Reviews

Obviously it was the cast that made me want to give this a watch. I haven't seen too many (if any) Kris Kristofferson movies but do like some of his songs and know he has been pretty successful as an actor and has been in some good movies.

Val Kilmer I've always admired as an actor from Top Gun to The Doors, certainly in Tombstone and even liked him as Batman.

Hilary Duff was my first childhood crush but she usually just appeared in a lot of fluff that had its place 20 years ago but doesn't get brought up a lot today, though I do think she is still pretty and can act.

Dwight Yoakam was very good in Sling Blade.

But as Gene Siskel once said "big stars simply do not guarantee big entertainment."

Kristofferson's role is just cliched and forgettable aside from his singing there's nothing interesting about his character or performance.

Kilmer a superb scene stealing actor certainly injects some entertainment into this lethargic movie but I still have to wonder why is Val Kilmer even in this movie to begin with? I know he is known to be difficult to work with and has burned some bridges with certain directors but did he burn them bad enough that he had to make low budget material not worthy of his talent like this?

This is a man in the 80's and early 90's appeared in blockbusters and critically acclaimed films and was usually the best part of all of them. Despite keeping things alive albeit briefly here, this is a wasted role for Kilmer and just another forgettable hidden low budget film that he made up until he was sadly diagnosed with throat cancer a few years ago. He certainly deserves a better role and script than this.

Duff is also probably the other least boring part of the film. Sure she has always been pretty but here she proves a decent enough actress and i don't think she's as wooden as I or others might have expected her in a more serious role. In fact when she was on the screen I was least bored along with Kilmer.

Yoakam's role is so brief and forgettable that I honestly think I blinked and missed him. Another wasted talent, who again was a superb villain in Sling Blade but underused in an unnecessary role to show his potential as an actor. Chalk that up to Billy Bob Thornton for writing a better role for him and directing him in the aforementioned film.

I know this wants to be a Tender Mercies and Crazy Heart meets a typical southern dysfunctional family drama but unfortunately the other two films had enough compelling moments and characters we cared about that they worked.

There's not really anyone to root for here. While Kilmer and Duff shine as actors their characters are certainly not ones we identify easily with and therefore their characters are hard to invest in or care about although they do bring some charisma to both of them and are thus mildly engaging actors.

Kristofferson is a fine singer on songwriter but he doesn't sing anything here that sticks out like Robert Duvall did in Tender Mercies or Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart. He does have a pleasing voice though and it's nice to listen to him sing if nothing else.

The movie moves slower than a snail which in addition to wasting most of its actors, is mostly boring and forgettable.

I liked a couple performances but it's not enough for me to recommend at all and it's easy to see why this went largely unnoticed upon release. The cast certainly deserved a better screenplay than what they got.

Watch Tender Mercies and Crazy Heart and give this one a pass. It's also very expensive to stream. I ended up renting a free DVD at my local library, but even if you can see it for cheaper it's still not worth the effort.

I appreciate the ambition of the actors to be sure and while they try their best they are better then the written material that transferred from page to screen.

I wouldn't even put this on the same level of a bottom of the barrel streaming movie or a Hallmark movie. Even those tend to be more entertaining.

David Lynch has never come across to me as a G rated Disney movie type of director.

I mean after all Blue Velvet was a very hard R rated movie and deservedly so.

Yet in 1999 he decided to do a G rated Disney movie after years of mature material.

The good news is, if you can't stomach Blue Velvet, Eraserhead or Wild at Heart Straight Story is an all time Lynch great that happens to be G.

Don't let the rating or Disney banner fool you this is a fine film from a director who hadn't made anything this clean before but it still works.

It works from the likability of Richard Farnsworth who was also excellent in Rob Reiner's Misery but is just dazzling and compelling as Alvin Straight with Sissy Spacek dependable and excellent as his disabled daughter.

Ultimately it's the story of a man who doesn't give up his goal. Small children may be bored but for the thinking teenager or adult this is an excellent film.

I feel it should have been PG for some mild profanity but compared to Blue Velvet or other Lynch movies prior this is squeaky clean wholesome family entertainment.

You think David Lynch can't make a good Disney film? Well think again he did and it's his best work in my opinion tied with the more graphic Blue Velvet.

Disney should make more movies like this nowadays. This is an extraordinary Disney film by an extraordinary director that should be seen by film buffs and those who appreciate good acting and a simple story that isn't so simply that it doesn't work because this film does.

I would say this movie is great for 13 and up. Sure aside from mild profanity there is nothing inappropriate here but young ones may be a little bored. But for older teens and adults there is much to cherish and admire here.

The most non-David Lynch movie made by Lynch himself but absorbing and dazzling all around.

Whether you like this or not will depend entirely upon your tolerance for Lynch's work.

I liked Elephant Man on but not Wild at Heart liked Straight Story but not Eraserhead.

That sentence should indicate he is a hit and miss director for me.

Yet despite its odd and disturbing nature I loved this movie. I was hesitant at first to watch it thinking it would be sexually explicit and while a few scenes do go a bit overboard this movie is so intriguing from beginning to end that you're never bored for a second and can't help but love it.

I cannot say I can recommend this for the squeamish but for film buffs and adventurous movie goers this has plenty to offer in the way of goods.

Kyle MchLachlan and Laura Dern are great in their roles Dennis Hopper steals the show in every scene despite playing a disturbing villain. Of course this opened the door for more great villainous roles like Speed for instance which came down the road.

The movie is violent and disturbing but I was never bored for a second and was captivated by the story and performances.

Don't watch if easily disturbed but true film buffs should find plenty to enjoy here.

Tied in my opinion for Lynch's masterpiece with Straight Story as the tied film.

This of course is a profane, sexual and violent drama while Straight Story is a G rated Disney drama but the reason I pick these two is they are dramatically different movies that are superb by one director who proves he can do many different movies very effectively.

If nervous about Blue Velvet watch The Straight Story which is Lynch's cleanest albeit excellent movie. If a little more bold and daring go for Blue Velvet. You can't go wrong either way.

I have to be honest I have enjoyed some of Eddie Murphy's work despite the fact that this movie was produced during his downturn period of making a lot of box office and critical failures that wouldn't be revived until four years later with The Nutty Professor which became enough of a hit and proved an effective comeback for him.

I was hesitant because of reviews but the cast and director looked promising. After all Jonathan Lynn directed My Cousin Vinny earlier in 92 same year this was released and that is one of my all time favorite movies.

I also like Lane Smith who also was in My Cousin Vinny and Grant Shaud from Murphy Brown who sadly never got much notable work aside from his tenure on that program.

All of these I felt would be ingredients for a watchable if forgettable movie. And that's pretty much the only way I can describe this movie. It's certainly not boring by any stretch but it's not really all that funny either.

Its plot of dealing with corrupt politicians goes all the way back 50 years earlier in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which many movies have been trying to imitate that Capra masterpiece without ever truly succeeding.

I laughed a few times but the political corruption subplots to me were more interesting than funny but I wanted laughs from an Eddie Muprhy film but got more of a cliche ridden story albeit with some interest not to bore me.

Certainly not a bad film but you have seen it all before. While some of it is interesting it's also old stuff that has been done time and time again.

Still it's not a total waste of two hours. There's enough going on to keep you involved through very familiar material. All the actors are good, including the very underrated Shaud.

I would have liked a bit more laughs and originality with this material but Eddie Murphy has certainly made worse movies than this. He's also made better but I would consider this one of his in between movies.

Passable to be sure but not as exceptional as you might expect from Murphy and this story.

I had honestly no idea this movie existed until it was brought up on a Facebook post which honored the passing of the great Lou Gossett Jr who sadly left us earlier this year in March at age 87.

I loved Gossett especially in Roots and certainly in An Officer and a Gentleman but to me he never really seemed to find any truly exceptional movies worthy of his talent after his big Oscar win for the latter.

Well this was free on Tubi and I think this is an overall excellent addition to his filmography. James Woods, Heather Graham Oliver Platt and Bruce Dern also give fine performances.

I don't know why this movie isn't more well known. It's kinda like The Sting meets Rocky. This was 1992 so perhaps people were tired at that point of five Rocky movies and didn't want to invest in more boxing flicks because this did ok with critics but was a huge box office flop.

It is predictable and has cliches but there are also a couple surprises along the way and all around it's the strength of the cast that makes this an above average flick.

Michael Ritchie does a very competent job directing as he did with The Candidate Bad News Bears and the first Fletch film.

Also the pacing is more than adequate that despite some flaws I was never bored for a second which certainly helped.

I would say pacing and the performances especially of Gossett and Dern is what made this a more than adequate movie for me.

It's no Sting, Rocky, Raging Bull or Officer and a Gentleman but it's a well acted sports dramedy that's imperfect but I still think very well worth seeing and among Gossett's best work for sure though the whole cast is good.

Give this a stream. Despite its imperfections I would also say it's sorely underrated and worthy of more praise. I'm surprised it doesn't have a cult following because I think it could be a great cult film if more people get a chance to see it. So here's your chance. Has flaws but never boring for a second and totally worth an hour and a half.

Was looking forward to this for some time, especially even more as this was Louis Gossett Jr's last film role albeit in a voice only.

I also like Ryan Reynolds and usually enjoy him in just about everything. John Krasinski has also proven a good director. I knew this was a kids movie but with this cast I didn't care. It looked good.

Unfortunately once it started it was all downhill. It's not an awful film but it's a huge disappointment.

Gossett's voice was perfect for his role, Reynolds offered some humor and Cailey Fleming is a wonderful young actress very talented and is very good here.

Unfortunately this is so lethargically paced and so thin on material that I struggled to stay awake.

Kids under 8 probably won't care and this is obviously made for them but anyone older will be looking for th nearest exit door or falling asleep in their theater seat.

Still it is visually impressive and Fleming as aforementioned is a wonderful young actress and steals every scene she is in.

Were not for her this could have been a total bomb. But she carries the movie. She's great and I hope to see better work from her in the future.

It's a nice try but overall it's pretty boring aside from the aforementioned strengths.

Kids will have fun and rightly so but unless you're a die hard fan of these actors I would recommend waiting to stream this. Ultimately there's just not enough here to justify a trip to the multiplex.

With the passing of Lou Gossett Jr recently and a fan or his Beau Bridges and director Hal Ashby I was eager to watch this which I didn't realize also was his directorial debut.

I was worried though to see this movie wasn't available to stream. I had to get a DVD from my local library.

I also gave liked Lee Grant in other movies including In the Heat of the Night and Albert Brook's wonderful and tragically underrated comedy masterpiece Defending Your Life.

The cast and director was promising the performances with the exception of Grant who i actually found rather annoying in this film (how was she nominated for this? I like her in other movies but not here), were fine Bridges is very good here as well as several of the other African American actors (though Gossett sadly has very little to do), but to me the movie is just all over the place and sluggish.

It seems to have a lot of abrupt editing and awkward transitions which worked fine in a movie like Easy Rider which came out a year before this did but that movie had enough of an interesting story and was paced well.

I think the movie also has just dated badly. This subject material may have been ahead of its time in 1970 but in 2024 this kinda stuff has been done repeatedly in the movies since.

Some of it is interesting but I think it was a bit of a Rocky start for Ashby. His followup to this the next year, Harold and Maude is excellent and holds up far better as does The Last Detail with Jack Nicholson which came along three years later.

A somewhat interesting, well acted debut for its director but dated messages and lethargic pacing significantly weakened it for me.

Dustin Hoffman is my favorite actor of all time. I was 16 when this came out in theaters and to be honest wasn't really sure if I wanted to see it because it looked like a kiddie movie.

But being a true Hoffman fan I figured it would be worth a shot.

First off it's a movie for very small children. If you're expecting The Graduate, Tootsie Rain Man or even Hook you will be disappointed. This was made with 6 year Olds in mind.

Hoffman also seems a bit too eccentric in his role but he's still fun nonetheless. His speech patterns seem like a cross between Dorothy Michaels his female counterpart in Tootsie and Raymond Babbitt from Rain Man.

He really goes method and delivers a convincing childlike performance on par with Tom Hanks in Big. It's a little overdone but Hoffman is still so spirited, and you can tell he's having so much fun in his part it's difficult to dislike his performance.

Of course he wasn't going to win a third Oscar for this but I wasn't expecting him to either. He's an actor who knows how to have fun with certain roles and he does here.

Natalie Portman and Jason Bateman are also fine in their roles although Bateman does go a bit overkill on being stuffy.

And it's so visually dazzling that if the story or performances don't click with you the visuals are very impressive.

The story is a bit underdeveloped but this is honestly not bad at all for a kids movie. Of course it's not at the top of my list of my favorite Dustin Hoffman movies bit it's fun for kids and while a little underdeveloped even as an adult rewatching it I certainly wasn't bored.

Watch it with the kids for some fun. It's not Rain Man but I have a soft spot for it nonetheless. Adults should have some fun with Hoffman's performance if nothing else.

I first saw this in theaters eight years ago and while not one of the worst movies I had ever seen I remember it being very boring and a huge disappointment.

Eight years have passed and while I used to be a Jennifer Lawrence fan I absolutely can't stand to look at her face and don't even want to give one red cent to anything she does. Not that she is a bad actress but just a horrible human being and total diva. Fame really got to her head and the seemingly down to earth movie star lost all of my respect.

I still like Chris Pratt for the most part he does seem like a genuinely good guy but even some of his movies have been going downhill the last two Jurassic Worlds were both bad.

So eight years later I only agreed to watch because a friend wanted to. Surprisingly it's less boring on repeat viewing but still is lacking and Lawrence and Pratt really don't have any chemistry.

Had this been more of a sci fi movie and less of a sci fi romance it might have worked better but the couple have that awkward chemistry that never gels and the movie just really runs out of steam at about the halfway point.

Not as bad as I remembered it being but I still can't quite really recommend it. I think either Lawrence or Pratt should have been re-cast. Another actor in one of the roles probably would have made it better.

I personally would have recast Lawrence. Not because of my personal opinion of her but her performance in this movie is pretty bad. She can act well in other films but wildly overacted in this one.

Pratt does his best but mostly just looks tired and lethargic which again could have worked if he had an opposite lead with better chemistry.

Only recommended for die hard Lawrence or Pratt fans. Although I'm not a die hard I know both have done better movies.

Sylvester Stallone considers this the worst movie he has ever made so naturally a curious young me having enjoyed the Rocky movies wanted to see why this was so universally loathed with Roger Ebert saying it's one of the worst movies he had ever seen.

Ok this was not trying to be Rocky, or Rambo or even one of the best episodes of The Golden Girls yes it has its problems with its screenplay but I still think this movie is a lot of fun.

While I think Schwarzenegger had a better grasp on comedies with Twins and Kindergarten Cop Stallone did ok I like this movie and Oscar despite them being both panned.

Stallone and Getty's chemistry does seem a bit awkward and forced at times but honestly that's just part of the fun. I didn't feel they needed to have any award winning co-star chemistry to pull this off.

This movie does have a few laughs and if nothing else it's a so bad it's good. If you're having a really bad day watch this movie for some cheesy laughs and you will feel better.

Stallone also considers Rocky V to be the worst in that series and I agree totally and would watch this any day of the week over that weak sequel.

You will roll your eyes because some scenes are stupid and ridiculous but you know what it's all part of the fun.

Don't take it too seriously. Watch it after a bad day at work with a couple drinks and maybe a friend or two and you will have plenty of fun.

Imperfect but nowhere near as bad as you have heard. Getty does provide some solid laughs here and has a lot of cheesy fun with her part that I can at least describe this as entertaining at minimum.

Just a fun escapist movie that's all I wanted and got from it. I wasn't disappointed and if you think of it the same way you won't be either.

I was hesitant to see this movie. I watch Ghostbusters 1&2 every Halloween. The original is a classic and part 2 I feel is a basic carbon copy of the first one but it still has some very funny moments and I feel is worth a watch along with its predecessor.

I never saw the 2016 reboot only because it wasn't considered canon to the first two movies but Afterlife from three years ago was in fact considered the direct sequel to part 2 and I actually enjoyed it, not as much as the original but even a little better than part 2 from 1989.

Of course every movie in this franchise has managed to gross over $100 million domestically, the 2016 version and Afterlife did so now we have Frozen Empire and seeing the poor reviews I was hesitant as Afterlife was a very good sequel from only a few years back.

I am recommending the movie but only barely. It had enough laughs and dazzling visual effects in it for me to give it a pass and I'm sure like it's predecessors it will be a huge hit but I have to emphasize I am only barely recommending it.

For starters the script is all over the place with far too many new characters and the subplots with them get a little hard to follow because there is just so much going on all at one time.

Of course this is a Dan Aykroyd movie and as a writer he is all over the place with ideas that don't make sense. Look at his only directorial effort from 1991 Nothing but Trouble as a good example of this.

Of course Ghostbusters worked because he had Harold Ramis to help him co-script it but Ramis having died ten years ago is sadly no longer available to help.

But despite Ramis passing away I still feel they they had good writers to revive the Ghostbusters franchise with Afterlife and it worked.

Here it's almost as if Dan Aykroyd wrote this particular movie all on his own because so much of it is all over the map.

Although Aykroyd is clearly having the most fun among the original cast along with McKenna Grace and Paul Rudd whereas Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, Carrie Coon and William Atherton all appear much more lethargic this time around kind of giving us the hint that along with us as the audience they may be getting tired of this franchise.

The movie has lots of problems but I laughed enough and was dazzled by the effects enough to give it a marginal recommendation, but it's not a huge ringing endorsement.

It's pretty much what to expect from the Ghostbusters franchise at this point with a few laughs nostalgia appreciation and some nice special effects.

Unless Rick Moranis comes back as Louis Tully I think we need to give the Ghostbusters a break and let them hang up their proton packs for good.

I know Aykroyd has said he wants to do a couple more movies with the original and new cast but only Moranis return to the franchise for me if he decides to come back would really be worthy of another installment.

Otherwise this movie only has a little bit more to add from what we saw in Afterlife and although there are some good things I think this franchise is certainly getting tired and the story and most of the performances are proof that it's likely time for the cast and filmmakers to move on to other things.

I like this movie and do rank it among Martin and Moranis' best work. Yes they have done better films but this is still a very funny movie. With that being said you may need to watch it more than once to appreciate the humor and enjoy it.

Martin does a very funny job playing a mobster in witness protection waiting to testify for another mob boss relocated by the typically ridged but reliable and funny Moranis as an FBI agent.

Naturally while contrived Martin and Moranis realize they have more in common than they think and become somewhat friends trying not to irritate district attorney Joan Cusack whom Moranis has fallen in love with after his wife leaves him.

I think why it may be hard to understand this movie for some people is at the time these were different roles for both Martin and Moranis. Martin usually played uptight businessmen and fathers for the most part while Moranis was either a typically put upon geek or brilliant quirky scientist type save the exception of Spaceballs.

Here Martin is a lot more laid back and over the top than a lot of his previous movies and while his Italian-American accent may be occasionally annoying for some, his spirit is undeniable and you can tell he had a lot of fun with this part.

Moranis is playing his typical by the book, boring straight laced character as the FBI agent but the movie does have some nice twists and surprises with his character and does manage to give him some unexpected edge.

Ultimately though the chemistry of those guys along with Joan Cusack is what makes this film really work. All three actors work well together and makes this a pleasant and fun film.

The humor may be too low key or it may be sluggishly paced for some but this is just a fun little comedy that works because of its good cast. And of course while not a laugh riot from beginning to end this movie does have laughs and a nice little pleasantness about it.

If you watch it and find it's not your cup of tea, I say give it one more watch before finally giving up on it. I find it gets better with repeat viewings. My first viewing I thought this was boring and unfunny but after a second viewing this movie really grew on me.

It just may take a few viewings before you truly get it but with a little patience you will find lots of fun to be had here.

Pure Luck from 1991 to me is one of the most underrated American comedies of all time. Granted in the 32 years since it's initial release as with many other of Martin Short's films it has gotten the praise it deserves and a second life on home video cable and now streaming.

Was it one of the all time greatest American comedies like Airplane!, It Happened One Night or Some Like it Hot? No of course not it wasn't high art but it was a very likable funny comedy and Martin Short and Danny Glover were a lot of fun together.

It seems like Martin Short is Hollywood's go-to actor when remaking French comedies. The aforementioned and Three Fugitives and Jungle 2 Jungle were also remakes of French films.

Having recently rewatched Pure Luck I knew for years it was an American remake of this particular French film and out of curiosity I have wanted to see this for years but was never able to find it.

Thank goodness for streaming as this and Pure Luck are now easier and more convenient to find than ever before.

Naturally there are some differences between the original and remake.

While Pierre Richard made me laugh a few times with his pratfalls on the whole to me this movie just wasn't as funny as it's American version.

It certainly was interesting to compare both versions nonetheless and while it was far from boring some scenes in this version to me were awkward and out of place.

Granted I saw Pure Luck first so my opinion is biased towards that because it's the version of this story I know the best.

Perhaps if I had seen the original as I did the remake many years ago my opinion would be reversed.

Like The Birdcage the American remake of the French La Cage Aux Folles while it's American counterpart may be more enjoyable as I am an American that's not to say the original French version doesn't have its merits.

Upon viewing this version I learned Pierre Richard is one of France's most popular comedic actors and based on his performance here I can understand why.

Although I watched it with English subtitles I can still tell he has good chemistry with Gerard Deprauidu who plays Danny Glover's character in this original version.

So on the whole it was interesting to see because of my love for Pure Luck and while it won't be as memorable to me as that remake was it's still an ok movie in its own right.

If you liked Pure Luck enough and don't mind reading subtitles I would pair this with it's American version. Stream both of them one after the other.

And to have more enjoyment of this version I would watch it first.

Somehow it's just not as funny if you have seen Pure Luck first but that also doesn't mean it's a bad movie either.

Preparing for the newly released sequel I watched the original film having heard good things and there were some but having seen Jaws one too many times and trying to suffer through its bad sequels (with the exception of Jaws 2 which I have a soft spot for as being a decent sequel) this was hard to get involved in and hold my attention.

For starters although the performances were fine none of the characters were as interesting as they were in Jaws.

Spielberg knew when he made his 1975 classic that the human characters have to sustain interest aside from the shark.

Unfortunately Jon Turteltaub who has made some good films in the past failed to get that right here.

While You Were Sleeping his 1995 romcom was familiar and cliched as this film is but Turteltaub made it interesting because his characters were likable and interesting.

Here it seems more focused on action and special effects.

That approach can work if some freshness is brought to the table Speed was an action movie that did that well but there isn't much fresh or original here that I got involved with.

It's a decent film but also a very forgettable one that will not have the same effect on me as Jaws did.

Nice effort to be sure but if you have seen Jaws or any other shark movie you know this genre has produced far better films.

Even Piranha and it's 2010 remake were both Jaws knockoffs but like Spielberg's masterpiece there was enough engaging material even when the creature wasn't onscreen.

Suffice to say I am not really looking forward to Meg 2 but will go in with low expectations and an open mind.

Still this story has been done so many tiles that I think we need a break from shark movies.

Saw this on Max last night after hearing quite a few good reviews and was impressed by the cast.

Upon watching I laughed but not as much as I thought I was going to and to me it seemed mostly like a retread of the far superior Tootsie with a big difference of course being you don't see Dustin Hoffman cross dress in this one.

Sally Field did well as always as well as the dependable Kevin Kline, who has made better movies but also worse ones, Elisabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr. And Cathy Moriarty from Raging Bull were also good.

I think the biggest problem with the movie is I probably would have liked it a lot better had I not seen Tootsie so many times.

If you already have the story is very predictable and you pretty much know the routine.

That doesn't make this a bad film just a familiar one and the formula was already done better before.

Garry Marshall also has a funny supporting performance.

Again if you like the actors and want to watch as a time killer it's pretty harmless stuff that has its moments.

But watch Tootsie if your hearts desire is a movie about soap operas.

I watched this with the recent passing of Alan Arkin and it was on a free streaming service and the other reviews looked good with many comparing it to The Shawshank Redemption and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

It's a well acted film of decent quality to be sure and Arkin is terrific but my goodness did this thing really need to be over 2 and a half hours long?

I know the IMDB says 98 minutes but it's actually over 2 and a half hours and some scenes go on forever that it becomes so redundant.

I mean this thing could have been 40 minutes shorter and would have been terrific and got it's message across fine.

It's a decent movie for made for TV standards with some good acting.

But there is no legitimate reason for this to be as long as it is.

If they had edited it down to 90 minutes or two hours max I would recommend this as an underrated gem.

Due to excessive length and unnecessary repetitive scenes I can only rank it as an average movie.

This is a 90 minute made for TV movie premise that got dragged on too long and for no good reason.

With some editing I truly think this could have possibly been one of the greatest television films ever made and certainly one of the best prison movies ever.

Not bad, but weakened significantly for the aforementioned reasons.

I was hesitant to see this movie for years mostly because of the stereotypes and jokes that have been made about it.

While I realize some may think this review is prejudiced because of the story revolving around a homosexual relationship I will say upfront that is not my concern here.

Firstly I do admire that this movie does not show explicit detail of the relationship as I may have previously thought. Even in a movie with a relationship between men and women I find explicit details necessary so I in no way mean this as a homophobic comment. The way the relationship is handled is done so with maturity and sensitivity and I admire that.

I also admired Ledger's performance and thought he did a remarkable job as an Australian playing an American cowboy he did wonderfully capturing the mannerisms and accent down to a science. His acting was truly phenomenal.

The cinematography is fantastic and like another Larry McMurtry penned story Lonesome Dove it has some of the most beautiful camera shots ever.

The problem is I just found the movie too slow and lagging particularly the scenes of the men with their families and what happens to them over time.

So I can certainly admire a lot about this film and I am happy to have seen it once for it's admirable qualities and they exist.

Unfortunately as a Western love story it is just too slow to really maintain interest for me.

The movie delivers its share of goods and I won't deny that but I think it needed a much better sense of pacing to really win me over.

At best it's a forgettable movie that had some good things that are not to be ignored.

When I found out there was an anime of Arietty a spin off of The Borrowers, I decided to go back and watch this movie beforehand remembering that I enjoyed it quite a bit as a kid.

I never read the novel The Borrowers but I do remember seeing a British TV miniseries more faithful to the novel years ago and also liking that. I have a feeling that is less childish and more faithful to the novel than this adaptation but this is the one I am reviewing so I am listing pros and cons:

Pros:

1. John Goodman does a pretty good job playing the villain and does so with some laughs and genuinely intimidating moments.

2. Jim Broadbent is good as the dad Borrower.

3. The set design is actually very clever and impressive.

4. Some of the writing is clever as are The Borrowers themselves. It's nice the screenplay treats it's protagonists with intelligence.

CONS:

1. To me this movie is like a mix between Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and Home Alone, two of my favorite childhood movies. That may not have necessarily been a bad thing if they hadn't kept making more entries in those franchises and beating more dead horses but unfortunately they did and if you have seen any or all of those other movies you will probably roll your eyes at the familiar formula here. I don't believe the novel was that type of slapstick comedy as evidenced here but of course after the huge success of Home Alone there were so many imitators and studios kept trying to rip off that formula. So the unoriginality is a bit exhausting at times.

2. This movie had a a bit too much crude humor and moments that could have been more clever are substituted with fart jokes or John Goodman getting something stuck on his butt or whatever else alike. Both Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis declined to direct because of the crude humor which should say something.

Still as another Home Alone/Honey I Shrunk the Kids knock off it's still pretty entertaining.

If you want to show your kids something different than the typical movies from your adolescence they will probably enjoy this for what it is.

For adults you have seen this stuff all before in other movies, so it likely won't connect with you the same even if you liked it as a kid, but it was made for kids and despite its flaws it's an overall satisfactory entertainment for children.

I would probably want to watch the aforementioned miniseries again for a better Borrowers adaptation but on the whole there is some stuff to admire here nonetheless and there are certainly worse and far more stupid children's films out there.

Recommended as an overall fun watch for families with younger kids.

I don't know what did it but somehow a long time ago I dismissed Brendan Fraser as a stupid comedic actor that even made Pauly Shore in some respects tolerable.

I heard his name and I thought of comedies he annoyed me in like Encino Man or the awful Dudley Do Right movie.

I thought his comedies were horrible. But someone encouraged me to check out The Mummy. I did and Fraser graduated from annoying comedy movie guy to a potential action hero.

Then I was told from Siskel and Ebert's old YouTube reviews that School Ties showed what an incredible talent Fraser was.

I rolled my eyes thinking this is the same guy who got his start with Pauly Shore, how could he be any good?

But the movie also had an impressive cast so I checked it out, and much to my surprise Fraser gave the best performance and that is when I realized what a great and underrated serious actor he is.

I feel this guy has a natural talent for serious roles and not for comedies. After seeing School Ties I was a Brendan Fraser fan for life. I just realized he didn't get enough attention for his serious parts and he was excellent in them.

So when it was announced he won Best Actor this year for a serious film, I was ecstatic. I mean this was the guy who 30 years earlier showed full potential in School Ties so for him to win an Oscar he must have deserved it and the movie must have been incredible.

I can say both about The Whale. Fraser gives an even better performance here than he did in School Ties which he was excellent in, and he definitely deserved his Oscar.

It's an excellent character story not only bringing out the best in Fraser but makes us think about how we live life in general.

Some of it may be a tough pill to swallow at times but Fraser and director Darren Aronofsky's subtle yet impactful message made this a great movie.

I hope his Oscar win will let Hollywood know what a great talent Brendan Fraser is. Like Adam Sandler he may have started with brain dead comedies but with the right dramatic material both have proved to be incredible in dramatic roles.

Fraser is incredible here he won the Oscar for a reason. He is not just Encino Man, George of the Jungle or Dudley Do Right. He is a fine, incredibly gifted actor who reached his full potential here and I can't wait for more movies. This guy with the right script as this movie showed is one of our finest actors.

While his comedies once turned me off this and School Ties make me appreciate what a fine actor he really is.

I have a soft spot for Adam Sandler's juvenile comedies like Billy Madison, Happy Gimore, Wedding Singer, Waterboy, and Big Daddy.

Of course they are stupid and immature but that's what I love about them.

However when Sandler decides to abandon his juvenile schtick he proves to be a fine actor. While Punch Drunk Love and Uncut Gems were a tad slow for my tastes, I won't deny Sandler was excellent in both of them and he proved he had talent among just playing a silly goof.

Sandler has mostly stuck with Netflix original films now. Some of them continue in that silly, juvenile humor and get panned by critics, but some are the opposite and get rave reviews and are gems that need to be seen.

Two examples: The Meyrowitz Stories in which Sandler proved to be effective with heavyweights Dustin Hoffman, Ben Stiller and Emma Thompson, and this film which while a formulaic story, works because this formula didn't have actors as likable and effective as Sandler to make you laugh and be inspired at the same time.

This movie had rave reviews from critics who usually pan Sandler and at first I was weary, because these are the same guys who liked Sandler's previous serious pictures.

But the critics were right on this one. Sandler gives one of if not his best performance by balancing comedy and drama.

An excellent Robert Duvall cameo helps as well, he looks fantastic for being 92 years old.

This is a gem on Sandler's resume. Don't dismiss this as a below average Netflix outing from him. This is one of his very best films allowing him to demonstrate both sides of his wonderful talent.

Sandler fans or sport movies fans give this one a stream and I promise you won't be disappointed.

When this movie debuted even though I had not seen many of Nicholson's films I knew he was a very well regarded and accomplished actor and hearing he was teaming with Adam Sandler whose films I had enjoyed at the time I figured you can't go wrong and thought this would be a comedic masterpiece.

I was younger when this film debuted in theaters and although I do remember seeing it on opening night when it first came out in 03, I had moved on to other classic Nicholson films and always had this one in the back of my mind to rewatch but never did until I realized last night it was on HBO Max.

I wanted to see if it held up. It's a flawed film that could have been better to be sure, and it's far from Sandler or Nicholson's best work but considering this is the result we got with these two actors it's not a bad movie either.

There are still some big laugh out loud moments, Woody Harrelson, John Turturro Heather Graham and Rudy Giulianni have funny cameos but I personally would have made some small changes.

Essentially Sandler and Nicholson are doing rehashes of roles they have played many times before in other movies.

Sandler is the nice guy who is called upon to save the day as he was in Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Wedding Singer, Waterboy, Big Daddy and Mr Deeds, while Nicholson is the crazy jerk he played in Five Easy Pieces, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Terms of Endearment, and As Good as It Gets.

I wonder if the movie would have been funnier if Sandler's character were more of a jerk and Nicholson's were that of a calmer, more sympathetic doctor. If they had played against type I think it would have been a lot funnier.

Still it's a funny enough movie. I recommend a watch if you're a fan of any of the actors.