IN: Review: Like his early masterpiece "The Elephant Man" Lynch proves to his detractors that he can tell a straight, simple story without losing his artistic touch. This is a true story of an elderly retired man (expertly played by Richard Farnsworth) who decides to ride a tractor across a few states to pay a final visit to his estranged brother who now stands at death's door. A beautiful score from Badalamenti, exquisite photography of rural life (love those aerial corn-field shots), and a sly director's hand that reveals man's basic humanity, this is a beautiful slice of life film. Its extremely slow pace may lull some viewers to sleep, but those who stay for along for the ride will be well rewarded in the end.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The past creeps up on a rehab-addict when he reconnects with his ill brother and a former girlfriend after what he hopes was his last stint in detox. "Life's dramas", presented here in the most simplistic way imaginable (not even the writing has any bite or wit). The cast is made up of attractive looking actors smiling glumly at one another, and the music and photography are lugubrious (a couple of the visual effects are laughable, indie-cliche touches that reek of a puny budget). Although written and directed by a man, this was produced by a woman, and I'm not sure but I think this may be a distinct reason why this picture about two men, estranged brothers growing closer, never quite gels, never feels natural or seems lived in. It's an attempt to get inside a male relationship, but the careful, sterile presentation is a cheat. No one's heart is in this, living, breathing, or bleeding this material. "The Perfect Son" is quickly diffused by too many cooks in the kitchen.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: As the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.

While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.

So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.

Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.

I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Let me start by stating that I usually do like Renny Harlin's directing style, for the most part, and that the cinematographer should be commended for some the shots. Unlike Harlin's "Elm Street 4", and "Die Hard 2" which I really liked, there is something that is missing from this movie. That, my friends, is a script. The dialogue in movies like this is always pretty awful, but this one takes the gold medal for stupidity. There are so many awful lines in this movie, I don't even want to have to remember any of them. Not just that but the execution of the lines is pathetic and seems more suited toward a bad porn movie than an action adventure. It's almost like Harlin thought that if they slowed down the words being said, they could improve the script. Wrong again.

The sad part is that there is some talented actors thrown into bad roles with worse dialogue. Stallone has never been a favorite of mine, but when he is acting circles around Lithgow, Turner, and the worst of the bunch Rooker, there is something wrong with this picture. Lithgow played one of the best villains in "Ricochet", yet comes across as someone who can't act to save his life here. How is that possible? I've always been a huge fan of his and he gets schooled in acting by Stallone, who himself still phoned-in his performance. Turner's part is so small and pointless, but she still manages to appear lost on screen. Michael Rooker CAN act. I know this because I have witnessed it in "Days of Thunder", but he seems like he is READING his lines from cue cards. Has it come to this? When Rooker and Lithgow have scenes together where they are speaking, I just wanted the movie to end right there, or have them both amazingly find their acting ability. Unfortunately, neither of those things occurred.

Which brings me back to Harlin, who can be the only one to really blame for this mess other than the screenwriters. It's his fault that I was never drawn into this movie at all, because he should have made the people actually act. The script is not very good, but still the actors' performances are what destroys this movie and that has to lie with the director. I don't care how much was paid for the special effects, which for the most part are good, you still can't just sacrifice the movie with terrible acting.

Plus, the pacing of this movie seems to be off. The opening sequence was good and the plane scene was very well done, but how are you supposed to care about the outcome of the heist at all. I mean I understand that they were trying to create tension with all of the bells and whistles of the plane scene, but I really didn't care if they got the money or not in that scene. If the bad guy's would have won early, maybe I wouldn't have had to witness one of the worst movies ever!
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative