Reviews

Eddie Griffin makes this movie absolutely hilarious. He plays "He-Pimp" to Rob Schneider's "Man-whore". The terminology and mannerisms that Griffin's character uses is very clever and funny. Of course, bathroom and toilet jokes are abound in this film, but the makers manage to pull it off, a la Farrelly Bros. and actually create an original and funny film.

To top it all off, Schneider's character is also likeable and good-hearted and the story of the flick has a generally uplifting and good-natured theme.

That Deuce sure has one magical "man-gina" LOL!

This movie really is not what gun nuts are making it out to be, e.g. some sort of gun-control propoganda. Its an introspective and insightful look at what makes America so darned violent. In fact, Moore, who is a lifetime member of the NRA, specifically uses Canada as a comparison to the U.S. and notes the fact that there are well over 7 million legally owned guns in Canada -- a large number. Yet Canada's gun-related murders number around 300 while America has over 11,000 a year. In the movie, Moore specifically discounts the idea that the proliferation of guns is what makes the U.S. so violent.

So just what is it that makes the U.S. stand apart from every other industrialized country in the world when it comes to violence?

Well, the search for the answer to that question is what this movie is really about. While the journey is meanders a bit, and there is definitely some bias when it comes to certain issues (like the animated retelling of America's history), the movie definitely raises many pertinent questions. It should also be noted that Moore does not play favorites when it comes to political leaders. He takes Clinton to task as well as Dubya. Finally, this movie couldn't have come out at a better time as we ponder the military invasion of Iraq. What kind of message does it send when we use force as a first resort rather than the last?

Ugh. Its bad. Its better than some recent trash like the remakes of "The Haunting" and "House on Haunted Hill" and the over-hyped, over-rated "Blair Witch Project", but my oh my it still sucks a big hard one.

First of all, the entire first half (thats two hours) can be eliminated. Its entirely expository. It could have been done in 15 minutes. The second half picks up a bit and we get some genuine scares here and there. One scene which occurred in the over-grown, hazy garden by the water fountain was very creepy. But its the exception, not the rule. If only the entire movie could have been like that.

Second of all, it is filmed too clean. there is no atmosphere, no weight -- its too bright and cheery. It feels like an episode of Gilmore Girls. The music is also drab and monotonous, reminiscent of "Outer Limits", but not creepy enough to raise the goosebumps. The night scenes are better because there are shadows everywhere, and that, in and of itself, creates a scarier setting, but many of the supposedly "scary" scenes unfortunately occur in broad daylight.

Third, its too matter-of-fact. Ghosts just pop out and say "how do you do?" There is no mystery, no suspense, no teasing, no build-up. The camera lingers on the ghosts too long. We sometimes see the ghost just standing around doing nothing, scratching their butts. What the heck?

We see the ghosts too early, too often, and we actually get to know them a little too well to be scary. Also, and this is major: TOO MUCH FAKE-LOOKING CGI!! God! Nothing ruins a ghost movie more than overuse of bad CGI. Its happened again and again before and its happened here as well.

Fourth, the acting sucks and the script sucks. The dialogue is stilted, the characters are cliched stereotypes and nothing make sense. It gives us just enough insight to makes us curious about whats happening at the house and want to seek answers, and leaves EVERYTHING unanswered.

Well. All I can say is, the director is a no-talent hack, and King cannot write for films at all. I cannot recommend this movie, because I feel there are too many other better and scarier movies out there, like "It". A TV miniseries based on a King novel but adapted for the screen by Lawrence Cohen. Its one of the scariest TV movies I've ever seen, and with exception to the ultra-lame ending (which I guess can't be helped) hits all the right buttons.

I did not find this movie funny in the least. None of the characters are particularly likeable, including the main character himself. The movie pretty much just flounders around while we get to hear John Cusack's character lament about his crappy love-life. By the way, I would LOVE to have had his love-life. He basically goes out and dates beautiful women. Whats the big deal? All that whining is so annoying. I just don't get why this movie receives such high praise. Aside from Jack Black, this movie is boring. Boring story, boring characters, boring acting and boring setting. For a truly funny and original John Cusack romance movie, try "Say Anything" or "Better off Dead"

5/10

As a fan of her for several years now, I feel that her performance in "I'm the One That I Want" isn't as well-paced and sharply, unrelentingly funny as her previous stand-up performances. She seems to "ham-it-up" a lot more in this performance. Also, whereas in past stand-up performances, the laughs would come rapid-fire, one after another (I guess because of time-restraints), Margaret seems to be stretching out her jokes a little too long, either through repeating the same thing over and over (e.g.the "vagina-washer" bit, "fag-hag") or by making silly faces and ogling at the camera.

This is not to say that this movie isn't funny, there are some bits that are absolutely hilarious. Her best material is the stuff regarding Asians, such as the prejudice and stereotyping (e.g. The Margaret Cho Rice Diet, the "Asian Thing") and her impressions of her decidedly ethnic Korean mother. While I used to like her material about gays, it seems like she hams it up a little too much here, and is specifically playing it up for her large gay audience. It feels more forced in this performance. That being said, "Ass master" still made me laugh till I cried.

All in all, a good performance with some rather sad and touching(but not necessarily funny) material about her ordeal with her failed sitcom. She is becoming little too much "drama-queen" or "diva" though and it takes a toll on her humor. I liked her "raunchy, rebellious, F the system, Asian-chick" persona much better.

This wasn't a bad flick by any means. Lots of action, and special effects (many of the f/x was "fakey" but I was willing to let it go, because it was probably the best they could do with current technology.) The film had relatively good pacing and the writing stayed true to the original Spiderman "mythology". However, the film doesn't do too good of a job of detailing relationships very well. Peter Parker and Mary Janes relationship feels artificial, as well as the friendship between Harry Osbourne and Peter Parker. The "romantic" scenes between MacGuire and Dunst were also VERY, VERY cheesy. The scene in the hospital where Tobey kind of expresses his feelings for Mary Jane was bordering on "groan-out-loud" bullpuckey, as was MacGuire's final monologue at the end of the movie.

Another major problem I had was with Spiderman's personality. I've never been a big fan of Spiderman comics, but the one thing I liked about the character of Spiderman was that he was a joker -- a wiseass. He would always make funny observations or pointed insults whenever he was fighting a villain, and that made him human. MacGuire plays him too straight, and in the end, Spiderman feels boring. He actually is TOO geeky for the role. Yeah, Peter Parker is supposed to be a nerd, but he also had a sparkling personality, and I think that was lost in this film.

In any event, the film was exciting. I was never bored. I would have liked to see Spidey more crime-fighting, instead of the "montage" of him thwarting petty burglars, but it felt "empty". It didn't feel like Spiderman really did much for the city (unlike, say Superman or Batman did in their respective movies.) But again, I was never bored and the action was enough to warrant the price I paid for the ticket.

Ugh, this movie was absolutely reprehensible! This movie is basically nothing more than a demo of action and stunt scenes. The plot is ridiculous, and Tom Cruise's acting is enough to make you want to hurl yourself from a speeding motorcycle over a cliff, shooting pistols in both hands, while explosions are going off all around you and doves fly around in slow motion.

If you like looking at Tom Cruise's handsome face and body, then this movie is for you. You get to see Tom Cruise run around, do flips, shoot guns, climb mountains, ride motorcycles, take out whole armies of bad guys, and most importantly: ***smile and look handsome***. I mean, even the people who wrote the movie acknowledge this fact!! Here is a line that the villain spoke in the movie:

Sean Ambrose: "You know, the hardest part about playing you is grinning like an idiot every fifteen bloody minutes."

Exactly! The writers think its idiotic too!

And don't get me started on this whole putting on a mask that lets you look exactly like someone else bit(which the above line is referring to). First of all, its impossible. Second of all, it is a HORRIBLE COP-OUT. You actually lose the TRUST of the audience in the plot. All of sudden, ANYBODY could be a wearing a mask and a voicechip, so you are uncertain of who's who and whats what! Any minute, you are expecting the henchman to rip off his mask to reveal he's Tom Cruise, and Tom Cruise to rip off his mask to reveal that he's Thandie Newton and Thandie Newton to rip off her mask to reveal she's TV's Jay Leno. HORRIBLE.

I feel bad for John Woo. I have a feeling that Woo had very little control whatsoever in the direction of this film and was probably pushed around by Tom Cruise and the producers to make it in THEIR vision. What Woo needs to do is go back to his roots and film a movie in Hong Kong or China where he has ultimate control like Ang Lee did with Crouching Tiger. This is definitely nowhere near his previous efforts in HK, nor even Broken Arrow. Watch "Hard Boiled", "Killer" or "Bullet in the Head" and witness the true abilities of John Woo. M:I-2 shouldn't be counted.

Yes! This movie eschews all the special f/x, cheap scares, gore and viscera. None of the typical big budget Hollywood scare tactics in movies like Scream and the hideously bad remake of The Haunting. The Others is a genuinely creepy, suspenseful movie that uses psychological cues to increase the terror. PG-13. Can you believe it? This is actually a scary movie that an adolescent can watch. But take my word for it, it will creep you out even if you are in your 40's. The atmosphere is dark and unsettling, and the acting by Nicole Kidman, and the two child actors are convincing.

To tell you the truth, after some reflection, nothing particularly "terrifying" or "scary" ever actually happens in this movie. It is the acting by the characters that really makes you frightened. Their fear is palpable and it conveys itself to the audience. You feel as if though you are there with Grace in that big empty house, hearing voices and footsteps, and seeing things in the corner of your eye. You can actually sense the slow burn Nicole's character is going through as she creeps toward possible insanity. Magnificient. Kidman should have been nominated for Best Actress for this role as opposed to her role in "Moulin Rouge".

I definitely recommend this movie for ghost-movie and scary story fans!

I am not a fanboy of Kevin Smith's movies. I've only seen two of his movies, namely his original "Clerks" film and "Dogma" and I must be honest, I didn't like either of them that much. But there was one aspect in both the movies that I thoroughly enjoyed, and that was the characters of Jay and Silent Bob. There is a very charming stupidity about Jay that is simply hilarious. He is extremely potty-mouthed, possibly mentally-retarded, and morally bereft, but every single line out of this kid's mouth is pure comedy gold. I found myself laughing out loud more times than I can count on my fingers and toes. The "Clit Commander" home video is reason enough to rent this movie. Now that I've finally fallen in love with Smith's View Askew galaxy, I am so sad to see them go. But I guess this was definitely a superb swan song for the entire cast of characters..

I also REALLY enjoyed Will Ferrell's performance in this movie. Will Ferrell is a comedic genius, and I've felt that way since his first season on Saturday Night Live. He has the unique ability to improv the absolute funniest lines, and this shows through if you watch the bonus material from "Jay and Silent Bob" and another recent, but not as funny, movie with Ferrell -- "Zoolander". Mark my words, there will be big things to come for Will Ferrell, and I can't wait to see what he he's going to do next.

Some of the things I did NOT like about the movie:

1.) The "acknowledgements" of the clever, little inside jokes. They really didn't have to turn to the camera and wiggle their eyebrows knowingly for the audience to "get it". If you didn't get it, then you're not going to "get it" regardless of the acknowledgement.

2.) Kevin Smith's interpretation of Silent Bob in this film was way over the top and bordering on hammy. Too many emphatic facial gestures and stuff. Didn't need it.

3.) Ben Affleck is so lame.

But thats it, I was willing to overlook all of the flaws of this movie, because of the large helping of Jay's hilarity, which trumps everything. I must warn you that this movie is extremely trashy, and if you are the type that cringes every time someone utters the f-word or the s-word, then I would suggest looking elsewhere such as "Harry Potter" or a Disney animation. Otherwise, if you are not afraid to get a little down and dirty, this movie is superbly funny! Definitely a must-have for all diehard film geeks.

There were some genuinely funny moments in this film, like the brainwash sequence and the orgy scene, but most of the jokes were kind of hit or miss. I liked all the great little cameo appearances by some recognizable faces, and many of the fashion gags were scathingly satirical. Not really laugh-out-loud funny, but humorous in goofy way. Stiller's stupid-male-model act can be a little grating after awhile, but the performances by Ben's father Jerry Stiller and comedian Will Ferrell really stood out over everything.

I must say, the more I see Will Ferrell, the more I fall in love with his glib, comedic style. He is just a naturally funny guy. This can be seen all the more if you watch the DVD version which has all the extended/deleted scenes and outtakes. The man is absolutely hilarious, and I can say without a doubt that the Bonus material is funnier than the movie itself.

All in all, a 7/10 because I'm feeling generous and because of Jerry Stiller and Will Ferrell.

Boy, for such a powerhouse cast, this movie was pretty darn bad. I mean Redford, Gandolfini, Lindo, and Robin Wright, how can you go wrong? Oh you can, you can go very wrong. The script is horrendous, the story is imminently implausible.

It feels like a child's stereotypical idea of what a prison would be like. Just one prison movie cliche piled on top of another. In an early scene, a big black guy and small hispanic guy get in a brutal knock-down drag-out racially-charged fist-fight in the yard over a basketball game, but two scenes later these two are great friends. In fact the two guys' personalities are actually pretty cool, how the hell did they ever get to the point where they hated each other's guts? Unbelievable. A stuttering inmate gets ridiculed and pushed around by a psychotic, rough-neck, but a couple of scenes later, they bond and become best buddies because the stuttering inmate knows a thing or two about masonry. Implausible. Childish.

The dialogue, though sometimes good, is mostly laughable. Redford, Gandolfini and Lindo do a decent job of acting, but not even Sir Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles could save this movie. All the acting in the world is not going to overcome a horrible script. And thats exactly what this movie feels like. A B-movie script made with A-list actors and budget.

Some unintentionally funny scenes include one where the stuttering inmate goes to salute but instead brushes back his hair and "fakes out" Redford, whilst giggling like a schoolgirl. This causes Redford to chuckle painfully (I was waiting for some "wah-wah-wah" trumpet sound-effects). Another is the inspirational scene where Redford is moving rocks from one end of the yard to the other, and everyone is cheering him on like he's Rudy Rudiger in the big important Notre Dame football game or something. Of course, all the inmates instantly end up loving and respecting Redford after this one scene.

Pathetic. It actually hurts to watch such good actors stoop to such a low standard. Oh well, I hope they got some fat paychecks for this.

This is not a horrible film by any means. There are a lot of gripping, visceral battle scenes, and the film does make an effort to try and show the Viet Cong as humans, although, it achieves this only towards the end, (towards the beginning, the VC are portrayed as the same ol' stereotypical Yellow Menace -- commander barking out stilted, harsh commands, et al).

The thing that makes the movie unsatisfactory for me is undue sappiness and an overly religious and patriotic tone. Unlike "Full Metal Jacket" and "The Thin Red Line", which both try and make attempts at showing the gritty, painful life and experience from the eyes of a soldier during a war without covering it with unnecessary sentimentality, "We Were Soldiers" has a more "idealized" view. Even though the movie does an good job of displaying the futility of the Vietnam War, and shows some of the more graphic violence that accompanied it, the acting by the leads and much of the script has an "over-the-top" nationalism attached to it that made me squirm in my seat more than watching a artillery soldier getting burnt to a crisp by napalm. Scenes such as the "prayer scene" in the chapel that Gibson has with Chris Klein as they pray for Kleins new-born baby were relatively unnecessary, in my opinion. It only served to give an excuse for schmaltz later on in the film and pound us over the head with fact that Gibson's character is so great and kind-hearted and the ideal God-fearing soldier of the U-S-of-A. It was like a big, loud alarm for you to realize that "Hey something is gonna happen to this kid that will make you sad and weepy. Take note!" Also, Klein's character, who is supposed to be a tragic figure, for some reason did not feel tragic enough to me. I think the major reason is that Chris Klein simply is not the right actor for this part. He is completely unconvincing, and lets face it, he is not a very good actor. I am sad to say he resides in the same league as Keanu Reeves when it comes to acting skill. Barry Pepper would have been a much better choice in that role, seeing as how miniscule his actual part is and is pretty much wasted.

Mel Gibson does an adequate job, but his style and mannerisms don't necessarily translate well into this type of roll. He does the crazy little "look over to the side" move he perfected in Lethal Weapon, while he speaks. This is a bit disconcerting, and is not befitting behavior for a battle-hardened veteran. His emotional display at the end of the movie is also fairly hard to believe. On the other hand, when Gibson is actually on the battlefield commanding the battle, he is thoroughly convincing, and that is where he shines! He is at once valiant, courageous, strategic and compassionate. The battle scenes display Mel's true talents as an actor. The non-battle segments of the film are better left forgotten. (For example, the above mentioned chapel scene, and the scene where Mel has to explain to his baby daughter what a war is made me cringe).

Finally, I just wanted to add that I had a helluva time trying to understand what Sam Elliot was saying throughout the movie. His drawl was so thick, that it sounded like he made the film with a mouthful of marbles. It would have served the film well to provide subtitles just for Elliot's lines. Even though his role as the tough-as-nails drill sergeant was a tad stereotypical, he played it about as well as anybody could short of Clint Eastwood. I just wish the director had tried to get more intelligible takes of his scenes! I'd also like to give a big thumbs up once again to Barry Pepper, for his great, albeit small, performance in this film as a military reporter caught on the battlefield. But the little overlay "montage" scene where he is taking various photos on the field was way cheesy and completely out of place. That was a real sore-spot for me. I can't state enough how much that montage completely stunk, and is a clear sign of bad direction.

Its hard to believe that the same person who directed the fabulous, Oscar winning film, Cinema Paradiso, directed this film. While the 1988 Academy Award winning Italian film was a film set in reality, it's effect was magical and captivated me all the way to the very end. Legend of 1900, which in all respects is supposed to be a fable with elements of fantasy (such as Tim Roth playing the piano as if possessing four hands, or a scene where Roth plays the piano as it rolls around on the deck of a ship during a storm), it is firmly grounded in the mundane.

The cinematography, costume, music and set design in this movie are truly great, and for all intents and purposes, the movie looks and sounds fantastic. However the ham-handed dialogue, uninteresting story, and messy editing really undercut this film. Everybody in the film is trying in one way or another to let you know that this guy 1900 is truly a magical and unique guy. They are either crowding around to shower praise upon him, or staring at him dreamy-eyed. 1900's best friend, Max, played by the perpetually twitchy-eyed Pruitt, latches on to 1900 and develops a strange, puppy-dog like idol worship. He smiles and gazes at Tim Roth's character as if though he were some sort of latter-day Messiah -- but I just don't see it. 1900 is portrayed here as nothing more than a great pianist with a bad case of agoraphobia. He comes off more as a coward than a hero. The only reason why we know 1900 is a great man, is because the film bashes you over the head with this knowledge through heavy-handed, cheesy dialogue.

Speaking of the dialogue, it was way too sappy, and felt extremely unnatural. This might be due to the fact that this was Giuseppe Tornatore's first English dialogue film, however the speech and dialogue patterns of this film from the main characters to the extras and side-players all felt rather forced and over-the-top. I was literally laughing at the scene where 1900 was trying to give his "crush" a record as she was disembarking (or being pushed-off) the ship. I also found Pruitt's acting during the emphatic "piano duel" scene with Clarence Witherspoon III extremely reminiscent of Chris Farley as he throws a fit and eats paper. I love Chris Farley, but his style of acting doesn't belong in a film like this.

There were times where I found myself bored and actually fast-forwarding through parts of this movie. All in all, a good try by a great director, but this is a most definitely a miss.

I recently lost my mother to cancer, so I can understand the pain and grief of death. However, movies like "What Dreams may Come" are just lame attempts at trying to manually jerk tears out of the moviegoing audience. It seems the producers started with the sole objective of making as many people cry as possible, and then built a movie around that objective.

I was so utterly annoyed by the contrivance of the film that I considered walking out of the movie before it was half over. Robin Williams has lost whatever good acting sense he once had. Movies like Patch Adams, Jakob the Liar, and What Dreams May Come are prime examples of this.

The scripting and the plot were weak, and look for some major hokey lines and performances by Annabella Sciorra and Williams.

On the bright side, the scenery was pretty and Cuba Gooding Jr. puts in a terrific, buoyant performance in what is otherwise a depressingly bad film.

Boy was this movie boring.

After watching this Pierce Brosnan snoozer, I thought back to "From Russia with Love", "Goldfinger" and even Moore's "The Spy Who Loved Me" and remembered such memorable characters as Red Grant, Pussy Galore, Odd Job, and Jaws. This movie has nothing close.

The new villain, Renard, whose description, though quite menacing, (he's an anarchist who feels no pain!) is actually a huge dud, not unlike Darth Maul. He is not particularly scary, nor evil, nor intelligent, nor strong, nor villainous. Hell, I didn't feel an ounce of suspense in this movie at all. He gets no dialogue, has minimal interaction with Bond and lacks any of the diabolical traits possessed by Dr.No, Goldfinger or Blofeld. We do, however, get the return of Valentin Zukovsky, performed with zest by Robbie Coltrane. He brings a sense of life and personality to a film that so sorely needs it. It is unfortunate that his role was not more substantial. He was the only redeeming feature.

Although I was a big proponent of Pierce Brosnan getting the role, back in the Timothy Dalton days, I have been horribly dissatisfied with his performance as 007. I don't know if its the writers fault or what, but he is awfully boring. He lacks the charm and personality that both Connery and Moore possessed in spades (though I felt Moore was a tad goofy as well). Brosnan, while certainly very handsome, suave and debonair, is *not* charming in this role! I don't know what the deal is, because he was excellent as Remington Steele, but as Bond he is like a talking corpse. Michelle Yeoh was a god-send in "Tomorrow Never Dies" because she added a sense of excitement and originality to the series with her astounding fight scenes. Her humorous banter with James Bond (especially when Bond tries to put the moves on her) was very refreshing and brought personality to the film. But there is a total lack of it in this latest film. It feels like your standard, plain-jane secret-agent film, with actually very *little* espionage!!

The action scenes were also very ho-hum. The best action scene in the whole movie was a high-speed boat chase scene involving a VERY cool futuristic speedboat. However, this scene occurs in the introduction leading to the opening credit, and from then on it is all downhill. We get a downhill ski chase that is so frightfully unoriginal. If anybody wants to see a truly exciting, funny and original ski-chase sequence, check out Jackie Chan's "First Strike", where he ends up falling in a lake (hilarious). The ski-chase in the Bond film is par for the course. No excitement, no suspense, no humor... The rest of the movie drags on with no action whatsoever for about an hour. We get a couple of scenes where James Bond manages to outrun fiery explosions (anyone else tired of that defiance of physics?) and has to dodge a tree-trimming helicopter. Not too exciting...

I also got the feeling that they were trying to work Judi Dench into the film more, because of her recently vaulted status after winning Best Supporting Actress last year. The problem was, her role was pathetic! She looked like she was acting in her very first movie for christ-sakes, what happened to the performer who played a delightfully delicious Queen Elizabeth in last years "Shakespeare in Love"? I guess she didn't show up for work...

Finally, what happened to Bonds cool gadgets? Except for the cool speed boat, we get very little high tech wizardry. A pair of x-ray specs, a credit card lockpick, and man-sized beach ball is all we get. Even the new Z-8 seems frightfully humdrum. It doesn't do anything, except drive! yuk.

All in all, a very average, plain, forgettable movie with a wooden performance by Brosnan and company and some tedious dialogue. Catch it on bargain matinee...

This is really quite an uplifting and humorous film. The story basically revolves around a hotel that is regularly harassed by the Yakuza (the Japanese Mafia) by using civil manipulation to extort money. The hotel decides to hire a sassy, street-smart and charming lawyer, who also happens to be a woman, to help and train the hotel staff to defend itself against the Yakuza's "gentle extortion" tactics.

There are a lot of funny and charming moments in the beginning as the hotel employees try to deal with the Yakuza on their own, and fail miserably. But when Miyamoto enters the picture as the wily lawyer and employs her strategies, the movie really picks up its pace and proceeds to the uplifting and somewhat sad ending.

It is really great to see the evolution of the main characters from whimpering sissies into confident, headstrong and defiant defenders of the old hotel. You'll laugh, you'll cheer.

Definitely a must see!

Wow, what a disappointment this movie was! I just saw this movie on cable after avoiding it for over a year due to all the bad reviews it got. Boy, those reviews were well deserved. I must admit, the beginning was kind of interesting, especially when the aspect of time travel enters into it. There was also some suspenseful moments in the film, most notably the one where Hoffman opens the kitchen cabinets to find them filled with "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and starts to freak out, while Samuel L. just goes on reading his book like nothing's happening. That scene was VERY creepy. Samuel L.'s character begins to get very disturbing at this point. But what happened?!?! This aspect of his character never gets resolved! Why is it that Jackson's character is the only one that acts abnormally? Was he just born that way? Also, when we discover how the Sphere is affecting the crew, I was like: "Doi" To top it all off, the ending was even more disappointing, talk about your fairy-tale endings... The thing that struck me the most about the whole plot was the lack of development of this "power" that the crew develops. Yeah, ok, so all their thoughts come true and they become omnipotent. Why not think of some cool stuff, like chicks in bikinis and piles of gold? Why not think really hard about a ham sandwich? How come only the bad stuff comes true? Hello, is it just me who's confoozed?