I found myself laughing a lot more than I thought I would. If this were to have had Will Farrell or Jim Carey in it, I probably wouldn’t have laughed near as much. While there was a fair amount of needless crude humor, there was enough good humor to create an overall positive effect on our enjoyment of the movie. I don’t think I’d recommend it to anyone, just because I’d probably be embarrassed to sit through it with some people.
Hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time, I was a little disappointed. The story was inventive and well put together. I enjoyed the way everything slowly tied together from beginning to end, even though it all seemed like separate stories at first. While there was an over abundance of swearing, looking back at the movie (replaying scenes in my head) the language is not what I remember. Can’t say that I’d recommend this one.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
The coolest part of the movie was Samuel L. Jackson. I’ve always been curious about this movie and my curiosity was increased after reading Thomas Hibbs Arts of Darkness. Hibbs states,
“Tarantino’s repudiation of linear narration suits a world out of joint where character development and unified story telling are impossible. The sequence of events in the film pivots around a remarkable chance event, the interpretation of which determines the destiny of the two central characters, Jules and Vincent.”
I came into the film knowing it was poorly received by the critics, and ended up enjoying it. Nothing deep here. I agree that the first Iron Man was much better. It’s worth the watch on Netflix if you haven’t seen it and care anything for the story.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
Tony Stark realizes that he’s about to die and start’s realizing what matters most in his life. This is nice due to the fact that his escapades with women are pretty much non-existent (not really a priority on one’s death bed). He actually shows genuine interest in Pepper at the end, and it seems that there is something of value inside Tony Stark. Besides the not-so-great overall story, the realistic weakness affecting Stark makes the story a little more endearing.
At 40 minutes into the movie, I was thinking, “this is a really slow movie” - in other words, I was getting bored pretty quick. The concept wasn’t original, it was kind of like a Bourne Identity with an old man (who still had some good fight in him, but didn’t show off much). They tried a big twist at the end, but it didn’t seem to go anywhere. Instead of some plot that we could identify with, they have everything the movie is working for end up being for corn, cool corn, but corn nonetheless.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
Like the Bourne series, there’s no real moral battle here, not much good to be gleaned from it either.
I don’t think I had ever seen this movie. I’ve seen the second one. The movie was well done, but a little long for me. The 154 minutes totally could have been trimmed down - particularly the 5-10 minute scene of the destruction of Krypton, all you see is a bunch of nameless people in white falling all over the place to their deaths; and then there’s the 5-10 minutes of credits at the beginning. Gene Hackman really doesn’t fit my image of Lex Luthor. He plays a smart guy (a genius), but he sure doesn’t look or act the part well. Hopefully the second reboot next year gets something right (though I think Kevin Spacey was a step in the right direction).
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
Superman is the embodiment of truth, justice, and the American way. I know he’s supposed to fall for Lois Lane, but his swooning over her made this more of a romantic-comedy than a movie that shows a decent battle between good and evil.
There isn’t much more to say here. The movie is a classic, so it’s good, but definitely not great.
The trailer was very deceiving in making me think this would be a fast paced film...nothing of the sort. Not that slow-pace is bad, but I think I could have enjoyed this more if it were quicker paced. The story itself was interesting, but heavily based on drug use and addiction and the results of living such a lifestyle.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
We see the negative impact of addictive substances and how it can destroy lives and relationships. However, the main character ends up on top and better off than he was because he learned how to appropriately apply the drug. This could be construed to mean that all substances have a purpose and if we used them as God/nature intends they can bless our lives; though a bit of a stretch, it is true. Otherwise we could easily assume that the film is saying that some illegal substances can be good if we know how to use them, which ultimately promotes the use of such substances and is morally bad.
Either way I don’t recommend watching this film. There’s plenty of violence, several non-graphic sexual encounters, and some language.
I may have enjoyed this because I was expecting garbage and it was actually better than some garbage I’ve seen. The movie was definitely not on par with other comic book movies, and I’m glad I didn’t spend the money to see this in the theater; it was ok at home for $1. The whole Bloodnovsky development was really lame, a good villain would have made this better; and a good hero could have made it great.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
I was hoping Britt Reid would “come to himself” when his father died and realize the legacy his father left him, causing an earlier change for the better; this would have made the whole super-hero endeavor a little more interesting. Instead we get stuck watching a moron think he’s a super hero when his coffee making side-kick is really the only one doing anything of value. It took me a while to get into Seth Rogen's character - as far as stupid actors go, Ryan Reynolds did a much better job in Green Lantern, Rogen was just plain stupid in this.
The movie was filled with typical comic book style action, but too much needless profanity.
We watched this with our kids and they seemed to like it quite a bit. Nothing terribly ingenious here, but a well spent hour and forty-five minutes. It definitely came before the dark Batman we know now, making it more family friendly. I really don’t have a whole lot to say, other than it was fun!
I remember loving this show so much as a kid. While the fighting was rather laughable and the storyline a little corny, the film was still enjoyable. I don’t believe I’ll get my wife to watch Secret of the Ooze with me though.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
Friendship and family are probably the two most important themes in the movie. By trying to supplant them with money or fun, sadness inevitably ensues.
Don’t watch this movie to get a moral lesson out of it, your kids are more likely to want to hit something and also learn some nice four-letter words rather than better understand the importance of family.
We had a choice of seeing Rio or Hop. Given the reviews on several websites, Rio was the obvious best choice. The show was fun, but I was a little annoyed at the humans in it. Their characters were weak and detracted from the vividness that Rio had to offer. I loved the music. The music was probably the best part of the show. Otherwise the main plot was to get two rare birds to mate, and get their owners/captors together at the same time. Judging by the critics my opinion lies in the minority. It was fun to see once, but I won’t be adding it to my collection. However, I’m extremely glad we didn’t see Hop.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
Blu learns to believe in himself and his natural instincts. It’s rather odd that Tulio, the ornithologist, doesn’t recognize Linda until she’s 80% naked, wearing a bikini and some blue feathers...at least that’s the moment we see that he’s really interested in her. I don’t feel like going too much into detail here, there wasn’t a lot to glean from this film.
I will add this positive comment from commonsensemedia.org for those whose opinions might actually better align with the majority of viewers:
“The movie has plenty of positive messages about broadening your horizons, believing in yourself, helping others even when it's dangerous, and caring for the beautiful animals in our midst instead of stealing and selling them for profit. The subplot with Fernando also teaches viewers that no matter how difficult your life is, you can still make good choices and turn your life around.”
This was an easy-going movie, nowhere near as intense as the previews made it out to be. The humor was great and the music did a great job at setting the tone. We watched it unedited and were able to enjoy it quite well, though there was some language and violence throughout it.
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
No real moral lesson was intended for this type of show, it was purely for entertainment.
I was first interested in this film after reading Orson Scott Card’s review. (Let me interject that I read a lot of OSC’s reviews - on books, movies, etc. - and I find that I agree with him on the majority of what he writes, I’m not just a fan of his sci-fi literature). I was a little disappointed overall, but after watching the film I re-read the review and found that there was a lot to what OSC wrote, but it didn’t make the movie much better to me. For instance, “we experience the thrilling moments of this production with the same emotional response that the audience of the time must have had” - I wouldn’t say I was ever thrilled, maybe impressed.
Zac Efron did an alright job, though he seemed to have too much of a lifeless expression throughout the movie
Moral Rating: 2 of 5
The PG-13 rating was supposedly for sexual dialog (and there was too much of it), but should have also included a warning for profanity and blasphemy. We ended up turning on the ClearPlay about a third of the way into the movie.
OSC sums it up quite well:
“For this film is, at core, a study in genius and what people put up with from their geniuses. Welles was, like many so-called geniuses, incredibly strong-willed and needy at the same time. He had the force to make things happen, and the sheer terror and inner emptiness (which the film makes explicit) that make it impossible for him to let others get their full credit.
The result is that he makes other people miserable even as he brings out the best in them. As the film explains, the actors and crew put up with his miserable treatment of them because they know that by staying close to him, by sacrificing their own pride and honor to bear his impositions on them, their own careers will advance, and they will be part of great art.
This much we have seen before, but the film goes further. It makes us see that while it is wonderful to be part of a great production, in the end what you give up by subjecting yourself to a man like Welles is nothing short of your soul. We feel the sadness of young Richard as a woman he loves and fought for walks out of his life -- but it is even sadder to watch that woman leave, because we know that she has sold herself and it will not be worth the price she paid.”
This “further” bit is one of the few things Card points out that I really liked about the movie. It was also nice to see the film not end on a tragic note, and to emphasize that whatever happens to us in the short term, we have our whole lives ahead of us to become whatever we want to become.
This is one of the best action films I’ve seen in a while. Great action sequences that were kept on the light-side with the quick-witted humor provided by Tom Cruise. Easily one of my favorite Cruise movies. Check it out if you have a chance.
Moral Rating: 2
No real messages worth noting here. Pure entertainment.
This is considered one of the best comedies of the 20th century, and at one point I agreed. After watching it over the Christmas break I’ve had second thoughts about it. The acting is great and it really is a funny show, but there’s a bit too much sexual appeal to it for my comfort.
Moral Rating: 2/5
There is no moral to this movie. The only message is that if you lie and cheat you get everything you want and your buddy gets stuck engaged with a person of the same sex.
Seriously, though, Joe takes advantage of Sugar's frustration with men and capitalizes on the information she shares with him. In the end when she finds out Joe's just another sax player (and not a millionaire who owns a yacht) she throws out all her previously set upon standards and reverts to making the same bad decisions that made her unhappy in the first place.
Jerry seemed to be one of the few level-headed characters in the movie (though he fit in a little too well with the girls). However, any reason or precognition he exhibited was rewarded by getting stuck engaged with a rich millionaire who ends up not caring that Jerry is not a Sherry.
If you’re looking for some witty comedy that is cleaner than any contemporary comedy, but still has a bit of an edge to it, this is worth checking out; though, I'd hesitate showing it to young kids due to the few scenes of automatic weapons massacring people and Marilyn Monroe's very revealing attire.
This was an intriguing, but hard to enjoy movie. We watched a recording off of broadcast television (our only film source other than the library or an occasional RedBox) and even edited I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. Yet at the same time it presented some very interesting thoughts and dialog between me and my wife.
Moral Rating: 2
The violence in this movie is surely what made it R, but was really the crux of the whole movie, so it would be hard to take it out completely or even mostly out and still have a coherent/impactful story. Some of the strong themes that were presented dealt with nihilism, destiny, and agency.
The entire film was nihilistic (as are most Coen brother films). The opening line was rather haunting and hopeless. The single reference to God portrays Him as distant and unkind:
"always figured when I got older, God would sorta come inta my life somehow. And he didn't. I don't blame him. If I was him I would have the same opinion of me that he does."
Atrocious events were talked about as if they were everyday occurrences. Chighur was a god-like figure in that when he said something, he'd do it (executing justice as written by his own law) and only occasionally give people a weak chance to change their "destiny".
[Spoiler Alert]
Lewellyn's choices basically led to his and his wife's death. He was completely aware of what he had to do to prevent that (some faith would have to be exercised), but the 2 million dollars was just too much to let go of. Greed was another element in the film. The ironic part is that Lewellyn actually had some compassion on the Mexicans and it ended up being the Mexicans who killed him, not Chighur.
This movie might be even funnier if you've ever watched an episode of American Idol, but it was funny enough. A little weird in parts, but entertaining if you can watch it edited.
Moral Rating: 2
A semi-good message comes out when you see that fame and fortune don't really bring happiness. William Williams was a good example of getting what you want. He wanted Sally so badly that he refused to see her for what she was and when it finally hit him, the results were explosive.
Kind of a cool story, a lot creepier than I had imagined. I recorded this show because of it's notoriety, but was rather underwhelmed. If you've never seen it, it might be worth a view, but don't expect much.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 2
"In the few hours we had together we loved a lifetime's worth." What kind of a line is that?
Good movie, but rather predictable (just like a lot of legal thrillers). It is a true story, so it's not like they could change it up or embellish it too much. There was no fancy lawyer battle in the courtroom. I'm not sure why it was Rated-R, it was plenty similar to John Grisham stories and could have been targeted to a broader audience without any excessive language or sexual content.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate?
Rating: 2
The film comes off with a somewhat good message - that hard work pays off. But are we really supposed to applaud Erin for leaving her family for so long in the care of someone else? Sure people leave their kids at day cares plenty of times, but this made it seem as if she were virtually never home. She treated her boyfriend like a nanny, and yet at the end he was grinning ear to ear because of seeing the work he actually helped assist with. Her family should have been made top priority (very similar situation to Freedom Writers, where the teacher ends up getting a divorce because she spends more time with students than at home with her husband).
R. P. McMurphy gets thrown into a mental institution for being purely lazy and rebelling against authority. He tries to lighten the spirits of the mental patients by playing cards, basketball, sneaking out of the asylum, etc. His attempt at creating a more enjoyable experience inside the place is constantly repressed by head nurse Ratched.
Entertainment Value - B
This was an alright show (if you like Cool Hand Luke, there's a chance you'll like this one). I don't know why this got all the acclaim it has received, I didn't think it was outstanding (I'm going to guess it has something to do with the cinematography like Citizen Kane). Jack Nicholson's character doesn't seem to change from one movie to another, maybe he just gets casted well. If you want to see this because it is highly acclaimed (like I did), you might be a little disappointed.
Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 2
[Spoiler Alert]
I thought some of the themes were very similar to Cool Hand Luke: A man gets imprisoned for not caring much, gains the affection of his inmates, gets broken, ends tragically.
Not sure why nurse Ratched is one of the most popular screen villains. She is extremely indifferent and cold, but you'd have to be in order to keep your sanity working in a mental institution. Her handling Billy at the end was awful; knowing his suicidal tendancies and then threatening to report him to his mother was a deathly mistake.
McMurphy and the other patient's pressure to get Billy to sleep with McMurphy's friend was completely childish and stupid. There are glimpses of McMurphy's "good" side throughout the film and you think that he might turn out to be a blessing to the place, but ends up just a curse.
Chief Bromden (not sure if Chief is his first name) should not have killed McMurphy at the end. I know it was supposedly a good act, maybe could be considered euthanasia of some sort (for those who think euthanasia can be good). Chief didn't want to leave seeing McMurphy in his broken condition. To Chief, McMurphy was a type of hero, and he imagined them escaping the place together. Since that was no longer possible in McMurphy's condition, this act of "liberation" was symbolic of the two of them leaving together - possibly meant to be poetic, but I thought it was kind of twisted.
The one good thing that came out of McMurphy ending up in the asylum was his attempt to get all the patients in the place to pretend like they weren't there. Anytime the nurses reminded them of their condition/location, McMurphy would rebel and end up lifting the spirits of those around him (a classic scene is the baseball game). McMurphy eventually ended up getting carried away and realized too late that he had gone too far. There are responsibilities that must be taken in our lives, especially when we interact with others and most importantly when they hold us in high regard. We are a light on a hill whether we want to be or not. Others look up to us, and most importantly God has high hopes that we will realize and fulfill our great potential as part of the human family.
Napolean Dynamitish with a poor lead character - dead pan face that worked for Pedro and Napolean, but not here. How did Sam Rockwell get mixed in this garbage (though, his performance was probably the most entertaining)? Lonnie's (played by Hector Jimenez, also starred as Jack Black's side-kick in Nacho Libre) mouth is so appallingly big it makes me sick to watch him on the screen. I don't even want to try to extrapolate a moral lesson from this, it's not worth anyone's time to go see. Not for kids, one of central themes revolves around breasts and gonads, not pornographic but plain bad taste.
