• Hey Webmasters! Get a free website with holiday themes - Get it NOW!

I don't think I can begin to describe how bad this movie was...the acting was horrible, the plot was poorly paced and uninteresting, and the characters themselves were generally unlikable and near impossible to connect with. It's a shame that people like Bruce Willis, Sharon Stone, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster were wasted on such a horrible movie. The only thing I can recommend about Alpha Dog is the fact that Justin Timberlake's acting is so bad that it's often unintentionally hilarious.

It says something when a supporting character (Casey Affleck as Robert Ford) steals every scene he's in, even those with the main character (Brad Pitt as Jesse James). While in no ways perfect, The Assassination is a very good movie and, combined with 3:10 to Yuma, completes what could be considered the "rebirth of the Western" (at least that's what other critics have said, and I have to say that I agree with them). It's not that westerns haven't been made over the past 10 or 15 years, but that very few (if any) of them have been as good as 3:10 to Yuma and The Assassination. While both are a little on the long side and probably could've been pared down a little bit, they both are spot on in capturing a certain mood. In The Assassination, the mood is a sort of desolation, the wandering of a man disenchanted with his past (James), who slowly comes to realize that, for as many people revere him as a hero, there are just as many who hate him. In the end, he is killed by someone who could be classified in both groups.

Wow. That was one of the most interesting, unique scripts I've watched in a long time. Trippy, thought provoking, and at times hilarious, this is definitely a highlight of Malkovich's career. And also possibly the best movie Charlie Sheen has ever been in.

The Wilson brothers are good considering they had very little under their belts (in fact, I find that Luke outshines Owen in their earlier movies, unfortunately he's relegated himself to making movies like The Wendall Baker Story), and Wes Anderson does a good job in his debut, but overall the story was a little too easy and it was high on style and low on explanation. Although this is something that Wes Anderson does, his later movies are a little more cohesive than this one.

This was a very difficult movie for me to rate. I read the book almost ten years ago, and this was not as good as I remember the book being. Also, compounded with that, is the simple fact that, while a fascinating character study and an interesting look at Jewish religion (especially Hasidic Jews), the one sided nature of the religious talks (no real account in taken for the Arabs in Palestine who fought back to protect their land as well) made it hard to not see some of the glaring faults with the message being put forth.

Sam Rockwell's performance was good, but otherwise this movie was quite the disappointment. Clooney's directing didn't seem to add anything to the movie (he was much better with "good night, and good luck"), and the story seemed to be disjointed, with the pieces not fitting together to make the movie interesting.

Could've used without some moments (the shit monster being one of them), but overall a pretty funny movie. The cast did a great job, and script was funny. And is it just me, or is Ben Affleck only able to "act" when he's with his buddy, Matt Damon?

Great direction and camerawork (both courtesy of Nolan, one of the best under 40 directors), and a story that's shows the seeds of Memento, yet manages to be original and engaging. Definitely a must see for fans of not only Christopher Nolan, but film noir as well.

Extremely difficult to watch, Funny Games is also extremely difficult to rate. One an "enjoyment" scale, it gets the lowest possible rating I could give. However, on a contemplative/"intellectual" level, I have to say that it definitely did make me think, and succeeded in it's goal of making me feel tremendously uncomfortable for over an hour.

An erratic movie, sometimes seeming like it could've been great, and other times seeming trite and unintentionally funny. I thought the morality aspect of the movie was a little heavy handed and could've been pared back a bit. The acting was, for the most part, very good, and the storyline was engaging, if uneven.

Malcolm McDowell is stunning in his feature film debut, and the directing by Lindsay Anderson is top notch. A mix of British schoolhouse tyranny and surrealist fantasy rebellion, If... succeeds in capturing the desperation of the rebellious schoolboys, but really doesn't fully captures the viewers' attention until the fantastic second half. If you can wade through the uneven beginning, though, If... is a great film that got lost in the shuffle long ago.

When a two-and-a-half hour movie seems even longer than it is and still isn't able to aptly explain what the hell is going on, you don't have a good movie on your hands. Unfortunately, that's exactly what Kingdom of Heaven does...it meanders through vague religious references, and spends way too much time doing not much of anything. The poorly written dialogue (which doesn't propel the story forward at all) is used too much, and in the end doesn't even serve the purpose of letting you know what the hell was going on. On that note, can anyone blame Edward Norton for hiding behind a mask the entire time? If I were him, I wouldn't want to be associated with this either.

Was this movie good? No. Not in any sense. The story was laughable, the acting was over-the-top, and the music was more dramatic than lord of the rings. Yet, it was quite possibly one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Until you see Chuck Norris revive himself by pouring a can of beer over his head, you haven't lived.

I admire My Beautiful Laundrette for attempting to address issues of race/class/sexuality, but under the confines of 80s movie making (horrible music, cheesy dialogue) it doesn't work as well as it could. Daniel Day-Lewis, as always, was fantastic.

Daniel Day-Lewis was fantastic, and was definitely deserving of an Oscar. Otherwise, however, the directing and production seemed poor and the story seemed disjointed. I can only assume that sizeable portions of the story found in the book was omitted from the film.

The story is pretty cliche, but as far as action movies go, this one's pretty damn awesome. More than enough stylish shoot-outs, and only one explosion (which still manages to look hella fake), so gotta give the crew credit for not blowing everything up, like too many of these movies do. Recommended if you want to see a stylish action movie, but not recommended if you want a deep plot.

A good concept, but frequently falls flat. The only character even remotely likeable is Hal, whereas the rest of the cast seemed to be caricatures of weird quirks. The only other redeeming value is some very good music. Otherwise, very disappointing, as the writer seemed to confuse "quirky" and "unlikeable."

Very disappointing. There were a few good ideas, but it seemed to be doing too much and nothing really gelled together well. A few of the characters seemed miscast (Mary-Louise Parker, Mandy Moore...actually, all of the "children"), and the crude dialogue just seemed out of place and pointless...crude has it's place, but here it just seemed to be used for shock/humor value, and that just didn't cut it. The only highlight for me was Christopher Walken singing and dancing to "Delilah."

Nothing special, but an enjoyable action movie. Dennis Hopper was great as the villain, Keanu was Keanu (which can be both a good and bad thing), and Sandra Bullock was pretty horrible. The story and acting is ludicrous, but for the genre, it works extremely well at parts.

Great performances from Cotten and Welles, a good story, and good use of lighting on the streets of Vienna. However, as a whole, I felt that something was missing. Parts of the movie (especially near the end) seemed overly long, and sometimes Cotten and Welles are so good that scenes that use them less seem somehow empty because of it.

The visual effects were done pretty well, but the story was ridiculously bad and the acting was on par with the story. I've never seen John Turturro turn in such a poor performance, and Shia LeBouf and Megan Fox had less acting skills than the Gerber baby. If you don't mind that the special effects are not accompanied by anything even bordering on acceptable, you might like this film. If you think Michael Bay is a cinema Antichrist, this movie will not change your opinion of him.

Great cast, but mediocre movie overall. Tony Scott's directing killed the feel of the movie at times, and I can only wonder what this movie would've been like if it had been made a couple years later with Tarantino directing himself. The best acting performances of the film were in supporting roles (Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper), as Christian Slater didn't have a lot to work with and Patricia Arquette's "white trash" accent was grating through most of the movie.

Well, Under Siege delivers the normal mindless action (Steven Seagal's character not only is proficient with guns and martial arts, but also with computers and bomb making), but the real thing that puts this movie slightly ahead of other ultra-mindless action is Tommy Lee Jones. His psychotic villain is easily the most interesting part of this movie, and it's a shame that for half of the movie they relegate him to "normal villain" status.