont Fawr. I've spentconsiderable time in the locality, staying at Peny Bont and I alwayscalled it Hugh Grant's mountain.

There are some very nice pubs in the area and the scenery is breathtaking. If you are in Llanraedr, you can drive up to the Pystil Falls,the highest waterfall in Wales.

Go in late spring and the falls are at their fullest, following themelting of the mountain snows.

Incidentally, the pub that wasn't a pub is now a real pub and has beenfor about 4 years now.

Despite the fact that it's about almost nothing relevant to the averagemovie-goer, THE ENGLISHMAN WHO WENT UP A HILL BUT CAME DOWN A MOUNTAINmanages to be a charming diversion but ultimately, it's as innocuous asits title.

Drawbacks aside, it does offer some hauntingly beautiful colorcinematography of Welsh landscapes, day and night, blazing with beauty,some quaint village shots of pubs and lodgings that look invitinglycosy, and some ske
tchy characterizations that do little more than padout a rather tedious little tale.

HUGH GRANT does another one of his befuddled, amused, eyebrow liftingcharacterizations, complete with stutter and smile and pause betweenwords, a role he seemed destined to repeat again and again. But he fitsthe role and the story–which takes place in 1917 Wales.

The jaunty musical score compensates for some slow moments but all theactors do a competent job of keeping things on a realistic level. Thereare no big names in the cast aside from Grant, but they all make theirmark while he gets most of the footage for a rather awkward romancewith a local girl who spends the night on the mountain with him.

Summing up: Not much in the way of a plot, but it manages to beappealing and extremely well photographed.

Some of us demand a movie with intricate plots in every movie we see. Othersof us can recognize the fact that there is a VAST array of movie types, andone of these is the "character-driven comedy." This is a highly appropriateexample. True, the plot seems insignificant - villagers piling dirt on ahill. But it’s the characters, who take such fierce pride (or indifference)in this hill’s status which become the entertainment. The lengths thetownspeople go to to make the status of "their" mountain official is thecharm of the film. True, Grant is wooden, but wooden is perfect for theantiseptic Englishman the script calls for.

I’m not a Hugh Grant fan. Really, I have a hard time watching him. But hewas perfect in his role in this perfectly splendid tale. How anyone couldNOT enjoy this film is beyond me. There’s no gunfire, nor is there anynudity or swearing. It was a "feel good" almost fairytale story that left mewith much the same feeling as "The Princess Bride." (Though two verydifferent movies.) Rent or hire it out today!

A very touching film that keeps your interest from beginningto end with nice scenery and very smooth change from onescene to the other. Pretty accurate on facts and with theproper dose of humour.

read comments (0)

The Brady Bunch Movie

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could find thismovie funny. Sure, it has plenty of humor. But the humor is mostly painfuland you laugh simply out of the compulsion to do so.The "time warp" concept of THE BRADY BUNCH MOVIE doesn’t work. I wishpeople would realize that the 1970s was NOT a time of peace and flowerpowerand everyone loving each other. On the contrary, it was a decade of warprotests, economic slumber, racial strife, energy crises, politicalscandal,rising crime rates, and overall moral decay. In a word, the ’70s were justlike the stereotypical portrayal of the ’90s in this movie. "The BradyBunch" was simply a way of coping with all of that. In 1969, there wereveryfew families like the Bradys.Yes, in the ’70s Americans had to deal with homosexuality and greedyland developers and all of the other "’90s" stuff seen in this movie. It isthe cultural naiveté of whoever made this movie remake that ruins thesatire. Yeah, I know it’s just a juvenile movie. But the scary thing isthatit was made by adults.You can see a similar weak attempt at humor in PLEASANTVILLE. Contraryto what the TV shows proclaimed, the 1950s were NOT a time of conformityandsocial vacuum. I wish people would stop resurrecting old TV shows andturning them into movies. They end up giving us false impressions about thepast.

Another one of the tiring and unwanted television series that got a movieversion in the 1990s, "The Brady Bunch Movie" is not terrible but there isjust not enough material present to make the film worth much on celluloid.The titled characters, led by Shelley Long and Gary Cole, are justhappy-go-lucky people that seem stuck in a simpler time than 1995 LosAngeles. This leads to quirky situations and odd outcomes. The plot istransparent as evil neighbor Michael McKean and hung-over wife Jean Smart dotheir best to get the family to sell their house to land developers. Attimes the movie just copies some of its predecessor’s stupid episodes.By-the-numbers and uncreative film-making. 2.5 out of 5stars.

*SPOILERS* I love the Brady Bunch. My mom watched it when she was youngand I was hooked by time I turned 4. When I was flipping channels, Iwas over thrilled to discover the movie, now I wish I hadn't. Theacting was HORRIBLE!!!!! The actors didn't really even attempt to act,they were just reading the script and pretending to act. The scriptitself was boring. Sure the movie had some funny one-liners, "I thoughtyou were from Nebraska." But other then that, I was completely bored.When the Brady's were dancing around Sears, I literally wanted to dielaughing because of how stupid they looked. Jan's psycho thing, likethe dream about Marcia's hair was horrible. I don't even know how todescribe it. The best part were the cameos from the original cast andthe in-jokes "I've never seen a toilet in that house." It is not worthyour time to watch unless there is nothing to do. MY SCORE 1/10

In the ’90’s, it’s plain to see how the world was conditioned by suchsitcoms as Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch, so to make a loosestatement on this, The Brady Bunch Movie escapes from not just becominganother offshoot on a tv program. Directed by Betty Thomas, who did a greatjob with "The Late Shift," the film pokes delirious fun at the sugarylifestyle of the Bradys by placing them in a ’90’s atmosphere, letting themstick out like a bunch of very sore thumbs. Shelley Long and Gary Cole(doing a great job impersonating Robert Reed) play the mom and pop withgreat poise and exact timing. The kids are also great look-alikes,especially Jan (Marcia, Marcia,Marcia!). The real hoot of the cast isMichael McKean as the next-door neighbour who detests the goodie-goodiesnext door. While "The Brady Bunch" does have a good idea in paralleling thetwo cultural strains of yesterday and today, it also does not have a greatdeal of big laughs to speak of. I must say I am glad that this did not endup like a lot of other send-offs of this type, and follow up with a turgidrehash of "Home Alone" (think Dennis the Menace), but it also does not coverenough ground for one to write home about it. A much better film of thistype, "Pleasantville," captures this idea with much greater momentum andintegrity.Rating: Two stars.

the brady bunch movie is almost never funny. i laughedmaybe twice. there are so many unfunny gags in this movieit’s not even funny. at least other comedies thatarenot funny are silly. the brady bunch movie isn’t evensilly. but there are some parts of the movie that arewatchable that keeps this movie from sinking. i give thebrady bunch movie ** out of ****

I’m going by a different name, but I’m still Jay from SouthernCalifornia.

Anyway, Kayla…your post telling me to "lighten up" doesn’t make any sense.For one thing, shows like "Leave It To Beaver" DID portray theircontemporary periods accurately. "The Brady Bunch" didn’t. And, if it istrue, as you say, that people watch television to escape from the harshrealities of everyday life…then why is it that, with life being so chaoticin 2002, I turn on the television and find shows that are even MORE chaotic?Why don’t we have any non-children’s shows nowadays that are anything like"The Brady Bunch"? (And don’t tell me there are, because therearen’t.)

Anyway, thanks for your comments.

Was this really a movie or just some kind of joke ?

I was looking forward to it just like everyone else but I couldn’t believehow it turned out. Practically half of it was made up from a certain sceneof that episode when at times it didn’t have anything to do with themovie.

Now let’s look at the plot. The kids find out they need $ 20,000.00 in aweek to save their house and they try doing it by cutting grass or whatever- give me a break. ( This reminded me in Rad when the kid needed $ 50,000.00to race ) Why didn’t Bobby go out for a pool shark ? And as for the schoolscene when Peter was in class when he passed out from what they were talkingabout. Guys , I bet you really thought that subject was cool didn’t you ?You probably played it twice. And girls , if your boyfriend was sitting nextto you , I just wonder what he was thinking about.

And the acting could of been better. But first , when did Alice learn how todrive a truck ? She couldn’t even drive a car. Speaking of cars , where wasthe station-wagon ? The color on the convertible wasn’t even the rightone.

Mike never did kiss Carol after he came home from work like he did in theepisodes. He also said too many words of expressions. Peter’s voice was waytoo deep during the song and I couldn’t understand it.

Whenever Alice would try to be funny , her eyes would be so wide they’d looklike golf balls. As for Jan , she didn’t show any emotion at times and she’dswing her hair too much. Marcia did fine , but her poster wasn’t the same asthe original one. This one says Butterfly Love. It should say Butterfly OfLove.

I believe that’s all I can say except I also grew up watching Leave it toBeaver and when that movie came out , it was worth it and it took away theBrady’s.

During the past few years, movie adaptations of TV shows have becomesynonymous with horrendous, pathetic garbage (think "The Flintstones","I Spy" and "Bewitched", among others). "The Brady Bunch Movie" is onethat got it right. Even people who don't know the original series - orhold it in low regard - can admire this movie. You see, the problemwith most TV show adaptations is that they transpose the characters tothe modern world, thereby taking them out of context. This movie hasthe eponymous wholesome family living in the 1990s but time-locked inthe 1970s, thus enabling a comparison/contrast between the two eras.

The plot has the
Bradys trying to keep from getting evicted, while Jangets jealous of Marcia and Greg tries to start up a career as a singer.There are some scenes taken straight from the show, such as whathappens to Marcia's nose, and Cindy having to learn about tattling.It's just a hoot how the Bradys are nice to even the meanest people.

So, it's not any kind of masterpiece, but pretty neat. The sequel wasOK.

This movie is a great spoof based on the TV show by the same name. The Brady’s live a quiet life in 1990’s america. The Brady’s still believe it’s stillthe 1970’s!!Meanwhile, the real world has changed drastically since theBrady’s time in the 1970’s. Also a neighbor is trying to build a mall in theBrady’s neighborhood. The Brady’s manage to save their home andneighborhood.The movie has pleanty of songs from the orginal TV series!!DavyJones,Florence(original Mrs. Brady), Ann B. Davis(Alice), the original PeterBrady and Greg Brady all have cameos in the movie!!!If you still have notseen the TV series , the watch it and then watch the movie!!This movie wasfollowed by "A Very Brady Sequel" the next year!!Both "Brady Bunch " moviesare my favorites because I can relate to them in a big family(I am in afamily of 11)!Of course I also grew up watching the series as a kid, itstill is one of my favorite TV series(besides Doctor Who,Buffy and Angel!!)IF you have seen this awesome spoof go see it ASAP!!!

When I first heard about the concept of this movie, I thought it was dumb-Iliked the idea of a BB movie, especially since the previews looked great,but then I read I review about how the Bradys are in a "time warp" and therest of the world is in the late 90’s. When I saw the movie, all my fearswere put to rest. In fact, some of the "culture clash" scenes of the Bradysinteracting with the rest of the world were the best, such as McKean’scharacter not understanding a word of what she’s saying because of herlisp,an attempted carjack "Well, this is a car. But my name’s not Jack!" andMarcia’s best female friend being a lesbian with a hopeless crush on her.THere’s not really enough room to say enough good things about this movie.I’ve had a long week so I’ll just list them- FIrst, the dead-on impressionsare great, especially Alice, Jan, and Marcia, but Robert Reed is really thestandout-he sounds more like Mike Brady than Mike Brady, and has hismannerisms down perfect. Lots of in-jokes and references that kids whodidn’t watch the show won’t get but those of us like me that did will get:for instance, when Carol kisses Mike goodbye when he leaves for work, shesays, "See ya, Tiger!(pause) Tiger…Tiger…I wonder what ever happened tothat dog?" the blackboard in the kitchen has "porkchops and applesauce"written on it, etc. They even manage to throw in a reference Johnny Bravo.The period detail is great (now that I see it as an adult, I realize theBrady’s house was actually pretty cool looking), including the costumes.There’s some little sexual innuendo thrown in, but it fits in with themovieand the characters perfectly-one of the funniest scenes is when Carol andMike think they’re alone, and she’s sitting on his lap whispering what isprobably talking dirty in his ear, and he’s saying "Uh-huh…You would…Isee…" exactly like Mike Brady does when he’s talking to someone on thephone. They include the popular Brady songs like "Sunshine Day" (alwayskindof grated on me, but they do a great version in a Sears store) and thehorrible one that starts "Clowns never laughed before…" but "Keep On" isactually a pretty catchy one. They recreate many famous moments from theshow, such as Marcia’s nose getting broken ("Oh!My nose!") to Jan’sdelight,potato sack races, Jan hating her new glasses, Peter (or is it Bobby-forsome reason those are the only 2 names I can’t keep straight) being theSafety Monitor at school, and plenty more. The plot (yes, it actually hasone)involves the Brady family’s efforts to save their beloved home from anevil land-developer. Highly recommended, even if you’re not a Bradycompletist. Watch for the cameos from 4 original cast members-the best wasthe real Alice playing a truck driver (hmmm, always though Alice was alittle butch) picking up hitch-hiking Jan who has run away from home. Mostimportantly to me, though this is a parody, the moviemakers make fun of theshow while still staying true to the spirit of it and the characters. Alltheir naivete (spelled wrong, I know…) is actually sweet rather thanannoying-Marcia wears hideous 70’s clothes but carries herself like aprincess, Greg wants to make friends with the car-jacker, assuming he mustneed a spare tire, Mike explains how he wouldn’t sell his house for anyprice because he designed it himself with love. During one scene, MarciaandJan go to a modeling tryout (Jan is instantly booted)and thephotographer/agent tells her she needs to cut her hair, get plasticsurgery,and lose weight. She slaps, him horrified:"CUT MY HAIR?? How dare you!"Greg’s lines to pick up chicks (well, it seems like this is his onlyopeningpickup line) is "Hey groovy chick. You look really happening in a far outway!" are actually endearing.

Everyone with a sense of humor and fun will probably like this movie, andthose of us who grew up on the show will absolutely loveit.

read comments (0)

The American President

The message of this film is truly profound. Democrats- especiallyliberal Democrats occupying the White House- are good.Republicans-especially conservative Republican Senators from Kansas- are bad. The ACLUis, of course, double plus good, and all decent Americans should join itimmediately. Conservatives are ignorant Ogres who want all our childrenarmed with automatic weapons, and who dream of polluting outr waters and ourskies. Burning the flag is a brave act of protest made by passionate,committed radicals struggling to protest corporate power.Rob Reiner remainsone of the most over-praised directors of our day..a sort of pseudo -Capra.Annette Benning is beautiful, and Micheal Douglas overacts almostadmirably.A 5-and thats being liberal.

Really, how else to possibly describe this movie? The characters are allcartoon cutouts - especially the eeeeevil Republicans. The dour gray-hairedRepublican prez candidate has no real issues to run on (but I repeatmyself), so the eeeeevil Republicans deviously scheme in their smoke-filledroom to undermine the saintly Democrat president’s credibility. But Ithought Richard Dreyfuss miscalculated his portrayal of his Bob Dole-likecharacter by not bursting out at some point like Simon Legree with a "Nyahha haaaaa!!!". Would’ve added a little subtlety. Just aquibble…

Anyways, the dastardly Republicans are able to hurt the saint - er,President because this widower has - horrors! - A girlfriend! We know theirlove is pure by the sappy music that always swells up when they’re in thesame room, and by the dating advice his daughter gives him in between tubapractices.

OK, so Republican- (or conservative-) bashing is part of the standardWriters’ Guild contract. But there’s NO clause that says the writer &director MUST insult your intelligence while doing it.Jeez!

First let it be known that my political views would be consideredconservative if they had to be categorized. That said I have always beenable to seperate my political/moral views from my enjoyment of artandentertainment (my music collection is heavy with Dylan, Springsteen, mybooks with Chomsky, Morrison and many of my fave movies are "dead ManWalking" and the like). I surrender to the fact that lefties generallymakethe best movies, books, music, etc.

However I just could not get past the flag burning aspect of this movie toenjoy it. I kept waiting for the "Hey I was young and stupid then and Iapoligize" but it never came. She acted as if she was still proud of it,and of course in true limo-liberal style she now wants to be part of thepower structure that she abhored enough to desicrate it symbollically. Andthe FRIGGIN’ PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES didn’t have anything to sayabout it other than to "defend her right to do it" (hey call me jingoisticif you like but I just think the the U.S. Pres, our leader, should hold theflag in high regard–I know it’s an old-fashioned notion but what can Isay)and therefore give his tacit approval. The underlying message is that itsokay to burn the flag.

One thing is for sure, when Reiner was playing "Meathead" on "All in theFamily", little acting was required on his part.

This is so Liberal it’s sickening. I mean, I’ve come to expect a littleleft-wing propaganda in most films from Hollywood, but to this degree?!

Two hours of Liberal preaching are capped off in the U.S. President’sfinal speech of the movie, in which he proclaims how "proud" he is tobe a card-carrying member of the ACLU!!! Ha ha. I guess we all supposedto be cheering at that point. Personally, I reached for the nearestbarf bag.

This movie is simply director Rob Reiner’s propaganda piece for hisagenda. Being a "card-carrying" member of the ultra-Left People For theAmerican Way, Reiner shows us a charming, loving portrait of aPresident that somehow reminds us of Bill Clinton, if he were abachelor.

Can you imagine if someone was this heavy-handed on the Right and triedto make a similar movie?? Never happen. For one thing, the criticswould tear it apart, which they didn’t dare do with this piece of slickcelluloid brainwashing.

Here’s a movie about a president who creates a scandal for himself, and thengives a climactic speech to acquit himself. It just HAPPENS to be madewhile Bill Clinton has a scandal, and it’s filmed by Rob Reiner who justHAPPENS to be openly democrat. All I have to say is that this kind of biasleaves the movie with an inability to hold a foundation to the message itattempts to make.

There's nothing really wrong with a movie with a political slant–therehave been many which have such, and carry it in a very skilled fashion,Mr. Smith Goes to Washington being a prime example. But if you're goingto take on the task of making a film with a political message, youbetter succeed; it's a long way to fall if you fail.

The American President fails big time.It's about a left-leaningPresident who struggles with his innate liberalism when being pushed bypolls and politics to moderate his positions. The laughable conclusionhas him deciding he's going to be true to his left wing self andintroduce a "White House Resolution" on gun control. Forgetting aboutthe fact that there's no such thing as a "White House Resolution", thismovie can't quite transcend the sophistication of a left wing pamphlet.The chief Bob Dole-ish Republican nemesis to the Clintonesque MichaelDouglas is out and out evil, beyond caricature, they might as well haveused a cartoon evil doer from the X-Men comic books.

If one wants a decent political thriller-comedy, rent Wag the Dog; ifyou have to have a left wing political movie, try out Three Days of theCondor or Seven Days in May. They at least are really well done, andhave something a little more sophisticated to say. The AmericanPresident gets its political message from bumper stickers–and eventhey are more entertaining.

By now, you know the abject leftist political content…consider howthat narrative exists as a movie. Not this movie you paid to watch, thereal-life movie played out in U.S. politics every day.

The preaching to the choir (the movie audience) starts right away. Thebattle lines are drawn in the middle act; the hero is accused of apeccadillo via the most ‘inflammatory’ vision his enemies can dig up.

Hollywood knows that to promote its agenda, it has to fight for controlof that ‘movie’–this is ongoing. What better way to bolster leftistvalues than have the "most powerful man in the free world" star in adate movie, get the girl, humiliate Hollywood’s opponents, and saveAmerica itself? It is consummated through the President’s speech to thegovernment (the press corps; Hollywood believes the media rule us–here they hang on every word in rapture). You just watched "TennesseeJohnson".

Reiner tries to conflate all this with Capra…no deal. The ‘numbers’have swung decidedly against Hollywood in recent years. Today,Tennessee Meathead would be impeached.

I just felt like commenting on this since it came on TV again last night.Iremember seeing this movie in the theaters when it first came out and Iloved it at the time. I even rented it on video a few times later on thatyear. It was a good date movie and really played up on its modern dayfairytale aspect.

But after watching it again last night, I realized that that’s all itreallyis. Don’t get me wrong, I still like the movie, but you’ve got to admitit’s just a bit too glowing, even for a love story. The main charactersalways seem to say just the right things and we are never led to questionthem in any way. They’re just a bit too perfect, even when they have todisplay their obligatory flaws. I personally thought Annette Bening’sperformance was average for her, but this is definit
ely one of the morelikeable performances given by Michael Douglas. The supporting cast wasthehighlight for me with Michael J. Fox delivering the perfect performance inarole he’s obviously custom-tailored for and David Paymer stealing all thebest one-liners.

And yes, this film is politically-biased (kind of unavoidable in a filmabout the President). But even I got a bit irritated with theunrealistically sappy political situation toward the end of the movie (andIused to do volunteer work for an economic rights group similar to the oneinwhich Annette Bening’s character works). The way opposite ends of thepolitical spectrum are presented is just too one-sided. Much of myextendedfamily is staunchly conservative, but they’re not the back room, cigarsmoking, close-minded stooges that are depicted in this film. Maybeconservative politicians are like that, but since they’re the onlydepictionwe see of conservatives in this movie, it’s not a very fairrepresentation.

I’ll still watch this movie when it comes on because I do enjoy it. Butifit happens to come on as the same time as Reitman’s other Presidentialfilm’Dave’ then I’ll definitely opt for the latter.

MICHAEL DOUGLAS stars as President Andrew Shepherd who, quiteunexpectedly, falls in love with ANNETTE BENING starring as SydneyWade, an environmental lobbyist, In "The American President." The filmoffers a rare glimpse at an uncommon romance involving a most powerfulman who must overcome obstacles not faced by average citizens.Complicating his desire for personal privacy and his efforts tomaintain a relationship are issues President Shepherd must confront:approval ratings, an inquiring press, and an aggressive politicalopponent (portrayed by RICHARD DREYFUSS).

Fortunately, he does have some help. Domestic Policy Adviser (MICHAELJ. FOX), White House Pollster (DAVID PAYMER), White House PressSecretary (ANNA DEAVERE SMITH) and Personal Aide (SAMANTHA MATHIS)coordinate his busy schedule, deal with the demands of Congress, andquell any global predicaments, all during an election year.

But political crises are different than personal ones.Only thisAmerican President can find a way to fulfill the responsibilities ofthe office as well as the needs of the woman he loves.

Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas), a former college history professor,who rose in politics and won the Presidency of the United States in anaccidental victory. A Democrat, his Republican foes could not use theirnormal weapons about the weak character of the Democratic nomineebecause Sheperd’s wife died just before he got the nomination. Had theyattacked the margin of victory would have been larger for Shepherd.

He is now in the third year of his administration, looking forward torenomination (and re-election) because he has a 60% approval rating. Heplans to use this by getting a weak anti-assault weapon bill passed(basically to try the waters - he can just pass it despite the gunlobby). But he is soon confronted by a leading environmental lobbygroup led by John Mahoney. They have hired a new lobbyist, Sidney EllenWade (Annette Benning), who is forceful and attractive. Soon Sidney andAndrew are starting a love affair, and the leading Republican rival ofShepherd - Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfus) starts using the loveaffair to undermine public confidence in the President and hisadministration.

To further complicate matters Benning is determined to get legislationpassed to reduce gas emissions in cars - and makes a deal with Douglasthat he will back her bill if she gets enough Congressional support forit in ninety days. And as his effectiveness (re: the gun control bill)ebbs, her lobbying skills slowly builds up her required voting block.

THE American PRESIDENT was one of several films that were produced inthe 1990s regarding the life of the American Presidency. Starting withDAVE in 1993, continuing with THE American PRESIDENT, and concludingwith MY FELLOW Americans the issue was what does the public expect ofthe men elected to the White House, and what does it get. The answerwas mixed. James Garner and Jack Lemmon discovered in MY FELLOWAmericans that their best intentions and wishes were weakened byrealities that caused their policies to help Americans. But they putaside their old animosities to bring down a corrupt President and hisadministration (Dan Ackroyd). Kevin Kline finds he was selected to be astooge by an overly ambitious chief of the White House staff (FrankLangella) to replace a dying, unconscious President. But he and theFirst Lady (Sigourney Weaver) turn the tables on the villain, anddemonstrate what the office required of the President, which (sadly)the original President did not have - character.

The running thread of all three films is that the public expects thePresident show a real degree of honesty and integrity where it counts.Legislative tricks are winked at, if the President is "shepherding" thenation correctly. Douglas understands this too, but briefly forgetsthis truth when he is worried about getting his useless legislationthrough as a symbolic victory, and when he keeps thinking that he hasonly one more possible election victory ahead of him (for re-election).But he comes to admit his temporary lapse in memorable fashion as thefilm approaches it’s conclusion.

Well acted by it’s cast, including Michael J. Fox and Martin Sheen,both of whom shake up the chief executive about what he has failed todo confronting Dreyfus, and skillfully directed by Rob Reiner, this isone film that never fails to make an audience of American voters thinkclearly about the responsibility of the voter and the elected officialtowards each other and the country. I strongly recommend it.

read comments (0)

Tank Girl

This movie basically sucked, but Naomi Watts completely saved the movie.Ifshe wasn’t in it, I would have turned it off. She lights up any screen. Iamsurprised that she didn’t get popular sooner. Now back to the movie, themakeup was good, with the Kangaroo men things (The Rippers) and I supposeitfollowed the comic book well, but it’s too twisted to be amovie.

Saw this today. I have a few things to say about it.. first of all, Ikeptimaginging Tank Girl would have been much betterplayed by Gwen Stefani,since she already had that punk kind of look. Second.. now I’ve found outwhat discovered all the punk-poseurs of today. My school is filled withthem, and the vast majority are just wannabes with nothing intelligent orwitty to say. They just try to dress "different", but theres so many ofthem its not even different anymore.This movie was ok I guess. To quote someone who posted before, yeah, hervoice was really grating. That was probably the worst part. The idea ofitbeing in the future and holding the water was pretty cool, but they didntgointo that enough, taking a lot away from the film. I give this erm.. idunno, a 6/10 I suppose. Between 6 and 7. I’d recommend seeing it, justbecause you can learn where all the punk-poseurs have come fromtoo.

I’m almost through watching this drivel. I usually wait until the end ofthe movie before I even think of writing a review at IMDB. But this film isso awful, I might as well do it now.

What can I say? There’s so much wrong with it. Like Lori Petty forinstance, who looks anorexic. Another poster mentioned Gwen Stefani as abetter choice. That sounded like more inspired casting to me. Even CyndiLauper, though a tad past it, would’ve been good. If there’s much of astory, besides the quest for water, I can’t see one. The only really goodbits of the film, are when the cartoon sequences appear. And you think toyourself "Why didn’t they just make the whole darn thing as a feature lengthcomic strip."

If you want 90 minutes of mindless fun, this is the film for you.Pretty silly stuff with a standard post-apocalyptic storyline. I likedthe overall imagination and intermixing of the original comic book textand real life, with some great tunes thrown in. The problem is thecharacters never really made it credible-as either cartoon stand-ins orreal life. Ice-T plays his standard cardboard character that he playsin every movie and you’ll either like Lori Petty’s girl with attituderole (especially if you are 14 year old male or younger) or you won’t.Personally it started to grate on my nerves about half way thru. Thebrainy sidekick was not only completely unbelievable (single handedlycreating a tank and jet fighter that responds to voice commands) butnot terribly well acted either(first role perhaps?)-OK I know it wassupposed to be fantasy.In the end the comic strip was probably better.

I REALLY tried to like this movie but it’s just an hour or so of havingyour life wasted. I’m not saying it’s the worst movie ever but it’s notgonna be remembered at all. The jokes are lame; the acting is worse andit has Ice-T in it…I like Ice-T but come on! As the headline insists,this is for only HARDCORE fans of either the comic or kangaroos (lol)atthe very least. I never read the comic but after seeing this waste, I’mguessing and hoping it’s A lot better in non-real form. I have no ideawhat genius said, "Hey, this will be an entertaining movie!" but I hopethey fired, tormented and made fun of his/her weight problem! Becausethe day Tank Girl got green lighted, it was destined to get a 3 out of10!

If you didn’t like it, it is probably cause your some middle class khakiwearing square. Well, that’s most of the world I guess. But this movierocks. It’s stupid, it’s funny, it has attitude. Girls kickass.

this movie stars Lori Petty as "Tank Girl", in a world without water. Themovie deals with a mad max like world. Then there are the bad guys "Waterand Power" lead by Malcolm Mcdonnell(villain from Star Trek: Generations).It has some OK action parts, but at times feels like a slow B grade scienceficton movie. If you look carefully , you can star Richard Schiff(Forces ofNature,The West Wing,The Arrival) in the beginning of this movie!!I oftenwonder what the comic book was like as the director sometimes used comics tomove the movie along!!If you like bad science fiction or Lori Petty , thenyou might just like this movie!BTW, the movie has a lot of alternative songsto the film’s soundtrack!!!this is a movie I soon rather forget that i paidmoney to see this when it came out in the theater!!maybe if was on DVD, itwould be better!!?

I have to say that not, this is not the world greatest movie. HOWEVER, itis one of the most fun things I have seen in ages. A welcome releasefromtestosterone ridden action films, it is great to see a girl kick someserious booty. Malcolm McDowell has lost none of his creepy "ClockworkOrange" devilishness. I have to admit, my best friend and I rented thisona whim, and it is one of my favorite good "bad" flicks. Besides, too fewaction movies have musical numbers. It is nice to see someone trying totipthat balance.

My top movie. Totally off the wall! Then again I loved Howard the Duck. Ifyour looking for a movie where you can’t predict what’s going to happennext, try this one. It’s also one of those instances where the cast must ofhad fun making the movie & it showed in the acting.

This is a great film– even where it deviates from the original comic.LoriPetty is quirky, the sets & costumes are true to the punk style of thecomic. It’s not a glossy "pretty girl gets saved by action hero" movie–the GIRL is the action hero, and she uses everything in her power to savethe day. Yes, the film is campy, yes the interspersed comicbook shots arealittle different.

I love Ice T as the grumpy ripper. I like it that Tank Girl helps teachJetGirl how to stand up for herself. I love it that while at Liquid Silver,Tank Girl shows, through her playful rejection of the vapid hologram"perfect woman" image that those standards of beauty are pure junk.

This is one of my all-time favorite movies; sci fi that explorespossibilities beyond "using the force" and "boldly go-ing" to get chicks.

read comments (0)

Smoke

A string of clichés so pretentiously delivered that I was fooled when Ifirst saw it in high school. Watching it again ten years later I amrather shocked that I could ever have enjoyed it, and that so many fineactors could have been fooled as well. Strip them away and you are leftwith a sentimental TV special for bored housewives, and on those termsI suppose it could be enjoyed as a pleasant waste of time. Still, itmakes mediocre indie slice-of-life movies like "Twenty Bucks" or"Clerks" seem like masterpieces, and is not even in the same universeas the films of Jarmusch or Altman (I would particularly recommendJarmusch’s Night on Earth to people who think they love Smoke).

Pretentious, devoid of plot, minimal acting. This movie is billed on theboxas a comedy, with enthusiastic endorsements of its comedic qualitiesexcerpted from reviews. There is absolutely nothing faintly humorous aboutit. It is strictly a dark, pseudo-realistic portrait of New York City life.Having endured the whole thing - i borrowed it from the library and stillregret it - I wonder what the reviewers were smoking. This is one of thosemovies where the cover, especially the photo, bears absolutely no relationto the movie. Bottom line: it seems to be a fad exploitation of themomentary fascination with cigars. Sometimes a cigar isn’t worth smoking.

When I first heard that this movie had Harvey Keitel, William Hurt, andForest Whitaker in it, I salivated. I just knew it was going to be great!What a yawn fest! The acting was fine, but the plot was dull and in someinstances pointless. The concept is unique, but I found myself wonderingwhyeveryone had to be so vague! I usually like vague movies, but this onewasn’t very concrete. This is a very slow moving movie!

Character-oriented piece from director Wayne Wang centering on theowner of a New York-based smoke shop, his offbeat clientèle andassorted colorful friends. Heavily improvisational–yet onlyintermittently interesting–"Smoke" managed to create a small cult withaudiences and critics, although neither the actors nor Paul Auster (thecredited screenwriter) have anything important to say. It's imperativein a talking-heads movie like this to create a beguiling inner-sanctum,a small universe within this store with its rapidly changing groups,but Wang only gets strong scenes out of Harvey Keitel and Ashley Judd.Some interesting bits and pieces (and a moving finish) make the pictureworthwhile for art-films fans. Followed by the sequel "Blue In TheFace" in 1995. ** from ****

As final exam scenes at Actors’ Studio, these vignettes are experly done,deserving A’s for all. As parts of a major film work, the sketches seemfleeting, pregnant, yet ultimately unrealized propositions.

Whatever Wayne Wang is attempting here, he does a fine job of keeping thesecret. A cross somewhere between updated Saroyan and O’Neill, thisproduction offers a cast of thorough professionals giving convincing, thoughseldom moving, renditions–at least to this viewer.

Certainly a film which will have both admirers and detractors. In thiscase, the later rules.

Among the cast notables are William Hurt and Stockard Channing.

I saw this movie in the Star Movies channel only in Jan 2008, a good 13years after it was made. It is a perfect work of art - something youwill never forget - and its memory will always gladden your heart.Ordinary people, ordinary lives - just like the most of us… its apiece of our life- and it will be taken at the flood along with us…William Hurt, despite his Oscar, has always been an underrated actor.And Harvey Keitel, Forrest Whitaker. Whats great about Hollywood is itswealth of actors all through the last century till date - one cannothelp loving them all. I would rate SMOKE high among the 25 bestHollywood movies I have ever seen.

I am taking a course at Athabasca University, and 'Smoke' is one of themovies. I was told the movie is about stories and how they shape andfade like smoke. There are 6 characters and each sub story intertwineswith the other story creating the movie. Each story like the characterAuggie's photography around his store tell of the progression of time.As each story unravels the viewer sees a flat character develop into around character, with complexities and dualities. One sees the camerapan in to close ups as the viewer begins to know each character better.The message of the Christmas story is the thesis for movie. If theChristmas story is true or not or exaggerated the main theme of a goodstory is to be entertaining and bring joy to life. This film does such.Entertaining 6 or 7 out of 10 depending on what mood the viewers in.Bad mood a 6 and 7 in a good mood.

Great script, amazing performances. Beautiful and poignant moments.Cliché's aren't bad cus they are un-true, they are bad because they areover-beaten paths to the truth. Love IS blind, but everyone's heardthat so much it's lost it's meaning.

Like Harvey Kietal's character who takes photographs of the same blockevery mourning, as part of his life's work, this film is familiar, buteach moment is different and full of it's own little details.

It's a very dialog driven film, lots of stories, anecdotes, and minutiathroughout, everyone sounds natural and all of the actors are at thetop of their game.

It's easy to overlook, the little details, here which make this filmmuch more than typical New York dramedy, but they are there, author andscreen-writer Paul Auster, has an eye for detail, and for taking thestuff of melodrama and rendering it familiar yet different. If youdon't catch it the first time, "slow down", and try again. What is theweight of smoke?

The casting for this movie was terrible but would have been fine for astage production. If viewed that way it's very enjoyable but a no-namecast could have made it fly. Shame on the producers for thinking itneeded help. Hurt intermittently affects an inner city accent which issomewhere between south Boston and south Bronx putting it squarely inthe Atlantic Ocean. Channing is not slutty enough, probably because shedoesn't try to be. Keitel coasts through his role but is never reallythe guide his character might be. All of the characters come across asmore sophisticated than what credibility demands. It is theirindividual stories and their interaction which should elevate them butthe director has taken that step away from us - and it shouldn't havebeen. I still gave it a 7 because it is a good story.

I agree with all of the reviewers who have praised the work of HarveyKeitel, William Hurt and others in this film.

However, I believe special mention is deserved for the actress whoplays the part of an elderly woman in the Christmas story at the end ofthe film. Without revealing any of the plot, the subtle yet dramaticchange in her facial expression, without uttering a single word, blewme away.

I hope others agree.

Years after seeing this film, the haunting song, Innocent in yourDreams, still comes back to me

read comments (0)

Sense and Sensibility

The story of two sisters Elinor (Emma Thompson) and passionatelywillful Marianne (Kate Winslet).

When their father Hnery Dashwood dies, by law his estate must pass tohis eldest son from his first marriage.

Suddenly homeless and impoverished, his current wife and daughters findthemselves living in a simple country cottage.

The two sisters are soon accepted into their new society.

Marianne becomes swept up in a passionate love affair with the dashingWilloughby (Greg Wise), while Elinor struggles to keep a tight rein onthe family purse strings and to keep her feelings for Edward Ferrars(Hugh Grant), whom she left behind, hidden from her family.

Despite their different personalities, they both experience greatsorrow in their affairs, but they learn to mix sense with sensibilityin a society that is obsessed with both financial and social status.

"Sense and Sensibility" was a critical hit in 1995, but never did muchbusiness at the box office. It’s a nice little film adapted from JaneAusten’s novel by Emma Thompson (who won an Oscar for Adapted Screenplay),but to me it missed the mark. It’s never as smart or as witty as it wouldhave liked to have been. Emma Thompson (in an Oscar nominated performance)seems to have trouble with the material at times. Kate Winslet (also Oscarnominated) is super, but it seems that Thompson hogs up too much time. AlanRickman and Hugh Grant also seem to have trouble with the materialthroughout the course of the picture. It is a good looking film with highproduction values, but the direction is lax at times and the performancesare uneven. Still a watchable and noble work. 4 out of 5stars.

Hugh Grant was totally miscast. In this film he looks drunk and that hispants are too tight. And to buy him and Emma Thompson as a couple is astretch, no offense to either actor. Kate Winslet is a scream as sassyMarianne, and the actresses who play the mother and other sister are good,too, as are the actresses who play Lucy and Fannie. I though Willoughbywasa sleazeball, and Colonel Brandon was nice but totally not Marianne’stype.All in all, a good movie, but I thought Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow wasbetter.

While watching ‘Tutti Frutti’ I thought Emma Thompson would win an Oscar oneday. Despite Austen’s work hailing from the 1800’s, it seems to adapt wellto screen but the problem here is the direction which by embracing spuriousnaturalism, creates a stilted, by-numbers ambiance which ultimately fails toengage on a deeper level. It needs a true artist to give it soul. Hugh Grantgives winning support though and his gaucheness provides the film’s biggestlaughs.

The DVD feature not one, but 3 trailers for Thompson’s films, and her funnyyet pretentious Golden Globes acceptance speech in which she imagines whatJane Austen would’ve thought. Yet, unlike Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, Sense andSensibility is a "high brow" venture which allowed Thompson to dodge thecharge of being yet another megalomanical movie star.

Still, she is not with out a generous-sized ego. She could not resistreplacing of Austen’s wit with a wisecrack tone and raucous slapstick thatserves only to bog the film down, making it seem a lot longer than it is.And, too bad Ang Lee didn’t have the nerve to tell her that she was WAY tooold to play Elinor — so old, she makes Hugh Grant - who walks as if he hasa sheet of plywood up his back - look several years younger than she is and,they make an odd pair.

An odder pair is Kate Winselt and Alan Rickman. Brandon is supposed to belove struck from the moment he gazes upon Marianne, yet Rickman’s reactionis a half-asleep, drugged out vapidness and remains so throughout. Theresult is that their match seems something Marianne settles for rather thantrue love.

A solid adaptation of the Jane Austen novel, but still somewhatdisappointing. The problem with this film is not (as so often in classic’sadaptations) failing to be true to the original, but erring in the otherextreme - the film fails to give the story a modern perspective.

A problem with Austen’s novels from a modern point of view is that itbecomes increasingly difficult to care for the heroines and the supposedlyhard times they have fallen into. What made them deserve their originalwealth in the first place, what makes the benefactors of their temporarymisfortune so undeserving in comparison? The intended audience of Austen’snovels were people belonging to the same social class, people who couldnaturally identify with the situation the Dashwoods would find themselvesin.

With a modern audience it is different. When we see the Miss Dashwoodssitting in a beautiful garden on a sunny day, being read poetry by ColonelBrandon, then the word ’suffering’ doesn’t readily spring to mind. We alsonotice their servants who completely fail to feature in the story - peopleof their class apparently do not matter. The film adaptation should haveaddressed these problems but Emma Thompson preferred to stay close to theoriginal. As a result, this film makes fine viewing … for people who ownlarge estates in Somerset.

With a story that moves with the speed of cold treacle, we suffer with themovie’s heroine as she navigates the snares and pitfalls of true love asviewed through the lens of eighteenth century middle class values.Historically the movie is mildly diverting as it reveals how one of properbreeding at that time was to conduct themselves while maintaining properdecorum and with honour and dignity intact. Needless to say, suffering insilence plays a large role in the development of romantic plot lines andmaintaining whatever suspense can be feebly generated through this simpledevice.The movie is faithful to it’s source which in fact represents an extendedcomedy and at times satire on manners and customs at that time in history asthey came into conflict with peoples true feelings - especiallyromantic.The movie and the book suffer from the same basic flaw; the male charactersare all two dimensional cardboard cut outs who are moved about like chesspieces to advance the story and are meant to represent some single vice orvirtue, ie; honour or dishonour, greed or selflessness, toady or fool,etc.Especially annoying is the heroine’s love interest as played by Hugh Grant.In virtually every scene he appears to be skulking behind doors and enteringor backing out of rooms in a stammering, grovelling, obsequious manner. Hardto know what Eleanor sees in him at all.The movie’s final message is sledgehammer like in its moral : TO WARN YOUNGMAIDENS OF THE FOOLHARDY RESULTS OF ALLOWING THEIR PASSIONS TO RULE THEIRREASON AND THAT GOODNESS WILL ALWAYS TRIUMPH IN THE END.Oh, puleeze.In summary, an eighteenth century version of a Harlequin Romance pocketnovel frozen on film. The only stock characters missing are the dutifulnurse and the handsome doctor.

An extremely spot-on movie, it deserves to be up there with Airplane!and The Naked Gun in the best 'stupid-funny' films of all time. If youread the blurb on the back of the box you will probably not go anyfurther. But give it a go - it's a real heart warming laugh out loudfilm.

The film ended up being a little sillier than I would have liked,particularly in terms of the relationship between Larry and Iris, andputting Steve Lawrence in your film is never a good thing (although weshould all be thankful Edie wasn't with him), but Sense and Sensibilityis certainly a powerfu TV movie that should resonate with everyone whohas ever been lonely (and I think that's just about every one of us).

I am amazed at how many people have never heard of this film, let aloneseen it. Go watch it now - I guarantee you'll be quoting it for months.

This captures Jane Austen’s prose style and is perfectly cast. One reallyfeels for the characters and the restraints they have to abide by. So many
memorable scenes knit together so easily. Comic and moving by turns, atrulydelightful film. Not to be missed!

This was an absolutely wonderful movie. Elinor, however, should NOT havebeen played by Emma Thompson. Thompson is way too old to play the part.Every time she appeared with Hugh Grant, she seemed like his mother, not apotential partner. I wouldn’t give Hugh’s part to someone older, butElinor’s part to someone younger. Emma’s a wonderful actress, tho. Myfavorite scene is near the end when she gets the uncontrollable hiccups.Love it!

read comments (0)

Rob Roy

This sorry pantomime of a costume drama was unsurprisingly eclipsed by theeffective and passionate Braveheart in 1995.

The performances are perfunctory (although far worse than this in the caseof the two male leads), the production values are beneath those of a typicalTV costume drama, the cinematography is third-rate, the script is generallyvery limp (Roth’s description of love as a dung-heap he climbs upon being anotable exception) and the characterisation rarely strays beyond onedimensional.

I wasn’t concerned about the usual whitewash of known history, but since theproducers decided to make their film free from the constraints of historicalfact, they should have been capable of delivering a far enticingstoryline.

Neeson and Roth were so poor I felt like shouting "Oh no he isn’t!" atvarious points in the movie. Only the appearance of Mother Goose could havemade the pantomime experience more complete.

At the time this film was made, both actors were whores for the respectiveroles they play here: the put upon hero and the heartless villain. I’mpleased to see that they’ve branched out since then (in Roth’s case goingbehind the camera), but it doesn’t make this pitiful production any easierto endure seven years on.

I’m only sorry I couldn’t rate it half-out-of-ten on the IMDB voting system.

I'm confused as to why I seem to be in the minority here on this one.OK, the movie had its moments where it felt like a pretty good actionpic, but there were two glaring problems. First the editing left a lotto be desired or in this case left too much of the undesirable. Theother thing bothers me more because no one pointed it out in any of thenegative reviews here: unbelievable gore. No, there wasn't much of it,but what was there was just horrendous. I would say the scene with themost blood was actually the most disgusting thing I've seen in about 10years. If you don't mind gore but find disgusting sexual situations aremore offensive, then you'll be unhappy to find an almost equallyrepugnant action here. Amazingly, the film doesn't seem to notice howgross it is and the music swells as if in any other triumphant scene inother much better movies. What the heck were they thinking? They ruineda perfectly average entertainment and created something I'd ratherforget. I would strongly recommend Braveheart instead or even KingArthur.

This film inspired by Sir Walter Scott’s fictional character weaves astory that portrays exaggerations of character and caricature. It wastoo predictable from the start and hardly worth the film it was made onor the time spent by its producers and staff, like Braveheartsentimental dribble.

It is clear though that the landowners in the movie are of Scotchorigin, that the lifestyle, romanticised by the movie of these personsand the clansmen are sharply contrasted but portraying clan life in thecrofts as some kind of ideal lifestyle is too much. The eighteenthcentury events that form the background to the movie were indeedtraumatic for all concerned, the events were not simply those ofEnglish and Scottish nobles rivalry for power but also of the need forScottish nobles to distance themselves from barbarous clansmen.

Based on what we’ve seen in the film, Rob Roy’s honor is the most importantthing to him. But does that mean that cunnying, intelligence, leverage, andknowledge is to be discarded? Rob Roy does everything wrong in this filmfrom the moment he allows one man to act has his financial agent to the factthat he doesn’t use his allies against those that are trying to kill him andwho end up raping his wife, he acts in typical Hollywood fashion as anidiot.

The film would have been quite short if he would have done the right thingfrom the very beginning. But, alas, we would have no film so hence thestupidity from which we are tortured.

The film has some great scenery and the acting is enjoyable except for thebrutal rape scene of Roy’s wife. Other than the scenery and acting, there’snot much to see let alone giving cause to buying the DVD.

When Braveheart first came out, I was enthralled, and was admittedlyone of the most rabid fans of the film. When Rob Roy came out, I wasintrigued, and although I enjoyed the film I did not think it was agreat film. However, as time has gone by, my appreciation for Rob Royhas grown, and my enthusiasm for Braveheart has diminished. Braveheartis great entertainment, to be sure, but there are flaws as well. Themost significant, in my view, is the unflattering portrayal of Robertthe Bruce, who was without a doubt Scotland’s greatest king. Another isthe historical inaccuracy of the film, which tarnishes the film inproportion to the many historical distortions. I think I am alsobothered by the fact that it was in this film, seen only (at least byme) in retrospect, that the beginnings of Mel Gibson’s egomania can beseen clearly for the first time. In contrast, Rob Roy has grown on meover the years. Partly because it largely avoids the faults I mind mostin Braveheart. But also because Rob Roy is like fine wine, growing moremature and complex with each viewing.

How does a Scotsman in a kilt make love in the bonny purple heather?Very,very carefully.Now I have the distinct advantage over many otherof the reviewers in that I was born in Scotland.Far too many Americanstake this simplistic nonsense seriously.It's a joke,people,"four legsgood - two legs bad",as Orwell had it. Jessica Lange has an accent thatthe Wells - next - the - sea Amateur Dramatic Society's production of"Brigadoon" would turn down. Liam Neeson - apparently popular with theladies - wears his kilt with all the authority of a man whose GreatGrandmama once stepped off the train at Edinburgh Waverley. And theAuld Enemy?Where would the Scots be without them to hate and blame foreverything?Messrs Roth,Cox and Hurt should be ashamed for indulging insuch racist stereotyping. "Robin Hood - Prince of thieves" seems amasterpiece of historical accuracy in comparison.And at least AlanRickman was funny.

I watched this movie the other night and I thought it was pretty gooddespite the lack of action. I don’t usually like movies that are morearty but after Brave heart I thought I would try this one out. I wasslightly disappointed because it was quite slow but overall I thinkthat both movies are good in different ways. Robroy is good because ofLiam Neeson he was good in Star wars and I did want to see him inanother movie. Jessica lange was a big disappointment what are peoplethinking she is not gorgeous overall I give the movie 6 out of 10. p.s.not enough action in this one either I mean wasn’t this meant to be abloody historical piece. Sword fight was okay though.

Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at thisdisgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattlerustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one formor another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would thinkthat 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts andhomosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the "young" mother at age 49but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a "bath" in a Scottish loch isNOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yetanother opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Saveyour money and watch Pinnochio.

I saw Rob Roy with a high, hopeful heart, trusting i was about to see astonking action film and instead i got a film that veered horribly fromgrimto jollity before finishing in time for tea and cakes. whoopee. Itsnothing we have not seen before and nothing i would wish to see again.Liamturns a fair turn as a square-jawed hero and Tim as the arch naughty personbut frankly the script does not bear up to the impressivehistrionics.

T
his movie came out the same year as Braveheart and often gets compared

to it, usually to Rob Roy’s detriment, but don’t be fooled. The only

good things about Braveheart are its battle sequences and those aren’t

all THAT good. But the rest of Braveheart is laughably bad - it was even

named by several critics as the worst movie ever to win an Oscar for

Best Picture. Rob Roy, in comparison, is thoroughly engrossing

throughout, with a great final sword-fight, probably the finest

swordfight ever filmed. This movie is well worth your time, especially

if you’re in the mood for some Scottish history better served than the

stunningly awful Braveheart

read comments (0)