Change Your Image
dfw_txs
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Gotti (2018)
I actually emailed the studio and asked for a refund
Yes, it was that bad. First, the movie literally jumps back and forth between DECADES making any type of coherent plot impossible for the viewer to follow. Then the rip offs from other mob movies was laughable, it was like the Director was trying to capture themes from Good Fellas, The Sopranos, Godfather, etc.. and just try to fake out the audience. It was just a mess. I later found out this took 8 years to finish because Directors and Producers just kept leaving the project. You can tell because there was no continuity in the plot, it was just a movie of random thoughts and stories.
I like John Travolta, I thought he was great in Saturday Night Fever. But then a couple years later he made one of the all time worsts in Staying Alive, at least that was a shameless money making sequel and he was young and greedy at that age. He was able to recover over a period of years to finally get a great role in Pulp Fiction. He has no excuse for this one, he should have known better at his age and walked away. Given his series of busts lately, I doubt he is going to be taken seriously for anymore dramatic leading roles again. This is going to follow him the rest of his career.
American Sniper (2014)
As a Conservative, thumbs down
I cannot believe I will agree with Michael Moore, ever. But Snipers are cowardly. I get it, they are necessary in modern warfare. But to glorify a sniper is like glorifying your pest control agent.
The entire movie is about a sniper picking off Iraquis. They walk in the street and Bradley Cooper picks them off one by one. You got like 2 hours of this, over and over.
I don't get this movie or the hype. It seems the only one that made out was the widow of the real like Sniper, she is walking away with 10 figures from the rights. She is happy no doubt.
If you like video games where people shoot random people this is definitely your type of movie. IQ over 100 stay away.
CHIPS (2017)
This is the worst movie I have ever seen
At least 3 occasions I almost walked out, but my wife wanted to suffer through to the end so we stayed. This was the typical "cop- buddy" comedy, with one key difference from say the Starsky and Hutch remake: It was not funny at all.
When I say not funny at all, I did not even crack a smile, and found myself looking at my watch. The plot is totally ridiculous, and the jokes were primarily about Ponche's sex addiction where he has to masturbate in public bathrooms, yes I am not kidding. Another theme is about Ponche's fetish about eating women's butts, clean or dirty. Yes, I am not kidding. That was a central plot line.
Then there is John Baker his partner. He is basically portrayed as a opiate pill head who drives his bike high on opiates who has not taken a dump in weeks.
Then there is the "hilarious" sequence where Ponch keeps crashing his motorcycle. Here again, it just was not funny.
I guess if you are a teenager you might find the non stop bathroom/sexual stuff funny. I just cannot fathom how any adult could walk out of the theater with any other impression than they just wasted 2 hours of their life.
Frost/Nixon (2008)
Refreshing and Candid
While I am not an expert on Watergate, I have read quite a bit on Nixon and the performance by Frank Langella was absolutely stunning. While he does not quite look like Nixon, or quite sound like him, 10 minutes into the move you think it is Nixon. It is a masterful performance.
The movie itself was pretty good. It is not great, though the ending is great, if that makes sense. First let me say, the movie drags for about an hour mid way through. While the scenes with Nixon are riveting, the parts of David Frost are just not that interesting. Probably because he in real life, he is simply just not a guy you are dying to learn about.
While I have not seen the actual Front/Nixon interview tapes in their entirety, those that have concede they were painfully boring with the exception of the Watergate segment, which riveted the nation.
And that was the movie too. The movie was from David Frost's point of view, because it had to be. If it were from Nixon's point of view, nobody would have cared because in reality nobody really cares about David Frost. The movie does have some interesting moments, but nothing memorable....except the scenes with Nixon.
What made the movie was the final 20 minutes. While it was not Ron Howard's intent, you do feel sorry for Nixon in the end. Maybe it's because many years have passed. Maybe its because the last two guys we have had in the oval office have been so unpresidential, it's refreshing to see an larger than life figure.
Frank Langella carried this movie. Without him, it would have been a bust. But with him, its one of the year's best. Stick with the middle of the movie and be patient. The ending is powerful.
W. (2008)
My review on W
As a lifelong Republican, I did not know what to expect going into see W. I am very familiar with Oliver Stone's leftist views, but two of my all time favorite movies were Stone's Wall Street and Platoon, so as long as its a good movie, I really don't care about how Stone thinks about politics. Even if it was a hatchet job on W, as long as it was entertaining I would not have minded.
The problem with W, and the reason the movie will soon be forgotten, is Stone tried to cram W's entire life in a two hour movie. The movie would have been much better if it was exclusively of W's life BEFORE being President. That would have been far more interesting than spending an hour on Iraq.
We have spent nearly 6 years talking about Iraq. To spend an hour on Iraq during the movie was like I was watching what I had just seen for six years. I found myself looking at my watch towards the end.
I thought the relationship with his father, Bush Sr was fascinating. I thought the 5 minute dialogue between Rove and Bush leading up to he being Governor was also top notch. But it was way to brief...
The movie missed its mark badly. The real story of W is how a failed alcoholic at age 40, became sober and became a baseball owner, Governor of Texas, and President in a little over 10 years. When you sit back and think about it, W's rise to Presidency is a remarkable story.
Even if you think George W Bush is the worst President in the last 100 years, you still left the movie still having no idea how a guy went from failed alcoholic to the highest position in the World. From age 40 (sobriety) to age 52 (President) defined who W was and ultimately shaped his decision making for his Presidency. And the movie skimmed over it in a 10 minute period.
This was a classic case of the movie not living up to its hype. The trailers were better than the movie.
Grade: C
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Non sales people generally do not like this movie
First, I love this movie. I have been in sales most of my adult life and think this is a must see for anyone in sales, or thinking about entering the sales arena...
Now, is the Glengary/Glen Ross office a typical sales environment? Of course not. Is Alec Balwin typical of a main stream Vice President of Sales? No. My gosh, it would be near impossible to keep anyone of quality in such an environment.
But what the movie does is make you appreciate what you have. Whenever the "boss" gets on your case about a bad sales month, think about Alec Baldwin and you will quickly realize he/she is not such an unreasonable boss after all.
And when sales get tough, and they inevitably do from time to time, think about how tough they were for Jack Lemmon ALL the time: selling a bad product to unsuspecting people inside their home at 8pm. Ouch, talk about a tough way to make a buck.
This movie keeps you grounded, that's for sure. But what I have noticed with this movie is non-salespeople typically cannot appreciate the film's greatness. They do not know the thrill of making a sale or the rejection one feels when they lose one, so they cannot relate. And that's fine, because unless you have been in the trenches, fighting it out against the competition, this movie probably cannot be comprehended.
But for a sales veteran like myself, this movie is like an old friend.
Staying Alive (1983)
Grade F
I usually expect sequels to pale in comparison to the original. I have lowered expectations when watching such movies. For instance, one of my favorite movies of the 80s was Karate Kid. The Karate Kid part II, while not nearly as good, was a worthy sequel. Same thing with Rambo, First Blood Part 1 and II, Godfather part 1 and 2, etc...
This sequel however was unwatchable. Quite frankly, there was no reason to ever make this movie. Tony Manero's life in the first one was not that interesting. What made the movie "cool" was it capitalized on the disco craze and had up and comer Vinnie Barbarino (ok John Travlota) as the lead. The success of the movie was more about the timing than anything else.
So now its six years later and we have Tony Manero back on the big screen, dancing yet again. Problem is, dancing is no longer as cool as it was in the 70s. John Travolta is beginning a decade long downswing of his career, and quite frankly, nobody cares about the character Tony Manero. Nobody left the original Saturday Night Fever saying, "I wonder what happens to Tony Manero". Nobody cared, it was simply a movie about the music and dancing with a marginal plot squeezed in.
The plot of Staying Alive is utterly ridiculous: Dance instructor trying to become a "dance pro", while managing dual love interests. All this culminates in a Broadway show that is unwatchable.
It was simply a bad movie in the early 80s. Today, its almost comical to watch.
I'll give Travlota credit though, many actors would have been exiled after such a catastrophe...he fought his way back to stardom. I have to believe when this comes on cable, he has the ability to laugh at himself.
The American President (1995)
Great plot, poor result
I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".
Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.
OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).
There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.
2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.
3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.
I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.
Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience
Revolution (1985)
This movie is about the legacy of Al Pacino
I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.
I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.
I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.
Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.
One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".
I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
OK, I am selling my SUV and riding my bike to work
Well not really. When I ride my Expedition to the airport tomorrow though, I will think of this movie..
Of course, I will just think about it, but won't actually do anything about it. See, I can't buy into this whole man-made Global Warming theory. Sure, many people have gone out and bought Hybrid cars because its trendy to be sensitive about such things as gas guzzling SUVs. But I have to think the hybrid car crowd are descendants of the bunker building parents of the nuclear age of the 50s and 60s. You know, stock up on supplies, build a bunker under your house and wait for the pending nuclear war.
Some people are easily swayed by "authority figures" such as Al Gore lecturing on matters such as the impending doom of man made Global Warming. But people need to take a step back and catch their breath and ask fundamental questions: 1) Is the earth actually warming? And we know this how? The earth is 4 billion years old, yet our statistical evaluation of temperatures is of the last 100 years. Hardly compelling data. 100 out of 4,000,000,000 is hardly scientific.
2) The earth has gone through many environmental cycles over its history. There was a time during the ice age when a sheet of ice covered the US all the way to Florida...and get this, it melted all by itself...! This was of course after scientists determined that the Artic Circle was once 70 degrees year round. And there were no SUVs to my knowledge roaming the earth then.
3) The environmental lobby is a powerful lobby and will always take on big business. Whether its saving the rain forests, protecting the owl, or producing movies about a hyper heated earth, they will always say the end is right around the corner.
Al Gore won't rebut the type of questions or facts that suggests a naturally dynamic earth. He won't explain how, or why, the earth heats and cools irregardless of mankind's impact. He won't answer it for the same reason I won't answer such questions: Because nobody has a clue why the earth reacts in such a manner.
I watched this movie, and could not help but think how many people are going to run out, buy hybrid cars and say to themselves, "I am making a difference". The problem for these folks are, I am going to be behind them in my Expedition at 75 mph motioning to them to hit the gas pedal or get out of the way. I think then it will dawn on them they were suckered. But they'll have a trendy car that looks like an alien ship.
I am giving this movie three stars out of ten. Its not a horrible movie, but its not factual either. Its just one man's opinion who, after inventing the internet, has channeled his energy into saving mankind from melting under oppressive heat. I give him an "A" for effort, but in the end, its just another opinion on the environment.
On another note, I could not help thinking about the Dennis Miller quip of rising earth's temperatures. It was something of the effect: "I am supposed to believe the accuracy of temperature data from 1911, yet the guy recording the data had to sh!t in the woods..."?
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Very big let down
I bought this movie because "2001: A Space Odyssey", was one of the "classics" I had not yet seen. I had a brief prior understanding of the plot (the whole Hal thing), but was fairly in the dark about this movie. I was excited when I sat down to watch it.
I can honestly say I gave this movie a shot, but for me, this movie was something akin to watching a plant grow for three hours. I am sure there are some that find this movie to be a masterpiece. But I have to believe for most of the public, this movie was almost intentionally boring.
Now intellectuals will claim, "You just don't understand the brilliance of 2001: A Space Odyssey". Well I am hear to tell you it it has nothing to do with understanding...rather its about "wanting to understand". I have no interest in spending 3+ hours of my life being supremely bored, trying to analyze what Stanley Kubrick was trying to communicate 35+ years ago.
The purpose of any movie is to entertain, and if after being entertained you can take away a deeper meaning in a movie, then all the better. But you first must have an entertainment value, which in my opinion this movie was devoid of.
When I finally hit the stop button on this movie, I could not describe how let down I was. I am not into space movies all that much. Lasers, phasers and androids are not my thing. But one of my favorite movies was "Alien" - A slow paced movie that thrived into a classic because of the incredible suspense associated with it. There was a great payoff after the first hour of waiting.
When I was in college, in my Literature class we used to sit around for hours discussing what the author (i.e Twain, Hemmingway, Poe, etc...) "really meant" in his book. I always used to suggest he meant what was written in his/her book, hence why he wrote it. I was usually dismissed as "not getting it" as others suggested some deeper meaning, something the author did not write, but somehow what he actually meant.
OK, whatever. Everyone is different. Some people see 2001: A Space Odyssey as a masterpiece. I see it as an extremely over-hyped movie, the most boring movie I have ever seen and I will never watch again.
And in the rare case this movie had some deeper meaning that Stanley Krubrick wanted you to find, I have to ask....Who Cares?
The Karate Kid (1984)
Classic
We all know the plot by now...its the ultimate "Good vs Evil" movie.
What makes this movie so great are two things: 1) The great payoffs in the movie. Nobody seeing this for the first time could have figured out the whole "wax on/wax off" thing. Incredibly clever. And the crane kick at the end, and the way Johnny sells it with his head snapping back is simply the best. That final scene could have looked ridiculous, but instead it put a powerful end to a great movie.
2) The plot within the plot. Everyone views the movie as Daniel versus Johnny...but its really Miyagi v Kreese. The Good Side vs The Dark Side. Even though Kreese (Martin Kove) has relatively a small part in the movie, its his overwhelming presence and philosophy that Miyagi and Daniel are out to defeat. I mean is there a more sinister looking guy than Kreese?
One of the most clever scripts and well acted movies of the 80s.
The Karate Kid Part III (1989)
Just Terrible
I was going through my DVD collection and came across the Karate Kid Trilogy. It was right after Pat Morita died and I began looking over the DVD case and I remembered I had never watched the Karate Kid Part III.
I was a huge fan of the original Karate Kid, and part II was a worthy sequel. I was bored that night and figured I'd give part III a try, even though I knew it would probably not be very good as most "part IIIs" of any movie typically pretty bad.
I can honestly say, The Karate Kid Part III, is the worst movie I have ever seen - its a shameless rip off of the original. I wont go through a plot summary since that has already been done by several other reviewers here. But some of the low points are worth mentioning.
1) Acting is terrible. Ralph Macchio either forgot how to act, or simply mailed it in, which is likely the case as who could get excited over this script? It was simply ridiculous to have a 28 year old man play a 17 year old teenager. Pat Morita's role was tired and predictable, and just worn out. Martin Kove, aka John Kreese, looked like a puppet with that goofy "evil smile" he had plastered on his face the whole movie.
2) The plot was recycled from the first Karate Kid. You know the storyline: Daniel gets beat up by a superior Karate student trained by the evil John Kreese and sidekick Terry Silver. Mr Miyagi saves the day yet again with his unorthodox teachings, all culminating in a dramatic tournament at the end where Daniel surprises his opponent with some Karate move that looks more like a dance scene. Crowd goes nuts, evil John Kreese foiled yet again, My Miyagi smiling proudly, blah, blah, blah.
3) The last fight scene. The only reason I did not turn this "movie" off half way through was because I figured at least we'd have a great fight scene at the tournament. Some type of payoff for having to suffer through this catastrophe. The fight scene was an unmitigated joke. The whole fight is Daniel getting his face beat in. Then, the very last scene when his evil adversary is going to win the title, Daniel does this gimmicky dance move and punches the guy in the stomach. Oh Boy!
First, an 80 year old man could have defended such a lame move. And second, all the movie gave you was Daniel getting lucky at the end. I mean, the whole movie he is pulverized, and the very last scene he gets a lucky sucker punch in, wins the tournament and all is well.
You have been warned. Stay away from this mindless garbage.
Two for the Money (2005)
Pacino needs to work on his script selection
I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.
What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.
Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end?
This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather!
Don't waste your money.
The Hollywood Knights (1980)
What was funny as a teen, not fuuny 20 years later
When I saw this in the mid 80s as a teen, I thought this was the funniest thing I have ever seen. I must have watched it 10 times on HBO and in the mid/late 80s and I always regretted never taping it years later because I remembered it was so hilarious, but could never find it in the stores. This was because of some copyright dispute.
Well lo and behold the dispute was settled and I recently saw it @ Blockbuster and promptly bought it. I wish I hadn't.
What was funny at age 14 was painful now in my 30s. It was so unbelievably bad. I mean, Newbomb Turk plays a senior in high school yet he looks like he is 30. The jokes are silly and not remotely funny. The two cops who I remember being hysterical are just downright not funny.
Throughout the whole movie I just kept wondering how Tony Danza and Michelle Pfieffer got roped into this ultra cliché ridden plot. If you have not seen this, do yourself a favor and rent American Graffiti instead - it is a 1000 times better and actually has a plot. If you are into juvenile bathroom humor then rent Hollywood Knights.