Maybe I'll love it the next time but this time it seemed to go a little long. It really is the total package with a great Devil and Daniel Webster type of story, and outstanding performances, visuals, and music.
Exploitation job, it had a few good things going for it, mainly the 2 actresses who are sisters (in real life). Story gets along at a decent pace, and, I'm gonna be honest, the nudity made it and isn't badly done. 6/10
Rachel Rachel - 7.5/10
I saw this before, just wanted to watch something. I chose this because I liked Rachel, and I loved her narration.
...
I agree. Rachel, Rachel (1968) was a superb movie, whose theme and story were unusual for its time. Joanne Woodward was perfect for the part, and her portrayal got her an Oscar nomination.
It was a simple but psychologically revealing film with an uplifting ending, which they don't make many of today.
6/10.
I lost interest in this series a long time ago (when the Earth was green, there were more kinds of animals than you've ever seen ... Irish Rovers).
I just watch it for the dinosaurs. They still can't figure out that people wouldn't be able to hide 6 feet away from a dinosaur, because the dino's sense of smell is too good for that.
The movie borrows heavily from previous installments in the franchise, particularly the first two movies - moving from homage to lack of original ideas.
I wish this franchise would go extinct.
I'm still amused by MovieBob not only giving this a 3.5/4 but also calling it the best videogame movie ever - as someone who's defended far more than his fair share of videogame movies, even I still think this is ass.
^ Not as bad as I thought it was going to be going by the really negative reviews, still rubbish but not that rubbish...
[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it
This one was a hard one to grade...I didn't particularly like the way the movie was shot from a timelapse standpoint, making it difficult to follow what time period we were in for the boy's life. Also though it's based on a true story, there isn't much of a conclusion (yet). And I don't think I will be rewatching this one any time soon, and it's because the emotional rollercoaster this movie takes you on is too close to reality. There were multiple times where I was smiling to quickly turn to tearing up because of the momentous impact this kid was having on his own and other's lives. The acting was excellent, though I laughed at Carell a time or two when he was trying to be serious because it reminds me too much of his more comedic roles.
Hard one to grade...I have a sibling that has gone through similar experiences though not quite this severe so it touched home a little there....it's hard to watch knowing that there are so many families out there going through this for real, largely unnoticed....
This is like a rated R Lifetime movie with a side of horror. It's not a comedy but yet it's very funny. Campy but not too campy, with a couple of very entertaining performances, it also features a young Bill Paxton. It was one of the video nasties which I would say was unwarranted. It's a fun watch. Dumb title though.