homer_simpson91 Reviews

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

A horrible movie

[1/10 · 25 December 2001]

This terrible bastardization of the terrific original cartoon should never have been made in the first place. Right when Jim Carrey was starting to convince me that he could actually be a good actor (and sometimes even funny), he gives us this. Certainly his worst performance to date. Ron Howard's direction needed to be seriously toned down. The good makeup, the cute Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou Who, and even Sir Anthony Hopkins doing the narration could not save this boring, deplorable and unfunny trash. Luckily, the original cartoon is good enough to survive total disgrace from this movie.

2/10

The Periwig-Maker (1999)

Very good short

[8/10 · 20 December 2001]

The dark animation style and music really gave this short a creepy feeling, which I loved. The story was very interesting, but the ending left me with a kind of "that's it?" feeling. The animation may not be incredibly impressive visually, but it works well with the story, which is one of the better stories for an animated short that I've seen. Check out BALANCE (10/10) if you liked this one.

8/10

The Wonderful World of Disney: Annie (1999) Season 3, Episode 5

A pretty bad movie

[5/10 · 19 December 2001]

This movie is not nearly as good as the 1982 version of ANNIE, but if you haven't seen that version, this one is probably worse. There are lots of things/scenes in this version of ANNIE that are there only because they are in the 1982 version. Two big examples I can think of are the dog and the other orphans. In the 1982 version, they are characters that are essential to the plot. In this, they are there because they are expected to be there, and don't really serve the plot at all. The presence of President FDR at the end is another example. For that matter, the ending is anti-climatic and rushed. Everything is better in the 1982 version, including the acting, the dialogue, the songs, and especially the relationship between Daddy Warbucks and Annie. In the 1982 version, in which Daddy Warbucks is a total scumbag and Annie has to "tame" him. In this one, the two are in pretty much love with each other right away, and it's disappointing and lame.

Victor Garber and Alan Cumming are both great actors, but they're playing characters that have already been played to near-perfection before. Alicia Morton, while cuter than the original Annie, is not nearly as good an actress. Kathy Bates is great in this movie. Again, she was not as good as the extremely talented Carol Burnett in the original, but she almost is. Kathy Bates is, however, the best part of the remake. Some of the new songs are catchy, but the best ones are the ones we know already from (you guessed it!) the 1982 version.

Anytime this version strays from the 1982 version, it suffers. When it does remain true to the original, it does not live up to it. Watch the first one. It had the best cast, best music, better script, better everything.

5/10

Rope (1948)

A very good movie

[8/10 · 19 December 2001]

A seriously underrated Hitchcock film. It's no REAR WINDOW (10/10), but it does provide some intense scenes and a very good and interesting story. I loved Jimmy Stewart, as always. Here he played the murderers' former teacher, who starts to catch on to the murder as the killers become more and more arrogant, therefore making more and more mistakes. The character has a dark sense of humor and a morbid outlook on life, and although it isn't the usual Jimmy Stewart character, he plays it excellently anyway. I also felt that the two co-stars, John Dall (the arrogant killer) and Farley Granger (the nervous killer), did well. Dall is obviously a stage actor and he does indeed emote like one. This might be distracting for some, but I actually enjoyed it. And I really loved the experimental directing by the great Alfred Hitchcock. Those ten minute takes can't be easy, but they are all extremely well done. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you are a Hitchcock fan.

8/10

Titanic (1997)

A masterpiece

[9/10 · 17 December 2001]

Perfect in practically every way, and probably my favorite romance (aside from CASABLANCA (10/10)). the 3+ hour length did not bother me. The ship itself, of course, is gorgeous and the score is excellent. Leonardo DiCaprio, who never had impressed me much before, was quite good, but not nearly as good as Kate Winslet, who I feel deserved the Best Actress Oscar (although I love Helen Hunt dearly). Victor Garber, who played the builder/designer of the Titanic, is excellent, although under-used and under-appreciated. Gloria Stuart is great in her supporting role, but not as good as the incredible Kathy Bates as the "unsinkable" Molly Brown, my favorite character. The direction by James Cameron is incredible, especially during the actual sinking of the Titanic (which is incredibly moving and well done). Sure to be considered a classic for years and years to come.

10/10

What Lies Beneath (2000)

A very bad movie

[3/10 · 14 December 2001]

One of the producers called WHAT LIES BENEATH "the kind of film Hitchcock would have done in his day". That statement makes me wonder if that producer has ever actually SEEN a Hitchcock movie before. Just because this movie rips-off of REAR WINDOW and PSYCHO ever once in a while, it does not make it anywhere near the caliber of a Hitchcock film. While a Hitchcock film is usually so intense it leaves you on the edge of your seat, WHAT LIES BENEATH instead is so boring you might be falling asleep. What's worse is that anybody who has seen the trailer (as I have) already knows what happens in the first hour and a half, destroying any possibility of being surprised up until the slightly more exciting, but far-fetched and equally as unsatisfying, ending. The only good thing about this movie are the two leads. Michelle Pfeiffer is alright, but certainly not at her best. Harrison Ford seems to be phoning it in until the last half hour, where he is very impressive as always. Robert Zemeckis (who is certainly NOT Alfred Hitchcock) does a decent director job, but a firm thumbs DOWN to Clark Gregg, who wrote this horrible screenplay. Unsurprisingly, it is his first.

3/10

The Pledge (I) (2001)

A bad movie

[4/10 · 10 December 2001]

Man, what a disappointment! Jack Nicholson is one of my favorite actors and the previews for this movie looked really great. I was expecting a great police drama, and that's how it looked like it was going to be from the first quarter, but as soon as it started to get artsy, THE PLEDGE just kept getting worse and worse right up to that ending, which is probably one of the most anti-climatic endings of all time. The last three quarters of the story, which focuses on Detective Jerry Black's (Jack Nicholson) unhealthy obsession with his promise to solve the crime, do not mesh well with the first quarter, and it drags and drags and DRAGS. Watching this movie, you'll notice that at one point, nothing significant at all happens for 45 MINUTES! If that isn't bad pacing, I don't know what is. I too was hoping that the ending would be so good that it could make up for the boring and badly paced movie before it, but it only made the movie worse. I won't write it here, but when the movie was over I was feeling cheated and unsatisfied.

Sean Penn's direction is good (in some parts great, especially in the scene in which Detective Black told the murdered girl's parents the bad news), but at times it seemed like he over-directed. Jack Nicholson was good, but the subtley he used in playing that character would've worked better if the movie wasn't so BORING in the first place. I found myself looking at the floor or ceiling more than once.

I think I'm being generous with the grade I gave it. Jack Nicholson fans are the only people who should think about watching this.

4/10

Pearl Harbor (2001)

A good movie

[5/10 · 6 December 2001]

I found it difficult rating PEARL HARBOR. This is certainly not a great movie, although there was some solid acting and an amazing 40 minute battle scene that made me feel both sad and patriotic. But the majority of the movie is a love triangle between the three leads, and I only found myself only slightly interested in it. In TITANIC (9/10), I found myself almost in tears during the sad parts because I cared about the main characters. In PEARL HARBOR, I didn't care about them as much, (I didn't MIND them, but I didn't care much about them) and so during the sad parts I was mostly bored.

I blame this not on the actors, but on the screenplay. I know Randall Wallace, who wrote for us the brilliant BRAVEHEART (10/10), is capable of better. Most of the dialogue is unsatisfying, and some is laughable. As I mentioned earlier, I feel the acting was one of the PEARL HARBOR's best qualities. This was the first time I was impressed by Ben Affleck as an actor. This was also the first time I had the pleasure of watching Josh Hartnett and Kate Beckinsale, both of whom I can't wait to see more of in the future. I also enjoyed the (brief) performances of Cuba Gooding Jr, Mako, Tom Sizemore and especially Jon Voight as President FDR. Jon Voight stole the show for me, especially in the scene in which he stood up from his wheelchair in order to demonstrate to his associates that nothing is impossible.

The battle scene was incredible. So incredible, in fact, that it's enough for me to call this movie recommendable. Maybe because there was no (bad) dialogue to ruin it, but I felt the sadness I was supposed to feel for the victims while being impressed with the overall coolness of it at the same time. I never felt the kind of emotion during the romance of the movie as I did during the attack scene. I was speechless during this part of the movie, which is exactly how I felt during TITANIC, and the exact feeling any film-maker could hope for or movie-goer could wish for.

The redeeming qualities of this movie is enough for me to give a thumbs up. I just might buy this movie just so I can watch those redeeming qualities, and rewind through the rest of it.

7/10

The Horror of Party Beach (1964)

A horrible movie

[2/10 · 5 December 2001]

I hadn't seen this movie in a long time, and I remembered it not being so bad. Well, I watched it again recently and...yes, it was that bad. Why did I forget how bad it is? Your guess is as good as mine, but for some reason I thought there was more cheesy fun that came with this movie. Instead, I was waiting for it to end. The only thing that was close to decent at all were the Del-Aires. I'm sure I'll get made fun of for saying so, but their music isn't THAT bad. It's not great by any means, but it's catchy. You know...cheesy fun!

As for the rest of the movie, there is not much else good about it. The acting is very poor, and it's no wonder! If you'll look at their filmographies, this is not only the first movie of every single actor involved, it's their ONLY movie EVER! (Well, the star of the movie was in ONE other movie, but that's it!) The monsters are ridiculous looking, and the anti-nuclear dumping message fails to come across in every way and will almost certainly be forgotten by everyone watching by the end of the movie.

2/10

Godzilla: King of the Monsters! (1956)

A pretty bad movie

[5/10 · 4 December 2001]

Very overrated, and only enjoyable for the scenes with Godzilla destroying Tokyo. The rest of the movie is boring, and the ending is far-fetched and ridiculous. Raymond Burr is extremely unimpressive as he never allows a shred of emotion to show on his face. (As so, I thought the part where he says "I can barely believe what has just happened" with his emotionless voice and face was very funny.) The anti-nuclear testing/weapons comes across, but it's barely necessary as all this movie is really about is watching Godzilla himself destroy things. This does provide some fun however, and so GODZILLA, KING OF THE MONSTERS! isn't all that bad.

5/10

Hobgoblins (1988)

One of the worst

[1/10 · 4 December 2001]

I do not exaggerate when I say HOBGOBLINS is the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. This movie has everything wrong with it. Horrible acting (it's no wonder that just about all the leads have never been in another picture), terrible cinematography, very bad directing, bad editing, horrific dialogue and a bad story. Rick Sloane must be the anti-Christ to make this film. If you see it, I'm sure you'll agree.

1/10

Danger: Diabolik (1968)

A very bad movie

[3/10 · 4 December 2001]

An obvious James Bond rip-off, and an extremely bad one at that. There are very few moments of actual fun in this. The "hero" is the movie, Diabolik, is supposed to be a villain that you are rooting for, but instead you'll probably despise him just like I did, and root for the incompetent cop who never seems to be able to catch him. Diabolik is a thief who kills lots of people, including a lot of innocent bystanders most of the time, and we are expected to like him and his greedy girlfriend. The acting and dialogue in this movie are especially terrible. The brief cameos by Terry-Thomas are the best parts of the movie. His appearances was like breaths of fresh air, and I probably gave a point to this movie for him alone. As for this movie...just watch one of the 007 movies again. DIABOLIK is the same thing anyway, only infinitely worse.

3/10

Behind Enemy Lines (2001)

A good movie

[6/10 · 3 December 2001]

A good popcorn flick, and one of the better action movies of the year. Owen Wilson, who I have NEVER been impressed with, actually does a decent job in this movie, but Gene Hackman is true star of the show. He does great in this movie as he always does. First-time director John Moore seems to try all his tricks in this movie (he has previously directed mostly commercials, and you might be able to tell that as you watch), and although some might find that to be distracting, I enjoyed his directing style. (One example I especially enjoyed was a super-slow motion shot of a soldier setting of a nearby mine.) Action movie fans should probably check this one out.

7/10

Student Bodies (1981)

One of the worst

[1/10 · 3 December 2001]

Dear lord, I can't believe how many people think this movie is actually funny! This movie was painfully to watch, especially the ending, which could quite possibly be the worst ending in cinematic history. At first, this movie seemed to be one of those that was so bad, you could laugh AT it, but it soon became worse than that. To call the humor juvenile would be an understatement, but there are many lines that actually WOULD be funny if the timing and delivery were correct, but they rarely are. The acting, directing, dialogue, cinematography and possibly everything that can be wrong with a movie is wrong with this one. The worst "comedy" I've ever seen.

1/10

Nestor, the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey (1977 TV Movie)

A pretty good movie

[6/10 · 3 December 2001]

I think if NESTOR, THE LONG-EARED CHRISTMAS DONKEY was twice as long as it is now (so it would be about an hour rather than about a half-hour), it could be one of the better Christmas animation movies. But it seems like a lot of content must have been removed so that it could be shown in a half-hour on television. Certain parts of the movie that would have otherwise been tear-jerking or heart-warming moments were not as satisfying because they were rushed. It's probably good for little kids though, especially ones who enjoyed RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER.

6/10

The Screaming Skull (1958)

One of the worst

[2/10 · 28 November 2001]

OK, I admit I watched this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which I am a huge fan of), but I am not one of those people who automatically gives an MST3K movie a 1/10 rating. Although I hate many of the movies they play, and some are among of the worst movies I've ever seen, I have actually been able to enjoy some MST3K movies. That being said, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. (It is no wonder, in fact, that the MST3K writers themselves commented that this one was one of the worst. Don't believe me? Check out their site.)

To me, this movie is a good example of what NOT to do in filmmaking. The dialogue is very bad, the acting is worse, the cinematography is pathetic the direction (while perhaps being the best thing in this movie) is bad.

The pacing is the worst part in this movie. A few times in this movie, the viewer had to wait literally minutes for something to happen. While minutes may not sound like a very long amount of time, it can be in a movie, particularly in this one. I'm sure it was meant to create a mood, but I was just very bored. It truly felt like ten minutes.

If "suspension of disbelief" means "almost falling asleep during a movie", then this has plenty of that. But THE SCREAMING SKULL is just so horrible, there is no way I could have possibly even gotten interested in anything that was actually going on in the film, and thus the "suspension of disbelief" was indeed non-existant.

One of the worst, and probably the most boring movie I've ever seen.

1/10

Spy Game (2001)

A very good movie

[6/10 · 24 November 2001]

The style of the movie was different than I expected, but I think it's probably the best thing about this movie. The 24 hour count-down started before we knew who any of the characters were, but they are well developed through a series of flashbacks. I was a little turned off by this at first, but only for a few minutes. Then the movie had my full attention. Pretty soon, I genuinely cared about the characters played well by Brad Pitt and Robert Redford. (Redford steals the show.) Redford's character always keeps one step ahead of his CIA buddies, and I loved watching him do it. The relationship between Redford and Pitt is a student-teacher one, not father-son one. This works, but I think the movie could have done with a LITTLE more of the father-son thing.

This movie is more of a think-piece than it looked in previews, so anybody expecting brainless action will probably be disappointed. I, on the other hand, was glad it was what it was. Certainly worth checking out. ;)

8/10

Play It Again, Sam (1972)

A great movie

[8/10 · 23 November 2001]

A little slow at first, but once I got into this movie I really enjoyed it. This was my first Woody Allen movie, and I thought he was funny for the most part. I laughed out loud on more than one occasion (especially in a scene in which he attempts to make a pass at a depressed girl in a museum). Diane Keaton did a very good job as the lead female character. I especially enjoyed Jerry Lacy's performance as "Humphrey Bogart". Woody's fantasy conversations with "Bogart" were especially enjoyable, and lead to some of the funnier lines/scenes in the movie. A good comedy, one which I would imagine especially Woody Allen fans would enjoy. I think it also helps if you are a Bogart fan, such as myself.

8/10

Watch on the Rhine (1943)

An excellent movie

[8/10 · 23 November 2001]

It may (or may not) be considered interesting that the only reason I really checked out this movie in the first place was because I wanted to see the performance of the man who beat out Humphrey Bogart in his CASABLANCA (10/10 role for the Best Actor Oscar. (I still would have given the Oscar to Bogie, but Paul Lukas did do a great job and deserved the nomination, at least.) Well, I'm glad I did check this movie out, because I enjoyed it immensely. I think the movie did preach a little, but not only did I not mind, I enjoyed the speeches and was never bored with them.

The acting was outstanding in this movie. I especially enjoyed Paul Lukas, Lucile Watson (rightfully nominated for an Oscar), Bette Davis (wrongfully not nominated), George Coulouris and, oddly, Eric Roberts, who plays the middle child. I really enjoyed his character: an odd-looking boy who talks like some sort of philosopher. He just cracks me up. Even the characters name (Bodo) is funny.

The ending, in which Lukas's character was forced to do something he considered wrong even though he was doing it for all the right reasons, worked for me as well. I agreed with why he felt he had to what he did, and I understood why he couldn't quite explain it. The message this movie makes is a good and noble one, the scenery (meaning the house) is beautiful, and the acting is the excellent. Watch this movie if you ever get a chance.

9/10.

For the Birds (2000)

An excellent short

[9/10 · 22 November 2001]

Visually impressive, but also hilarious. The goofy bird is especially funny. I laughed out loud throughout the whole thing. Worked well as an introduction to MONSTERS INC (9/10), which is where most people will have seen it first.

9/10

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

An excellent movie

[9/10 · 22 November 2001]

I'm glad I read (and enjoyed) the book before seeing this movie, because I think it improved the overall experience. HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is fun for all ages with outstanding acting from just about everyone involved, likeable characters, beautiful scenery, impressive special effects, funny jokes and good drama. The THE WIZARD OF OZ (9/10) of this generation. Highly recommended.

9/10

Money for Nothing (1993)

A pretty good movie

[6/10 · 22 November 2001]

Decent, but forgettable. The story is interesting enough, but the script has its share of flaws. John Cusack is OK, but more impressive is Debi Mazar and James Gandolfini. The (in my opinion) overrated Benicio Del Toro does an especially poor job here. Worth renting, especially if you are a fan of any of the actors involved.

6/10

Balance (1989)

A masterpiece

[10/10 · 22 November 2001]

By far the greatest short I have ever seen. The style of animation in this short is very interesting and a little dark, but appropriate for the story. The moral of the short, the need for cooperation in society and what could happen without it, comes through clearly and is well done. It won the Oscar for Best Short Film in 1990, and it certainly deserved it. Check this out!

10/10

Bambi Meets Godzilla (1969)

A good short

[7/10 · 22 November 2001]

Unimpressive visually, but this short was only made for one joke and the joke is funny. Better if you don't know anything about it before viewing it. Not worth running out and buying a video of, but worth checking out if you get the chance. EXTREMELY short (about 2 minutes).

7/10

Beat the Devil (1953)

A pretty bad movie

[5/10 · 22 November 2001]

Sorry, but I didn't get it. In fact, I barely even realized it was a comedy. I did enjoy the acting, particularly Peter Lorre, Gina Lollobrigida, Jennifer Jones and, of course, Humphrey Bogart. However, I did not find the movie itself to be very funny or entertaining. When it did finally end, I thought there was a lot left to be desired.

5/10