Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.

It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used "eyewitness sightings" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the "creature" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.

I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes)

The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.

The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliche, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.

Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.

Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.

If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
'1408' is the latest hodge podge of cheap scare tactics. The kind that might make date-movie styled horror fans occasionally jump in their seat and scream in your ear, but disappoint audiences searching for a little depth and direction.

John Cusak plays a writer who's made a career of writing books describing his experiences of staying in rumored haunted hotels. Despite assurances by patrons and owners that ghosts roam the halls, there is little to make him a real believer in the paranormal. When he learns of the history of Room 1408 at the Overlook Hotel--no wait, I mean, Dolphin Hotel in New York City--he decides it would make the perfect closing chapter to his latest book. But, Samuel L. Jackson, playing the hotel owner, strongly attempts to dissuade his guest with narration of the atrocities that have occurred in theat room since the hotel's opening many years ago. The story is simple and we, as possible skeptics, must sit through Jackson's lengthy foreshadowing ramble.

In other words: be afraid! Be very afraid!

Of course, it would be easy to convince audiences that they've just paid to see an edge-of-the-seat thriller if it didn't take so long to build up to this point. And also, if what followed was a lot more than cheap "boos" that become so frequent and arbitrary that eventually, you might soon expect them. The temperature in the room changes automatically. The walls drip with blood. The fearless writer can't open the door, etc. And after nearly an hour and a half of delivering these to audiences promised big thrills, you might sit and hope that at least you can be wowed by the ending. With suspicions of dream sequences and other derivative time-wasters, even that fails to quell our doubts that before the movie is over, we might finally have something to make the movie a little less than completely forgettable.

Despite grand performances (as always) by Cusak, who essentially is the entire film, most everyone else of note is wasted (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson) in insignificant minor roles. The true mystery here is how this movie received such a high viewer rating. Ballot-stuffing ghosts?