llihilloh Reviews

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Half good, half bad, but I like it.

[9 February 2004]

~*~* Minor Spoiler ~*~*

I saw 'Jeepers Creepers' for the first time about a year ago. I had never heard of it before, which seemed to be odd since movies get so much advertising these days. I found it to be a mixed movie in which the first half was excellent while the second half went down hill. All in all, though, I enjoyed it.

The main reason I like this film is because it is different, to say the least. It has a very unique plot with a weird turn of events. (It got a little ridiculous at a couple of points, but I was able to sit through it.) Two other things that made the film good: the cast and the simplicity. I was very impressed with the cast. Justin Long and Gina Philips were great. They worked well together and their acting helped move the movie along so that it didn't get boring or dull. I had seen the two of them in bit roles prior to 'Jeepers' and I would definitely like to see them again in something else. Who says a movie can't work on a low budget and still turn out good? Ah, simplicity. It's a beautiful thing. The film's obvious low budget is one thing that I really appreciate and tend to look for when searching for movies. Everything about 'Jeepers' is simple. The cast is uh, quite small, the set is nothing spectacular, the writing is straight forward, and that's what I like to see.

I'll break the film down into two sections: one being the first half of the film and the other being the second half. The movie jumps right into the action and doesn't beat around the bush, which was something that I appreciated. It continues to move at a steady pace, everything's going good until...the Creeper starts making out with the cop's head. Yep, that's where I started to go 'What?'. Now while the second half of the film, and even the ending, are weaker than the first part, I think that it all evens out. Since it is a relatively short film, I wasn't bored with it (as I usually am with the films that I sit through). When it comes down to it, 'Jeepers' is a good film that kind of got a little silly, but since I found most of it to be worthwhile, I would watch it again. And I have. About 50 times. Because I bought the movie. And that is something that I rarely do which goes to show that I actually do like it despite having let me down at times.

Having not heard about this film before stumbling on it at the videostore, I'm surprised because it really is something worth catching. The reviews I've read aren't all that great, but I don't listen to critics, so I would recommend ignoring them while trying to see this movie. Overall, 'Jeepers Creepers' is a good film to watch every now and again for some cheap and easy scares.

The Amazing Race (2001– )

Still the best in reality programming, but it did slip a bit.

[22 October 2003]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: 'The Amazing Race' is the best reality show on television. I've watched every season since it premiered and have loved all of them, but I was disappointed with the fourth edition for a number of reasons.

The one thing that I felt this edition was missing, not to mention the most important element, was an interesting group of teams. There are usually those teams that I love and want to win so badly, however, there weren't any this year that I really enjoyed watching. The teams, I felt, were duplicates of past ones (need I mention the Cindy and Russell coincidence?). I hate to say it because the producers are usually good at choosing contestants, but this year, there were some people who I still didn't know their name by the end of the season. That is not good. Another problem with this season was that the challenges were dull. There were some interesting ones over the course of the show, but for the most part, they were bland. I will point out that I was a little taken by surprise with some of the road blocks/detours simply because they were on the dangerous side.

Things I liked about this season? Well, the wonderful crew, of course. The camera crew, editors, sound people, and everyone else really did do a good job with putting the show together. I am always impressed with the editors especially because they really have a tough job, but they never seem to fail me.

If there was one good thing to come out of 'The Amazing Race 4', it was that my favorite team (one of two teams that I could actually stand to watch) made it not only into the top three, but won the million dollars. My other favorite team came in third. It was a bummer, though, that the finale was terrible.

While this season was by far the worst of the four, it did have some strong points along the way. I was thrilled that the show was nominated for an Emmy and then actually won, and I was even happier to find out that CBS gave the go-ahead to a fifth season. Maybe CBS does like Bruckheimer.

American Idol (2002– )

Yeah, because the world needs another singer.

[28 June 2003]

I caught a few episodes of the first season of 'American Idol', but it was only until the second installment came around that I actually started to like it despite that fact that it, you know, is like the cheesiest show out there.

I hate television anymore. I really do. All of the shows that I used to never miss are the ones that I refuse to watch anymore simply because television has gone so down hill it isn't even funny. I must say that I have taken a liking to the reality shows such as 'Survivor', the wonderful 'Amazing Race', which I've watched since the first season, and God help me, I even sat through the first episode of 'Joe Millionaire'. So, when the second season of 'American Idol' rolled around, I figured that I'd give it a shot. I immediately became hooked on it. Why? I have no idea. The show is so dumb, yet I couldn't stop watching it.

Okay, the premise of this show is so, uh, lifeless. It's not entirely boring, but it isn't the greatest. It is filled with nonsense for the most part. It craves ratings so badly that I almost feel bad for giving into FOX.

The judges are horrible. Randy Jackson is okay, I suppose. Paula Abdul is an absolute joke. May I just ask exactly what prompted the producers or whoever to actually hire her? She serves no purpose whatsoever. Simon Cowell is probably the judge who I like the most. He's honest and I usually agree with him, but he does put on a ridiculously huge act time after time, so he drops a few points there in my book. Oh, and Ryan Seacrest is a terrible host, but I like him. I do. He's one of the main reasons I watch this show.

'American Idol' is set up entirely wrong. The show starts off by dragging out the auditions, then becomes fairly good when there are actual performances, but then slips terribly when it stretches out week after week. Personally, this season felt like about three seasons combined. It was just so long. Also, this show is the absolute worst when it comes to wasting time, commercials, etc. So much time is wasted when it could be put to good use. I hate watching it for that reason right there.

So, to sum things up, 'American Idol' is a pathetic show where it tries its hardest to win ratings, but it is so addicting, in my opinion. Will I watch 'American Idol 3'? I'm not really sure. After the way the second season ended, I just don't know if I can bear to watch a whole other season. After all, this is the show that crowned Ruben Studdard as the winner as opposed to CLAY AIKEN. That's another story in itself, so I'll just stay away from that. I still am recovering, though.

The Banger Sisters (2002)

It was not what I expected and not in the good way.

[22 February 2003]

Is it really possible for a film to turn out bad that has both Susan Sarandon and Goldie Hawn in it? Normally, I would say that there is no way, but I now have to change my opinion after sitting through the mind-numbingly stupid 'The Banger Sisters.'

Why'd you do it, Susan and Goldie? Why?! I love these two gals; they are two of my favorite actresses of all time. Unfortunately, they can't save this film. The previews that I saw led me to the conclusion that 'The Banger Sisters' would be a funny, good-natured, amusing film. Well, it wasn't funny at all, the writing was pathetic, the characters were poorly written, as was the whole film, and it was simply a waste of time.

Sarandon and Hawn disappointed me. Not with their acting (because they both are wonderful actresses), but with their choice to take part in this dribble. Geoffrey Rush has a major role in this film for some unknown reason. You know, that was one of the main things that irritated me. I was under the impression that the two leading ladies would, in fact, be the leads. However, Hawn was on the screen for the majority of the movie, Sarandon's role was butchered, yet Rush had an incredibly big part. I was happy to see Eva Amurri play Sarandon's daughter; they really lit up the screen. I was just waiting to see Kate Hudson make a cameo somewhere, but of course, she didn't as I wished she would have. Erika Christensen was enjoyable as well.

The plot was all screwed up. I didn't like how ‘The Banger Sisters' didn't even share the screen until about the middle of the film. The writing was simple and too ‘generic.' I had heard beforehand that it was outrageously funny. I ended up laughing approximately five times while the person I was watching it with chuckled approximately seven times. I was that bored that I actually resorted to counting the number of times laughs were produced.

So, ‘The Banger Sisters' was a huge disappointment. I had been wanting to see it ever since it was playing at the cinema, but now I wish that I never had watched it at all. Performances didn't let me down, but I was just not amused by the casting (Rush), or the setup of the acting. I shall not recommend this to anyone.

Pretty Woman (1990)

It's okay but not as good as everyone claims it to be.

[22 February 2003]

I first saw 'Pretty Woman' a while back. I wasn't impressed with it the first time around, but when I caught a second viewing I was a little more interested. It's okay. Just okay.

Julia Roberts and Richard Gere work really well together. I like this team of actors. Roberts is pretty good; entertaining, not annoying as she sometimes can be. Gere is a little lifeless at times, but I didn't have a problem with him for the most part. Hector Elizondo was, uh, sweet. Jason Alexander bugged me for quite some time. Laura San Giacomo was average.

The plot's decent, the writing's a little dull, and the the film seems to be three hours long or so. It did get very slow after a while.

'Pretty Woman' is okay. It certainly isn't Roberts' best role or performance. It's something that I would watch twice and probably never again. That sort of thing.

Monster's Ball (2001)

It's such a pathetic excuse for a "movie."

[2/10 · 21 February 2003]

~*~*Minor Spoiler~*~*

I only put the word movie in quotations because I do not consider 'Monster's Ball' to be a movie in the least bit. A movie is something that has to be somewhat entertaining, somewhat interesting, somewhat worth the time that it takes for me to watch it. 'Monster's Ball' wasn't any of those and I found it to be one of the worst projects of 2001. Scratch that and make it one of the worst of all time.

I'm going to come down hard on this film (there, I didn't use "movie") because it truly is a piece of garbage. I am so tired of the movie companies being under the impression that just because a well known, highly paid and recognized actor is thrown into a film, it will have to be great. That is so not the case. Anyway, let me actually get to my review.

I like Billy Bob Thornton. I don't like Halle Berry. Mix these two together and what we have is a disaster. Thornton turns in a less than average performance. At times, his acting just plain stinks. I'd like to say that I was still interested in him because of his looks, but oh, what a mess. I have just one word for Berry: Oscar!? How in the world did she manage to take home an Oscar? For this performance? I'm sorry, but did the Academy and I have alternate versions of the same movie? She is completely unbearable. I thought that any movie where Penelope Cruz was involved was terrible (and they are), but Berry is so darn annoying. Unlike Thornton, she is at least somewhat believable at times. I had enough of her crying though after fifteen minutes. You know, I think that the only reason she won that statue is because someone on the committee just liked that scene in which everyone keeps commenting on. Honestly, she won it because if the Academy kept moving at the pace they were moving at, they would have soon gotten a racist card thrown at them. They have to cover their tales just like everybody else. So, those nauseating credits roll and I find out that Heath Ledger is in 'Ball.' Goody! My hopes of him saving this trash were soon killed as his character faced the same fate. What a shame. Who else do I feel the need to comment on? Oh, yeah, Sean Combs. He's dropped the 'Puffy', so I know he's serious. You know what? He was probably the best actor in this film. Yup, I actually said that.

The plot is paper thin and runs out of steam practically ten minutes into the film. I was so bored by it all. Just when I thought that it wasn't capable of getting any worse, the ending came. I was twirling my hair or filing my nails or something to pass the time, I looked away for a split second, and the next thing I know the credits are rolling again. It was absolutely terrible.

I thought that I could get all the way through this review without commenting on that now famous scene, but I can't. Thornton's and Berry's love scene was a little uncomfortable, to say the least. I was relieved to realize that I was watching it by myself instead of with somebody else where I would feel the need to break into conversation at that given moment. Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call that scene pornographic, though it was quite explicit. That's just another thing that I hated about this film. The director seemed to think that a sex scene was the only direction to go in; that it would save the film in a way. Why?

So, I think it's pretty clear where I stand on this picture. The acting was horrible, the cast just didn't 'jive', the plot was boring, the whole thing's overrated, and I still can't get over how Berry won that Oscar. 'Monster's Ball' is a horrible, horrible film and I wouldn't suggest anybody see it. Ever.

PS - If there was one good thing about this whole disaster, it was that I didn't fork out $3 or so at the video store; I caught it on Cinemax.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

It's good, but not worthy of Best Picture.

[6/10 · 21 February 2003]

'A Beautiful Mind' IS a good movie. The acting is quite good, the story itself is ho-hum, but it just doesn't have what it takes to be a Best Picture.

I have to admit that I was pretty impressed with Russell Crowe's performance. I might just have to go all the way and say that I wouldn't have been upset if he would have won that Oscar. He did a terrific job; he let his emotions flow, didn't seem to annoy me...no complaints here. Okay, I have a complaint. I did not agree with the casting of Jennifer Connelly. Am I truly the only one that thought that her role was extremely small? I mean she just didn't have that big of a part. She won her Oscar for some reason, not really sure why. Ed Harris was alright. He wasn't anything spectacular, but he certainly was better than Connelly. I can't really remember any of the other actors just because they were all males, plus they looked somewhat similar to each other.

I'm not too thrilled with the story itself. I had never even heard of John Nash before. It seemed interesting, but then boring after a while, then it picked up, but became tiresome again. It was a bit long, so I was somewhat relieved when it finally did come to an end.

Okay, 'A Beautiful Mind' is good, but it did not deserve to be named Best Picture of the year. I'm not sure that I would have even thought to put it in the nomination category. The thing is is that Ron Howard did a wonderful job. I'm a big fan of Howard; loved him for years. He's an amazing director and his direction of the film is handled so well, but for some reason the movie just did not deserve that award. He, however, did deserve his long awaited Oscar as it was rightfully awarded. That didn't really make sense what I just said, but the main point that I'm trying to get across is that Howard did a great job.

'A Beautiful Mind' is a good film to watch if you have the time and patience for a pretty slow paced movie. Normally that would bug me to no end, but it's not as bad here. It does lag though, at times. It may have been nominated for a load of awards (winning half), but was still in need of that extra touch to really make it shine.

Barbershop (2002)

Yo, this movie stinks, brother!

[2/10 · 20 January 2003]

Yeah, yeah, I know my 'language skills' could use improvement, but what do you want from me? Anyway, I'm here to express my opinion on 'Barbershop', not to receive criticism for my vocabulary. Oh, by the way, this movie stinks!

The previews for this film looked really good. Though I'm not prone to going out and renting these types of movies, I eventually did make it around to seeing this comedy, if that's what some insist on calling it.

The casting was terrible. Though I hate to admit it because I find him to be absolutely dreadful, Cedric the Entertainer (although among tasks on his to-do list involve actually entertaining me) brought a couple of laughs out of me. That's just because I agreed with him (on the O.J. and Rosa Parks bit) while he managed to poke fun at the whole ordeal. I was kind of pleased to see Sean Patrick Thomas, those ATM guys were kind of funny, but all in all, the casting was horrible. Among the top snoozers: Eve and Ice Cube.

The plot is extremely weak, but what can one expect nowadays? Everybody claims that 'Barbershop' is hilarious, funny, amusing, the best! Wrong. As I have mentioned, Cedric came through with, perhaps, five successful jokes. The rest of the film consisted of annoying writing that tried to be funny but failed terribly.

Well, the previews looked really good, as do all of today's movies. The actual movie, however, was another story. 'Barbershop' is slow, not really funny at all, had a bad cast and was just weak all over. This one managed to get a 2 out of me. Do not see this!

Picture Perfect (1997)

Uh, just a Jennifer Aniston flick.

[20 January 2003]

I find that all of Jennifer Aniston's films are pretty much the same. If it weren't for her 'Friends' success, I would guess that she wouldn't have a whole lot of luck with her movie career in Hollywood. 'Picture Perfect' is a simple comedy that is somewhat entertaining, but nothing to brag about.

Jennifer Aniston is a good actress. I will admit that. And the main reason that she is one is because of her TV fame. Who cares, I like her, so whatever. She does a great job in this role. Well, I might want to tone it down a notch. Jay Mohr is also pretty good. I can't say that I like Mohr, but in the few films that I have seen him in, he was fairly decent. Kevin Bacon, who has a very small role, is okay, I suppose. Neither of the guys are fantastic, but they aren't that bad.

The plot is a little out there; it could use some work on. Actually, it's particularly dumb, but I'm not that bored with it. The writing is average. Is it even supposed to be a comedy? It is? Well, it isn't too funny. I really didn't laugh at all, come to think about it.

So, 'Picture Perfect' isn't bad or anything, it's just ho-hum. If you like Aniston, what the heck, go out and rent this. I would, however, recommend 'The Object of My Affection' as opposed to telling someone to see this. They both have a little deja vu going on for me for some reason, but I'd say go see 'Object' instead of this.

Broken Silence: A Moment of Truth Movie (1998 TV Movie)

I finally realized that this is not a good movie.

[19 January 2003]

It's funny how my opinion on this movie has changed since the first time I saw it. I caught it on NBC when it first premiered and boy, did I think that it was good. I made the mistake of not recording it and for a while after that I looked EVERYWHERE for it. Couldn't find it but finally Lifetime came to my rescue. Lifetime is known for helping me out with those movies that I can't find anywhere else. I watched it again the other night and guess what, I hated it.

The plot is simple. The movie starts off good but soon travels downhill. It takes a while for the movie to actually get going, but it finally does. Oh, and it has the one thing in movies that bugs me the most: it starts off showing what will eventually happen. That irks me to no end. I mean I knew what was going to happen, but it still frustrates me when that occurs.

So, it drags on, and it drags on, and it drags on. It's entirely too slow.

I feel bad criticizing the acting here, but it has got to be done. I liked Ariana Richards in 'Jurassic Park' no matter how minor her role was. She is just awful here. Seriously, I haven't seen such bad acting since I went out and rented a Bette Midler movie. Oh, yeah, I don't like Bette Midler. Richards is just so...so...boring. She puts absolutely no emotions into her words, which results in her character being not likeable. I at least didn't like the character. Susan Blakely, on the other hand, is really good. Good acting, good character development, no complaints from me in that area. William Bumiller wasn't anything great.

This plot has been done so many times that it needs to be put to a rest. 'Race Against Fear' is slow-moving, predictable, and has some very, very bad acting. I would not advise anyone to watch this. I'd suggest another TV movie: 'She Fought Alone.' It's basically the same idea and I know that I said that all movies along this line need to stopped, but it IS good; a lot better than this horrible thing.

Never Been Kissed (1999)

I didn't used to like it, but now I do.

[18 January 2003]

I can remember renting 'Never Been Kissed' when it first came out on video and being absolutely bored with it as I watched it. Then it finally made its way onto cable, I saw it again, and I liked what I saw for some reason.

While this movie is meant to be a comedy, I kind of had a hard time of actually categorizing it as that. I don't think it was funny at all (there were a few scenes here and there), but it's basically just a cute, fun film.

I'm not a big Drew Barrymore fan but I keep finding myself watching her films. I don't know, I guess she's just one of those actresses who grows on me as time goes on. Anyway, Barrymore is pretty good in this role. Plus, she's the executive producer, so I guess she can't be all bad. David Arquette has a minor role even though he is listed second in the credits. I thought he had a small role but apparently it wasn't that small. He's goofy, he's crazy, he's wild, he's just being himself. And though normally I would find somebody of his character to be extremely annoying, I admit that I like him. I've liked him for a while now. Best thing about this movie? Michael Vartan. Oh, I could watch him for hours. I absolutely adore him. He does a decent job in this film; nothing great, but it's Michael Vartan, so how can I say something bad about his performance? Minor roles are filled by Molly Shannon whom I've grown fond of over the years no matter how much she tries to irritate me, Leelee Sobieski, who for some unknown reason was cast as a geek, Jeremy Jordan, who is quite good (I've seen him in one other film and he was good in that too), and John C. Reilly, who is in an unbelievably small role yet still manages to bring a smile to my face. The cast overall is good.

The plot is different and that's what I like to see. Hollywood is starting to run out of ideas. It's simple and somewhat short, so I don't have a problem with that.

'Never Been Kissed' is basically a cute film that has an interesting outline and a good cast. Did I mention that Michael Vartan is in this? Though it took me some time to actually like it, I now find it to be simply a fun film to watch every now and again.

Grease (1978)

It's gradually good.

[18 January 2003]

It actually took me a number of years to watch 'Grease' in its entirety. I first saw it many years ago but never did I get the chance to finish it. Needless to say it took about four or five more tries until I saw the whole thing. Personally, it's the kind of movie that is bad at first, but by a couple of full screenings, it's good.

Well, I like it now. The cast is great, the songs are fun and addicting, and the singing and the dancing (but specifically the singing because some of those actors just could not sing even though I like ALL of them) are a little weak but I guess there has to be a low point to every movie.

John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John are perfect together. They make a perfect team. I know that they're the main characters, but I've got to really hand it to the entire cast because this is one of those casts that just clicks. Everybody is wonderful, even those actors with the tiniest of roles.

While the plot is a little iffy, it somehow pulls through probably because of all those entertaining dance/sing sequences. All of those scenes are choreographed and performed well. And you know what? Any movie that leaves a song, or in this case, a number of songs, in my head well after the film has ended is okay by me. Yeah, it's a little annoying how there ARE so many darn songs throughout 'Grease', but that's what makes it good, I suppose.

Everything else such as set decoration (yes, I have to point that out because it looked very good), and the actual writing, though limited due to the movie actually being a musical, were great.

It's safe to say that I like 'Grease.' I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's one of the best movies ever made, but it is good. It took me a while to finally watch the whole thing, but I'm glad I did because it's...fun.

Signs (2002)

Oh, how previews are so very, very deceiving.

[2/10 · 17 January 2003]

Where do I begin? I sat down to watch 'Signs' just the other night. I had been wanting to see it ever since it was still playing at the theaters. My aunt rented it and the only thing that came out of my mouth, along with a few swear words here and there, was how I was so glad that I didn't waste my hard-earned money on such garbage.

This is the kind of film that gets everyone's attention when those clever but sneaky advertising jerks decide to air the trailer picking out the ONLY half interesting scenes in the entire film. Man, I hate when they do that. However, I would do it too if I were in their position. Why wouldn't I? Anyway, the previews looked really good; little did I know that they were extremely deceiving, and the film managed to stay at the top of the box office list for a while, so I figured that it couldn't be all bad. Don't believe it!

Aside from the terrible acting, lack of excitement, scares and intelligence, it moved at a pace that would irritate anybody, or so I thought, but being that a lot of people did like it for some reason, who knows anymore. 'Signs' also lacks...what's that thing called? Oh, yeah, dialogue. Was it just me or did it seem like there was absolutely no talking in this picture? It was all show, actions, and not enough speaking. It reminded me of 'Cast Away' in that sense, and I don't even want to get into that disaster. So, moving along.

The acting shown here is pathetic. I know that everyone likes Mel Gibson and the guy earns up to $25 million a pic, but honestly, for what? He looked out of it for the most part; what is Shyamalan really doing behind those cameras? He didn't react to anything like he should have, his very few speaking parts were boring, drawn out, and a lot of them really had nothing to do with the plot itself. Those really long monologues were unbearable. Joaquin Phoenix was just a tad better than Gibson, but still had nothing to show for it. Another Culkin pops onto the screen and I have to say, he was probably the best actor in this film. Most people found the young Abigail Breslin to be impressive while I found her to be purely annoying. Oh, and the biggest laugh of all, you guessed it, the man behind this terrible project, M. Night Shyamalan, works his way onto the screen. That's right, he's not only the writer, director and producer, he's also an actor. Who are you kidding, M? It really bugs me to no end when those hot shot directors and all happen to make a cameo in their films just because they're their films and they can do whatever they please.

I can at least see where this plot would have been a good idea, but it gets ruined. The ending was a big mistake. For some reason, I thought that it would pick up just a bit toward the end, but it didn't. It was a huge disappointment as was the entire film as I have pointed out. The script, the actual writing was so boring. I found 'Signs' to move at a slow pace, yet it seemed to me that just as I had slipped the tape into my VCR, it wasn't only but a half hour or so after that I was finishing up the film. I guess I should be thankful for that.

I would not recommend 'Signs' to anyone, and I mean anyone. The writing, the acting, the directing, the beginning, middle and end were all poorly projected. Shyamalan managed to rake in the bucks (and the rave reviews) yet again, though I don't understand how. Between 'The Sixth Sense' and this trash, it's a wonder this guy can find people to back him up whenever he comes up with a new idea. 'Signs' is a horrible film that only seemed good due to its misleading previews.

I would have avoided this film all together, but it's not like they warned me it would be as bad as it was.

Shallow Hal (2001)

All wrong, everything's wrong....and it's not funny!

[3/10 · 15 January 2003]

Ah, a film from the morons who gave us 'Me, Myself & Irene' and 'There's Something About Mary.' Both of those movies truly were horrible as was 'Shallow Hal', a film that had one of the worst pair of actors I have ever seen and boring jokes that fell flat at about 50 times per minute.

I am officially done with the idiotic Farrelly brothers. I just don't get them. 'Dumb and Dumber' was at least tolerable and so *not* annoying. That was probably their best film yet, and that's not saying a whole lot.

The main problem, which probably only exists in my mind though I don't know why anyone else wouldn't see it from my point of view, is that the casting was all wrong. Gwyneth Paltrow. Gwyneth Paltrow a 300 pound woman? Come on, what has happen to this gal's career? I'm not a big Gwyneth fan, but she at least knows SOME good roles when they do, indeed, roll around. It's bad enough when Paltrow, an actress who earns millions and millions of dollars and can have the pick of probably any script, goes for a film that is as lame as this, but why, oh why would Jack Black be cast in a lead role. Somebody please explain this to me because I am having a difficult time grasping the idea of Black actually getting paid for being such a jerk. He is annoying and one of the worst so-called comedians to come around Hollywood in a while. Never would I ever pay to see him in anything again. Not even in a film in which he has three lines.

I found 'Shallow Hal' to be one of the most boring comedies I've seen in quite some time. The supposed jokes aimed to make the audience laugh fell flat like an anvil. I laughed....maybe twice, but I'm being generous. (Jason Alexander's performance evoked the most laughter from me.) As bad as 'Me, Myself & Irene' was, it at least made me chuckle, despite the fact that it was asinine and seemed as if it had kids working behind the cameras.

I know that a lot of people have come down hard on this film mainly because it picked at the overweight population. Okay, what exactly is the problem? For those who ARE overweight and just find this movie to be so insulting, why don't you go out and actually do something about your weight instead of sitting around typing about it? For the others who just didn't like it because it targeted obese folks, if you didn't want to see a movie like that, you shouldn't have gone and saw it. I mean it's not like you didn't know what the movie was going to be about. Alright, enough of that, let me get back on track.

Well, I guess I AM done. Gwyneth Paltrow shouldn't have signed on, Jack Black is just a jackass and if you want laughs, go rent something else, anything else. Did the previews look good? Obviously, or I wouldn't have gone out and coughed up a couple of bucks even though it was a complete waste of time. The best thing about this film happened in about the last two minutes; it's where the song Love Grows (Where My Rosemary Goes) plays. Love that song, can't get enough of it. Oh well, at least it was a nice way to end such a terrible movie.

Psycho III (1986)

I am so very sorry, Anthony.

[8/10 · 15 January 2003]

'Psycho' is the best. The sequel was disappointing and this, 'Psycho 3', is the worst by far. Honestly though, did we really think that the sequels would live up to the brilliantly done original?

Norman Bates and the Bates motel are back yet again equipped with a low budget, a forgettable cast (all excluding the darling Anthony Perkins) and a plot in which a lot more should have been done.

The only reason I even considered voting for 'Psycho 3' is that Perkins was the director. (The vote wasn't too high but it was better than nothing.) I love him, I adore him, he could have been a good director, but he shouldn't have come back to take charge of the second installment (third overall).

Perkins is fairly good in the role that make him well known. Once again, he is somewhat creepy, more so than what the role probably calls for, but hey, that's what makes him great. And once again, a bad supporting cast is brought in to merely fill scenes in the picture that really don't have a whole lot to do with...anything. I can't really recall who played what part or anything like that, I suppose because the performances were awful.

The killings, the murders that take place are weird. They sure have changed quite a lot from the original. They just don't make 'em the way they used to. Those were the good ole days. In fact, most of those scenes made me laugh more than anything else. Oh, that is bad.

Like 'Psycho 2,' 'Psycho 3' creeps along at the same slow pace, if not slower. Parts of it didn't piece together well and probably should have been left out during editing but if that had occurred, the total runtime would probably have been about eleven minutes and counting.

'Psycho 3' is one to be passed on. For those who skipped part two, I would recommend not going back to view it. 'Psycho' is the best, but these two films, made only to be recognized by the 'Psycho' name, don't amount to much.

PS - I am very sorry, Anthony, that this film bombed, but what can I say, the script was bad but you were a fairly good director (while you were still around).

Psycho II (1983)

I'm just going to have to pass on this one.

[15 January 2003]

'Psycho' is THE best movie of all time. It's my favorite film. 'Psycho 2' is another story. Unfortunately, it has a poor script, some pretty bad acting and it basically moves at a snail's pace. The only good thing is that of course, the wonderful Anthony Perkins is back.

I just adore Perkins. He was excellent in 'Psycho' and is without a doubt the only positive thing to come out of this stinker. While at times he seemed to be a little too creepy, even for his character, I still think the world of him. Okay, enough with the raves. The supporting cast, consisting mostly of Meg Tilly is bad. She isn't horrible by any means, but she isn't exactly great. Vera Miles is listed second in the credits, though I can't seem to remember her right now. Actually, I'm having a hard time remembering just about anything from the film. I'm taking that to not be a good sign.

The obvious low budget of the film sort of gets to me at points, but it's something that can be worked around. The good thing about the original is that it had a wonderful setting, an atmosphere that really brought the script out whatever the budget was.

Something's starting to come back to memory. I believe it is how long this movie seemed to be. Yeah, I know it was only two hours, but oh how it seemed so much more.

'Psycho 2' manages to bring just a pinch of shame to the 'Psycho' name. Perkins is at least in it, so it can't be ALL bad. There are some parts in which a tiny jump will occur and the obvious, startling revelation will be revealed. It's the kind where it's been present all along, yet nobody could really put their finger on it. Where would movies be if it weren't for that little surprise stunt? So, I'd say pass on the sequel (and avoid the third one also). Instead, watch the 1960 classic once again. It never gets old.

The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn (1999–2004)

I like him, but I'm loyal to Conan.

[11 January 2003]

I recently started watching Craig for whatever reason. I have been watching Conan for a long time and while he will always be my favorite of all the late night talk show hosts, Craig is just so addicting.

First, Craig is *not* that funny. He can toss out some good jokes here and there, but the show is sort of bland. So, why do I continue to watch him? Well, he just has that quality. It's the one where I can't seem to put my finger on but I know it's there. Oh yeah, he's also really gorgeous. (Yes, this is a FEMALE speaking!) Secondly, Kilborn is so cocky that once in a while he actually persuades me to change the channel to his competition. He needs to settle down a little. Lastly, he's a poor interviewer and only seems to hold the show together during his monologue (In the News, those sometimes funny but not really jokes when he first walks out). I also like 5 questions.

'The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn' is not a bad show, but it does fail to deliver entertainment some of the time. Kilborn is irresistible, but I'm going to have to resist and go back to the number one late night talk show host, Conan O'Brien. Craig's good, Conan's great, so I suppose I can flip between the channels during commercials.

L.A. Confidential (1997)

It's a pretty good film.

[11 January 2003]

'L.A. Confidential' is a good film. It's a bit long, but I can overlook that. The plot is interesting (my goal is to read the book in the near future), and the cast is good, I suppose.

I actually like the direction that the film takes. I can't say that I'm a big fan of the cop films, but this one seems to have me hooked. I have to admit that I was somewhat confused in some parts; some areas just didn't piece together well. Oh, and being that the entire cast, except for Kim Basinger, is male, I had a hard time remembering who was who. Luckily, I caught on after a while. Anyway, Curtis Hanson did a great job. That right there is probably the biggest compliment one will hear from me that is directed toward a director.

Overall, the cast did a terrific job. I have some complaints though. Kevin Spacey was good as he is in any other film. He's good, I would have liked to have seen some more of him, but he could have been a whole lot better. Worthy of an Oscar nomination? No. Russell Crowe was just a tad better than Spacey. Again, being that the film focuses on several different characters and their point of views, I just didn't see enough of him to really stand up and applaud. Worthy of an Oscar nomination? No. Guy Pearce was excellent. He was listed third, but in my opinion his name should have been at the top of the credits list. I think that there was more of him on screen more than any of the other actors, which is why I liked him so much. Worthy of an Oscar nomination? Absolutely, but unfortunately, he didn't get one. Kim Basinger was horrible. I can't say any more except that she was boring. Everyone acts as if her role was huge and so important to the film itself, but it wasn't. Worthy of an Oscar nomination? No way! Alright, now I'm mad. Can't really figure out why Danny DeVito got such rave reviews and James Cromwell was lame.

Now that the minor questions have been answered, the main one needs an answer. Was 'L.A. Confidential' worthy of an Oscar for Best Picture? Well, the nomination was definitely well-deserved, but I don't know if I'd go all the way and say that yes, this film actually deserved the title of Best Picture. Being that it was up against 'Titanic' that year is probably the only reason I'm going to say that it didn't deserve the award. If 'Titanic' hadn't been in the running, then sure, it should have gotten it.

Like I said, Curtis Hanson did a wonderful job. He deserved the director's nod, and I think that he, too, should have won the Oscar, but James Cameron walked away the winner in ways more than one.

So, I would recommend 'L.A. Confidential' to others if they don't mind sitting down for a while. The cast is good, the director did an outstanding job, and the plot in general is interesting.

River of No Return (1954)

A two day snore.

[11 January 2003]

I recorded this film off of AMC a while back and then suffered through the agonizing torture of actually watching it. A film that should have taken an hour and a half to watch ended up taking me approximately two days to watch. I had to pinch myself every five minutes or so just to make sure that I was still awake, or alive for that matter.

I had seen Marilyn Monroe in two previous films I believe, and I mainly wanted to see 'River of No Return' just to see if she was any better in this than she was in those other horrible pictures. Was she? Nope. I will never understand what the big deal is/was with Monroe. She couldn't act and she wasn't as gorgeous as everyone claimed. That's strictly my opinion and I know that nobody else agrees with me but whatever. Monroe is boring as usual in 'River.' The singing, oh the singing, is terrible. I digested an aspirin after every song. I have never seen Robert Mitchum in anything else and I let out a sigh of relief because of that. He's three times as nauseating as Monroe. The best performance came from Tommy Rettig and that isn't saying much.

The movie really has no point to it. I know that the plot is there but WHERE exactly is it? The three actors jump on a raft and float down the river coming across different situations in the meantime.

I hate this film. Needless to say, I finally finished my tape only to record over this garbage soon after. Monroe and Mitchum managed to do little besides bore the audience. The writing is boring and when you throw that in with horrible acting, the outcome is a slow movie in which nobody should have to view.

PS - Marilyn Monroe could never act!

Niagara (1953)

Don't waste the time and energy!

[11 January 2003]

'Niagara' is bad. It's probably the *best* of the three Marilyn Monroe films I have seen, so you can imagine what I actually think of her. It starts off good but falls behind as time goes on.

I don't normally agree on statements made by other reviewers of Monroe movies, but I will agree on one thing and only one thing: the setting is perfect only because Niagara Falls is a beautiful place to visit. There, I've said it.

Back to the film, the beginning caught my eye so I continued to watch, but then I realized that it had turned into nothing but a Marilyn flick (forget about the other actors...what other actors?); something of which I did not want to see. I still watched it only to regret my decision.

The characters, even the one of which I'm supposed to sympathize with, are so not likeable. All of the actors are dull and seem as if they are on sedatives. Perhaps I should have slipped a few also. It's like they have nothing to work with. Who was the director again? Oh yeah, it was Henry Hathaway. Shame on you, Henry!

The writing, the plot, everything has fallen through the cracks by the end of 'Niagara.' The peak of the so-called thriller doesn't amount to much and I can do nothing but smile when it has finally ended.

So, the setting is pretty and appropriate, the actors and characters aren't entertaining, and it's basically a Monroe film in which everyone raves about but I complain about.

PS - Marilyn Monroe could never act!

Don't Bother to Knock (1952)

Don't bother to subject yourself to this.

[11 January 2003]

It was on in the wee hours of the morning, there was nothing else on, and I didn't feel like going to bed just yet, so I stayed up and watched this garbage.

The plot of 'Don't Bother to Knock' seems interesting enough, but like all other films that seem good, turns out to be extremely bad. The movie isn't all that bad; it's just that the actors are amazingly terrible and the writing sets the film's speed at a very slow pace.

Richard Widmark (along with Marilyn Monroe) is mind-numbingly boring. I'm not even going to waste my time reviewing his performance only to say that I wouldn't catch him in anything else, ever. Marilyn Monroe is once again, awful. I've seen her in maybe two other films and she's managed to destroy both of those, so of course, she steers 'Knock' down the wrong direction. Other actors with very small roles aren't bad and surely aren't as annoying as the two main actors. By the way, Anne Bancroft, whom I haven't seen in anything else, ruins her part with that terrible singing, but isn't that bad in the long run.

'Don't Bother to Knock' could have been better, a lot better, but unfortunately, it has really bad actors and a slow-moving plot. I would not tell anyone to watch this trash. What's the point?

PS - Marilyn Monroe could never act!

The Amazing Race (2001– )

It's still one of the best shows on TV.

[26 December 2002]

'The Amazing Race' is without a doubt the best reality show on television right now. It's way better than 'Survivor', which seems to get all of the attention every year leaving 'Race' in dire need of viewers.

The first season was great, the second was the best, and the third was also fantastic. You won't hear any complaints out of me. The activities and tasks were just as interesting, if not more. Each episode was fast-paced, as it is designed to be.

I wasn't too crazy about the teams, but I was cheering for one or two by the near end of the series.

'The Amazing Race 3' was just as good as the others. I still love it; it's one of my favorites. I sure hope that it comes back for at least one more season. Any more than that would be even better.

So, Phil was looking his best, I'm sorry that Derek and Drew didn't win, but I am glad that Zach won even if it was with Flo. Great editing and snappy music helped this show roll right along.

More people need to watch this show. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it!

Christmas Vacation (1989)

One of my favorite Christmas movies of all time!

[10/10 · 26 December 2002]

I love 'Christmas Vacation.' The cast is great, the writing is hilarious, and it is just a fun holiday movie that everyone needs to watch.

I'm a big fan of the 'Vacation' films, but this is the funniest one. The Griswolds are back and better than ever. Chevy Chase is wonderful as Clark. He's good in just about every movie he's in, but he is extremely amusing in this one. Beverly D'Angelo is also good. She's funny in this installment as she is in the others. Rusty and Audrey are once again played by different actors, and Rusty has noticeably taken off about five or six years off his age. Anyway...Juliette Lewis and Johnny Galecki are entertaining. Randy Quaid is back as Cousin Eddie and is more enjoyable than ever.

The writing is hilarious. Oh, the mishaps that occur for the Griswolds. Every scenario is better than the last and manage to keep me laughing for a while.

To sum it all up, 'Christmas Vacation' is a terrific holiday movie. Not a year goes by that I don't watch it. I highly recommend it to anyone.

1. 'Christmas' - - 2. 'Vegas' - - 3. 'Vacation' - - 4. 'European'

It's a Wonderful Life (1946)

I've always hated it, and I always will.

[1/10 · 26 December 2002]

I realize that there is approximately four other people on the planet who think like I do and can agree that this film is terrible. Everybody loves it for some reason, but I have absolutely hated it ever since I watched it for the first time.

'It's a Wonderful Life' is so boring. Now I've sat through some pretty dull films before, but this is unheard of. The thing is, I can usually get into the older movies. I just can't get into this one. I first saw this film a couple of years ago in school, and have unfortunately, been forced to watch it a few more times just because everybody in the entire world thinks that it is wonderful. I wouldn't normally comment on a film that is so bad, but being that it IS bad and entirely overrated, I am forced to voice my opinion.

The cast is terrible. I've never seen James Stewart in anything else and I don't plan to. He starts off good, everything's fine, but as time progresses, he becomes so annoying that I want to jump up and turn the TV off. What can I say about Donna Reed except that she is a horrible actress who manages to contribute very little to this horrible picture. Well, that's about it for the cast, I suppose. Minor role players such as Lionel Barrymore, Thomas Mitchell, and Henry Travers are equally unimpressive.

The writing and the script itself are mind-numbingly stupid. 'It's a Wonderful Life' is supposedly the tale of a depressed man who gets the chance to see what life would have been like if he had never been born. Okay, so how long exactly is it supposed to take to get to the damn point? The movie drags on and on and finally after about four hours (it seemed like that long to me), George Bailey meets Clarence, his angel, and is whisked away to the life where he doesn't exist. So, basically the film tries to make a point and, I guess, finally does.

There's a couple of people out there who think that 'It's a Wonderful Life' is NOT a Christmas movie. Well, they're right. Why is everyone under the impression that this movie is a Christmas movie? It's clearly not.

'It's a Wonderful Life', a terrible movie if there ever was one, currently appears on the Top 250 list. It's also managed to jump onto just about everyone else's favorites list, but I don't know how. Its nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director, among others, is unbelievable and ridiculous. The film is boring, slow-paced, and has no point to it for about the whole 130 minutes. Frank Capra and this movie are overrated and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Avoid at all cause.

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

The worst one yet.

[2/10 · 23 December 2002]

*~*~*~ Spoilers Ahead *~*~*~

Oh, this film is bad. I'm a big fan of the 'Halloween' films, but there is absolutely no excuse for how terrible 'Halloween: Resurrection' is.

I had been wanting to see this film for a while. The previous movie, 'Halloween H20' was really good, so I figured that the scares would keep coming. Well, I guess when it comes to an eighth installment (this is the eighth film!), the 'Halloween' franchise has officially gone down hill.

'Resurrection' started off slowly and pretty much continued at the same pace for the entire duration of this nightmare. Jamie Lee Curtis is killed within the first ten minutes, and that right there was enough to persuade me to turn the garbage off. Seriously, Curtis is a favorite of mine, and was it really appropriate to kill her as soon as the credits stopped rolling? So, Jamie's dead, I'm mad, and 'Halloween', a once simple and scary film, is now buried in cameras that are hooked up to the Internet. 'Halloween' has now ventured into the dark side. The change between professional filming and the personal filming gave me a headache for the whole 94 minutes (or so). 'Resurrection' drags on and on. It wasn't scary, the death scenes were over in the blink of an eye, and every scene was predictable including the end. Now of course, Michael Myers is still alive, which more than likely means that another 'Halloween' film is in the making. What a terrible idea that is.

The direction that this film was under was unbelievably idiotic. Rick Rosenthal, who directed the wonderful 'Halloween 2', is apparently now under the influence of drugs. His directing is half done and simply terrible.

The acting is probably among the worst I have seen in a while. I liked Bianca Kajlich on 'Boston Public', but she is not fit to appear on the big screen. Katee Sackhoff, Daisy McCrackin, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Sean Patrick Thomas, and Luke Kirby are also bad. It's a shame that the film didn't even allow the audience to actually see them before most of them were killed. Maybe I would have liked them better in that case. Busta Rhymes is ridiculous. He obviously can't act, but he did manage to make me laugh a couple of times. Tyra Banks' incredibly small role here is no big deal. Ryan Merriman is probably the best of them all, and I'm just saying that because I've liked him in previous movies. Overall, the cast is awful.

Everything about 'Halloween: Resurrection' is asinine. The acting is horrible, the death scenes are silly, the writing is simple, and the film is just not scary in the slightest bit. Most of the 'Halloween' movies ARE scary, but this one isn't at all. I would say that it's a shame that 'Resurrection' is so short, but in this case, it's a relief. Nobody should have to sit through this trash.