IN: Review: May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.

Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.

The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.

The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.

What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.

And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting.

/hjm
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called "jokes" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I am amazed at how this movie(and most others has a average 5 stars and lower when there are crappy movies averaging 7 to 10 stars on IMDb. The fanboy mentality strikes again. When this movie came out just about everyone slammed it. Even my ex-girlfriend said this movie questionable. Years later I sat down to watch this movie and I found myself enjoying. Even laughing quite a bit. This and The Replacement Killers are the movies that had people labeling the director Antoine Fuqua as the black Michael Bay. I don't see how since most of Fuqua's movies are smarter than anything Michael Bay has came up with. At any rate...

Story: Alvin Sanders(Jamie Foxx) is former convict that is used by a no-nonsense Treasury agent Edgar(David Morse) as a pawn to catch a killer named Bristol(Doug Hutchinson). Alvin's every moves are tracked by a bug implanted in his jaw after an accident. While these agents are after Bristol, Bristol is after the gold bricks that were taken in a heist gone awry.

Jamie Foxx is funny as well as great as Alvin Sanders. Alvin is a fast-talker that is a lot smarter than he lets on. Doug Hutchinson is okay as Bristol. He can be over-the-top sometimes in his John Malkovitchesque demeanor. He was better here than he was as Looney Bin Jim in Punisher: War Zone. David Morse is good as the hard edged treasury agent. Even Mike Epps is funny as Alvin's brother Stevie. Both him and Jamie had some funny moments on screen.

The only flaw of the movie is the some of the attempts at a thriller fall flat. The scenario at the horse race track is way over-the-top but I couldn't look away. The director went all out there so he gets points for that. Plus the bomb scene with the treasury agent tied to a chair while the detonator rests on the door was pretty nifty.

All in all Bait is not a bad movie by a long shot. Its never boring, its always funny and I wasn't checking my watch every minute. That should count for something. Bait is one of the most underrated movies of 2000 period.

PS: to the reviewer that claimed this movie is too violent.... How long have you been living under a rock? I'm pretty sure you've seen the Die Hard series and EVERY movie by Quentin Tarantino. But those movies aren't violent right? Weirdo.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was 'Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in 'Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in 'Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical 'Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative