sfc Reviews

Warning: Parental Advisory (2002 TV Movie)

A Documentary Would be Better

[6/10 · 22 April 2002]

I was somewhat interested in watching this movie, especially after seeing a little "Behind the Music"-esque VH1 show about the PMRC and Senate Hearing. Unfortunately, that 30 minute blurb was more interesting than this movie.

Warning: Parental Advisory fails for several reasons. First, it starts off wasting a LOT of time explaining the Blank Tape Tax the Record Industry was so interested in. This has some importance to the story but could have been simply explained quickly. During this waste of time we also have a "love interest" introduced for no good reason. I tuned in to see a dramatization of the events leading to those annoying stickers, not a predictable "love story".

Another big problem was that since they managed to get Dee Snider himself to appear the movie seems to be written around him. We get to hear Dee's entire speech. The real travesty of the movie is that they butchered the best speech of the whole affair: Frank Zappa's! If interested you should do a Google search to find a copy of this. I guess maybe he copywrited it and they could only use an excerpt.

The scenes involving the creation of the PMRC were ok, and in general, the movie moved along at an ok pace. The senate hearing itself should have taken up a LOT more time. The most important part of the story was rushed.

I guess VH1 felt like getting into the "fighting censorship" action by letting Dee Snider actually say "motherf***er" with no "bleep" or "mute". Ewwww, controversial!

Not.

Resident Evil (2002)

GO SEE THIS MOVIE

[25 March 2002]

This movie left me completley suprised. I was waiting for a gamer movie to once suck again as usual. The special effects are incredible and the story line is fantastic. The screenplay could have been a little better but, you get passed it with all the gore. Not that much fighting in this one but, wait til' the sequel part two has the best battles in it I LOVED IT





8/of10

Outrageous Fortune (1987)

Often Hard To Watch

[4/10 · 28 August 2000]

While some of the performances in this movie were ok (especially George Carlin) the movie wasn't very funny overall. The worst part, as someone mentioned, is the ridiculous 2nd half of the movie where there is way to much "action". I'm not sure why so many comedies follow this formula. Put some "funny" stuff in the beginning but wind up with an "exciting" thriller at the end. The comedy isn't anything to get excited about, unless all your favorite comedies fit the above formula. I can't stand seeing a movie where I see the joke coming from a mile away, and this was the case in this movie. There weren't any jokes you have to think about, movie/book references, or non-sequiters. Just stuff like Shelly Long being unable to say "penis", some cross-dressing, and other boring "fish out of water" jokes. The movie only shines with the dialogue between Midler and Long early in the movie. I'm sure there are a lot of people who like this sort of movie, but if you're a fan of Monty Python, the Simpsons, the Coen Brothers or any other real comedy I'd stay far away. 4/10.

The Longest Day (1962)

Amazingly Epic

[8/10 · 31 July 2000]

If all you're knowledge about D-Day comes from the excellent movie Saving Private Ryan, you should really check out The Longest Day to see the big picture. The two movies aren't comparable. SPR is a close quarters look at how the war effected the soldiers. TLD takes a epic point of view that explores all sides of the invasion. Just compare the way they depicted the landings on the beach. Zanuck's version is a wide camera view of thousands of soldiers running up the beach. Speilberg's focus's on one small stretch of one beach. Anyway, this is the definitive movie of the D-Day invasion, as in the ENTIRE day. SPR is currently the definitive WWII combat movie.

I can't help but warn people that you do need to go into this with the aim of learning about history. It really is a dated movie (hammy/wooden acting, sometimes unbearable low humour, total lack of gore), but this doesn't stop it from delivering a great deal of good info to the watcher.

The Postman (1997)

Why the bad reviews?

[5/10 · 10 July 2000]

Because this movie deserved it. I gave it a 5/10 because it was watchable, but it's VERY pretentious. Come on people, the critics didn't miss the very obvious theme of this movie. It was jammed down the throat of the viewer. There are some touching scenes, especially if you're patriotic, but the movie really drags for no good reason. If you want to watch a movie that's slow but actually makes you think, try 2001. I thought the acting was sub-par, and the editing was horrible. Some transitions between scenes were confusing. An sorry, the ending was just plain corny; Both the fight, and then the completely unnecesary frame story with the statue. If Costner would have made this movie with the intention of it just being something to do for 2+ hours that would be ok. Instead, he presents it as some sweeping epic with a well developed theme to get the viewer thinking, but it completely fails to achieve this.

Here are some other movies you should see if you thought this was "epic" or "thought provoking": Dune, Blade Runner, The Grapes of Wrath

Oh, and to the guy who complained about the "cruelty to animals". What the heck? Was your wife not bothered by the humans dying? How was it "cruel" to shoot a horse to stop 3 people (including the baby) from dying? You'd do the same in that situation nobody how much of a raging vegan you might be. I suppose the Lion eating that one guy alive wasn't "cruelty" to humans though? Geesh.

The Truth About Cats & Dogs (1996)

Why do I Like this movie so much??

[7/10 · 20 June 2000]

The Truth About Cats and Dogs has a hackneyed plot, very little that is original, some bad acting and I really really like it. Another strange thing is that the only actor I like in it is Janeane Garofalo who was spectacular. I thought Uma Thurman was strange for the role because she's not as drop dead gorgeous as they make her out to be. One reason I like it is that I'm much more intellectual than beautiful. So I guess I connected with "Abby". I also liked that Abby didn't have some kind of makeover or something so the audience could realise her beauty. The other reason is that this is one of the movies both me and my girlfriend really liked early on in our relationship. I saw it when it came out and liked it then, and I saw it recently again on tv and still liked it. So, even though I really can't say why, I'm giving it a 7/10 (when normally stuff like this gets a 3-5).

Johns (1996)

Falls Way Short

[4/10 · 11 June 2000]

I like David Arquette and Lukas Haas, but this movie was neither moving or shocking. Oooh, David Arquette has a condom in his mouth! The worst part for me was near the end. ::SPOILER:: It's obvious that something bad is going to happen to John on his last "date". When the client starts crying I knew right away he was going to kill John because he couldn't deal with his gay feelings. Egad. David's acting was sub-par the entire time as well. As someone already mentioned, you could just see him reading the script. People have mentioned "My Own Private Idaho". While this movie is completely different, it did have some weird connections such as "Popeye" and the sneakers. I gave this movie a 4/10.

My Own Private Idaho (1991)

Good acting, ok directing

[7/10 · 11 June 2000]

I really enjoyed watching River Phoenix in this, but I thought a lot of stuff was annoying. The scene with the magazine covers was the worst. It wasn't done very well, and even if it would have been it still would have sucked. The other problem I had was that the characters occasionally talked in pseudo-Shakespearean. It's very hard to do something like that and not come off as pretentious, and GVS fails. Any time Keanu has lines like that he sounds ridiculous. On the other hand, overall the movie was enjoyable and somewhat moving so I'd give it a 6.5/10.

American Hollow (1999)

Things to Consider

[7/10 · 30 March 2000]

I'd first like to say that I felt "American Hollow" was an excellent documentary. The main reason for this comment is to clarify some things about the film. Many people have problems because they felt the film did nothing to dispel stereotypes, and also that it added to the list of films only showing the poorest regions of Appalachia. Rory Kennedy's film was not meant to be a representation of Appalachia. She picked the Bowlings because she wanted to originally make a "poverty advocacy film". She was later so impressed by the strong character of Iree that she decided to focus on the family itself. I don't think Rory could have done anything about stereotypes. She didn't script this and hire actors. This was this family's real life. It may have perpetuated the "slack jawed yokel" stereotype, but hopefully in watching it you can relate to the family beyond the stereotypes.

As someone else mentioned, it's very important to realize that this family (especially Iree and Bass) is not lazy. In a meeting Rory Kennedy mentioned that two family members had recently gotten jobs that they had to commute 1 1/2 hours to get to everyday. It's obvious that if there were jobs available, they would have taken them gladly. Why don't they just move? This question shows that you don't really understand the situation. The film clearly pointed out that almost all of the members of the family had tried this and failed. Besides that, the film also shows that family is more important to them than monetary stability. This is a lesson we can all learn from.

BTW, Rory also mentioned that because of the film, Clint started to receive "propositions" from around the country. One lady sent him a plane ticket, but he was too afraid to get on the plane. She then sent him a bus ticket and he moved out to CA and they are "madly in love" and getting married!

Once and Again (1999–2002)

Great Show

[5 December 1999]

Let me put some perspective on my opinion: I'm a 22-year old college student, so I guess I'm supposed to really like _Friends_, the crap on WB, UPN, and all these 18-25 (or whatever that magical span of years is) shows. I basically hate them all. A good example is _Jack and Jill_. My girlfriend likes it so I can't help the exposure.

I LOVE this show though. This is the only drama that I actually look forward to seeing every week (oups, except for _Freaks and Geeks_ which is struggling to stay alive). The story is actually different than the standard bed hopping, and I'll also agree the acting is great!

I do have to disagree though on something. I hope the show only goes for like 3 seasons at the most. After 3 seasons I think the writers should move on to another subject.

Tess of the D'Urbervilles (1998 TV Movie)

Good adaptation

[7/10 · 5 December 1999]

This was a really good adaptation. The acting was fine (I especially liked Tess), the setting, costumes, etc, were good, and they represented the novel really well. It seems this is what a lot of people want with a movie based on a book. This movie basically seems scripted directly from the book, which I don't agree is a good thing. I like to have a different persons point of view on what is basically the same theme, not the exact same scenes. But if you like that sort of thing, you'll love this movie. 7/10.

Wings of Desire (1987)

Beautiful, yet...

[23 November 1999]

I have a hard time writing this after reading the last comments. Maybe I've not refined my understanding of film greatly enough but I came away less than exhilarated by this film.

I did like it but couldn't help feeling it dragged sometimes unnecessarily. For example, the trapeze scene that lasts forever (ok, it was a bit interesting because she looked like she was going to fall), and while Nic Cave may be cool, it's really boring to listen to an entire song when you're not a big fan. I was too worn out by the end of the movie to be overly effected by it. I know, this is such a simplistic uneducated review :-)

Don't get me wrong here. This movie is definitely better than the majority on the silver screen today and I do give it higher marks than "City of Angels". Even though I hardly disliked CoA. If you haven't seen it, don't try actually comparing the two movies. They are totally different movies. CoA is obviously not trying to make an "easy to understand simplified american" version of Wings of Desire. It's a completely different movie.

So, I do recommend seeing this movie but not to attempt it unless you are completely awake and ready to think. 8/10.

Teen Witch (1989)

This movie made me ill

[2/10 · 15 November 1999]

I was inspired to comment on this worthless movie when I noticed there was only one bad comment. This movie is horrible. It's disturbing to watch. I don't know about the acting but the plot is annoying. Why must we be subjected to these ridiculous morality plays? The movie also has a lot of awkward scenes that make you want to throw up. Like when Teen Witch's friend has the rap battle with that guy. Ich. The only reason I know so much about this movie is that it was one my sister's favorites. She was fond of the Baby Sitter's Club and 90210 also, so go figure.

The Hobbit (1977 TV Movie)

Not the book, but it's great

[7/10 · 28 October 1999]

While this is definitely not a good representation of the book, it does stand well on it's own. There is no reason a movie based on a book should be the same as the book. Compare Stanley Kubrick's The Shining with the screenplay Stephen King came up with. Kubrick's is better by far for a movie. Anyway, I like the animation and loved the music. This movie turned me on to Tolkien and so I hold it in high regard. It's definitely a must see.