It seems like whenever I review one movie, just one movie, I am compelled to review a hundred more.

With my seventeenth birthday coming up in a handful of months, I'll be able to see a wider range of movies. I can legally get myself into R Rated movies at the theaters, and my parents will allow me to see a few movies I've been wanting to see...At least, that's how it's supposed to happen. To be honest, I might as well just be seventeen right now. My parents are already easing their chokehold on what movies I can and can't see. Every time they turn around I'm watching another violent movie. They've become so used to me seeing violence in movies that it scarcely bothers them anymore. If a movie is Rated R for violence, they'll let me watch it, because I've probably seen worse anyhow. Drugs are a nonfactor because I know better than to drink or smoke at this age (or any age, really). Language is a bit of a sore spot, but they're willing to make exceptions for certain movies (such as the one this Review is about). Sex...Well, that is indeed the final frontier. I think if I'm allowed to see three of the four things that up a movie's Rating, I might as well just be allowed to see the last one. But my parents are still a little sketchy on that one. I'm not too bitter about it; they'll make exceptions even then, and I should be glad I'm allowed to watch R Rated movies at all; there are certain PG movies my cousins aren't allowed to see.

When my father offered to let me watch The Blair Witch Project, I happily accepted. Society today comes down hard on modern Horror movies, and despite the pessimistic view of them, it seems like The Blair Witch Project is one of the few that is unanimously loved. I've heard a lot about it and wanted badly to see it. My father noted that the language is pretty heavy in this movie, and I just blew it off with the usual, "I've heard worse." To be honest, though, the language is rather heavy in this movie. High School is a pretty verbose place in this day and age, but even so, there is a lot of swearing in this film. It doesn't bother me at all, obviously; I've learned long ago that this is how most of the world talks and there's nothing offensive about it unless you choose to be offended by it. The constant swearing adds to the realism of the movie, though, and I certainly can't complain about that, since that is the gimmick of the movie.

I actually watched this movie the first time around with a friend. A friend who is easily scared and more oriented toward dramedies. I mentioned this movie in passing to her and noted my anticipation towards it, and she seemed...drawn in. She asked if she could watch it with me, and I agreed, even though I heard that this was one of the scariest movies of all time. I like watching movies with my friends, though. It's fun to have someone to laugh, cry, and scream with, as well as someone to discuss the movie with after the credits roll. She was a little more talkative than I might have liked while watching it, but we both were entranced by it, and by the end, we were in agreement that this was a great movie.

What makes it so great? Well, the cinematography is a big factor of it. But it's what the cinematography does for the movie that makes it such an important part. It makes it nightmarishly real. There's something very close to home about this movie. These are ordinary woods and ordinary people with ordinary personalities and ordinary fears. And then there's the Blair Witch. We're watching it terrorize these filmmakers at a much closer range than with most Horror movies. It's honestly like we're right there beside them as the Witch closes in and teases them with its rituals. The movie preys heartily on the fear of the unknown that most people suffer from. We have absolutely no idea what the Witch wants or how it's doing what it does. All we see is that it has something sinister in mind and it's taking its dear sweet time getting it done. The tension is almost unbearable, and you fear sundown as much as the protagonists do.

I quite enjoyed the protagonists. Horror movies have a knack for turning you against their main characters or something, because for a Genre that relies so much on you hoping for the survival of its main characters, most of the movies do a terrible job of making you connect with the characters. These people, though, they act like people you might know. Friends of yours, or maybe cousins. Maybe even siblings. They act very realistically with their dialogue, thought processes, and decisions. Everything they do is something you can see you or someone you know doing. The Blair Witch Project is crafty like that; it tricks you into wanting them to survive, I guess you might say. Truth be told, only Heather really establishes herself as likeable in this movie. Josh is an alright guy but he downright verbally assaults Heather at one point, and fairly brutally as well. Mike is just irritable, and although he seems like a fun guy when he's in a good mood, his temper is quick to rise and he acts rashly and sometimes frightfully when he's angry. For all their character flaws, though, they're a group of frightened and lost young adults you just want to survive. It may be because you want them themselves to live, or it may be because you just don't want the horrifyingly evil Blair Witch to win, but the movie has you cheering for its main characters in one way or another. This shouldn't be such a challenge for Horror movies, but since it apparently has become one, The Blair Witch Project passed its first test.

Then there's the scare tactics it uses. This is a big part of any Horror movie, since the whole point of them is to scare you out of your mind. The Blair Witch Project has a very minimalistic approach to fear that is reminiscent of Jaws, Alien, and The Shining (which just so happen to be some of the bigger influences on the filmmakers who made this movie. I applaud them for learning from such great movies.). I have nothing against gore, really, but there's just something more frightening about the unknown than the known. This movie confounds you and makes no sense at all, and that's why it's so terrifying. The sticks and stones have a purpose; you can see it in their precision and their careful set-up. But what is it? What's so important about these relics of the Blair Witch? You know there's a reason, but you're left out in the dark. You're seeing them just as the characters in the movie are; no dramatic irony, no hint-hint-nudge-nudge that most Horror movies give you. To me and many others, that is a truly frightening prospect, and The Blair Witch Project exploits that primitive fear extensively.

Forget a 9. After reading over what I've just written and replaying this movie in my mind, it truly does deserve a 10. As a Horror movie and just as a movie in general, it is a potent success. Character, plot, and imagery are all topnotch here. The images in this movie are so raw and blood-chilling that they're scarier than they would be even with proper camerawork. You can see the low budget in the movie, but it doesn't matter at all. The effects are next to nonexistent, and it works so much better for that. This movie keeps you guessing right up until the end, and at the end, when you're really anticipating a full explanation and a reason to stop being afraid of the Witch, all it does is clarify things a small bit and give you even more reason to be afraid of this monstrosity. I can't name anything this movie honestly did wrong. Length is no problem; it works perfectly at the length it is, even if it is shorter than most movies. It feels like forever when you're watching it, to be honest. It's a total nightmare. I've grown past the age where I look fearfully over my shoulder for monsters I've seen in movies, but I was pretty scared while I was watching this movie. If I was in any way vulnerable to scary movies anymore, this would definitely scare me to death. It's masterfully made and manipulative without being pushy, and it's truly just an amazing movie. My friend, afraid of her own shadow, enjoyed this movie, so I therefore recommend it to anyone who knows a good movie when they see one, Horror fan or not. The Blair Witch Project will not disappoint.

It's not that I don't enjoy reviewing movies, and I certainly haven't stopped enjoying them. It's more that I just haven't always got the time to give reviews to movies when so much else is going on. It's been since August since I reviewed a movie, and here I am, at the end of October, reviewing a movie I watched over a month ago. The significance of it is that it's a James Bond movie, which I am somewhat obligated to review. Seeing as it's such a huge series, it helps me to record my thoughts on each individual film so I don't forget what I thought of it later on. This is true for all movies, really, but after a while, the James Bond movies begin to blur together slightly.

Well, first off, I guess I should tackle that claim of On Her Majesty's Secret Service being the best Bond movie ever. That's what this one is famous for, after all (that and the ski chase scene.). To be honest, I see no validity in that claim at all unless you really value character development above all else. Because that's where the movie shines; both James Bond and his Bond girl, for the first time, genuinely tug our heartstrings in this movie. That's the only really outstanding thing about this movie, though, and it's the reason I'm giving it a Fresh rating.

I don't really believe that it's enough to make up for the messy plotline, though. I put a great deal of stock in character, but a decent plot is something I've come to expect from James Bond movies. So far, only Thunderball has really underwhelmed me as a James Bond feature, and even then I commend it for having a very sneaky and clever plot. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, though, made no real sense to me. It may have been that I was rather sleepy when I watched the movie, but it didn't make a lick of sense to me until I looked back on it in retrospect. And even then, there were all kinds of subplots that never really went anywhere (what on Earth was going on with that blonde guy who kept following Bond? He was focused on enough to catch my attention but not enough to warrant his existence). In the end, I just kept my mind on the relationship between Tracy and James.

Tracy made a great Bond girl because of her bullheadedness and...realism, to be honest. However enjoyable it was to watch the prior Bond girls, they all seemed like caricatures of women instead of real women (with the possible exception of Tania from From Russia With Love.). On Her Majesty's Secret Service was really good at capturing the intricacies of the human mind, and Tracy seemed a lot more like a real person than any of her predecessors. I wouldn't have held that against the film if it hadn't been so good at it, but it was a nice perk when I was expecting just another Bond girl.

George Lazenby takes the reins for a brief moment as James Bond, replacing the suave Sean Connery. Although he actually does a laudable job of emulating Connery, George Lazenby just lacks whatever it was that Sean Connery brought to the screen (maybe it was maturity. There are several shots that make Lazenby look weirdly like a schoolboy...). I've yet to see any later films in the series, so I guess I can't complain too loudly about Lazenby; I know a lot of people hated Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. But for now, when all I have to compare Lazenby to is Connery, I'd definitely take Connery. Though I did enjoy the slight fracture of the fourth wall at the beginning of the film ("This never happened to that other fellow"). Couldn't help but chuckle at that, however dumb it was.

Donald Pleasance also didn't return to reclaim his role from the last film, unfortunately. Even moreso than Sean Connery for Bond, I think Donald Pleasance was absolutely the best choice for Ernst Stavro Blofeld. There's nothing especially wrong with Pleasance's replacement, Telly Savalas, but it's the same concept as the whole Connery/Lazenby split. The latter fits their role fine, but there's just something about the former that suits the character perfectly. It's easier to pinpoint with Donald Pleasance; his famous detached stare gives Blofeld an air of menace that Savalas couldn't quite manage.

The introduction of marriage was a pleasantly surprising choice. The relationship between Tracy and Bond struck me as particularly strong throughout the movie, and I was rather glad it culminated in marriage. One thing I never exactly liked about the franchise was how each Bond girl was eliminated from the storyline after the movie she debuted in. It makes it difficult to care about them if they're just going to be gone in the next movie anyhow. Of course, Tracy doesn't exactly fare well in this movie, but we were at least given the illusion that she would become a major character due to her tenderhearted romance with Bond. Although the ending is quite tragic and I would rather Tracy had made it, I wouldn't change a thing about it (However, the inclusion of the Bond theme after the last scene was pretty bad idea. It didn't bother me as much as it seems to bother most people, but even I can admit it was out of place.).

I sort of feel like rewatching this movie completely alert, because I feel like I've missed out on something. I've yet to be sincerely let down by a James Bond movie; each and every one of them has been entertaining in one way or another. So why is On Her Majesty's Secret Service considered the magnum opus of the series by many? Even in my somnolence, I didn't much care for the elaborate plot structure. I've stayed awake through movies when I was tired before if I wanted to, and although I did for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, I felt like sleeping most of the way through. The romantic subplot was the best yet, no doubt about it, but nothing else about the movie really ingrained itself in my head, and no matter how good the characters in this movie were, I don't think anything over a 7 would be justified. A 7 is feasible, but I really just didn't enjoy this movie all that much. It was a mediocre movie with some impressive parts, and those parts are only just enough to get me to like it and not dislike it. It wasn't a trainwreck or anything, and I'd recommend it to other folks on the basis that they'd probably enjoy it more than I did, but I can't say I was impressed with what I have long been told is the best movie of the series.

There are some movies where the MPAA Rating really doesn't matter. I mean, this movie is Rated R for a reason, but I was allowed to watch it anyway. The reason is because this is Saving Private Ryan, one of Spielberg's greatest films and one of the best movies in the last decade. It's still a bit of an accomplishment on my part whenever I'm able to watch an R Rated movie, and what better R Rated movie to entertain myself in the dull month of August than Saving Private Ryan?

The first time I saw the movie, it was a few hours in as one of the soldiers was dying. I didn't want to start watching from there, as I would miss vital character background and plot details if I did. The second time I watching it with my sister. I convinced her to watch it with me, since this is Saving Private Ryan and you can't not see this movie. My sister is pretty smart, but I guess she isn't quite as into movies as I am, so she missed a lot of plot points throughout the movie and I had to explain it all to her. Keep in mind that this was my first viewing of the movie as well, and I was missing out on it just as much as she was by explaining it away to her. It was worth it; she does need to see this movie at some point in her life and better sooner than later. But I felt that I had missed a lot; I never really got to know any of the characters besides John Miller and James Ryan. The soldiers were dying and I didn't even know who they were...I felt robbed, basically. So I rewatched it.

And this time, the movie really sank in. Now those nameless faces who were dying in combat weren't nameless faces. I understood the conflicts between them and I understood better who was blowing what up against whom for what reason. And it's much more satisfying seeing the movie in that way, because the whole point of the movie was to humanize the violent murderous war machines that we call soldiers, to show us that they're men just like us. I'm glad I took the chance to rewatch it; yeah I know the rough plot outline and yeah I knew how it ended, but that's hardly the point. The end of the movie is a heartbreaking one, but it doesn't mean a thing unless you've really been following the story the whole way through.

I agree with most people in that the D-Day invasion scene was the best battle in the movie and although all subsequent battles were impressive and gripping, nothing really tops the opening scene of the movie. It really is incredible, and it tells you quite bluntly how much courage it takes to be one of those soldiers riding in boats and just waiting to be shot down at any moment. Seeing Miller and his comrades struggle through the barrage of bullets as men lay mutilated around them definitely set the tone for the movie and I'm glad they began with this scene. All they really needed to do was show Sean Ryan's dead body and the movie could have moved on, but they encompassed that scene with a big elaborate set-up that worked brilliantly instead. And I'm glad for it, obviously.

My favorite scene, though, is probably where Giovanni Ribisi's character (never could tell if it was Wayne or Wade; the constant gunfire drowned out the crucial consonant) is rewriting Vin Diesel's (I must look like an idiot. I did hear his name, actually, I'm just not sure how you spell it. Capperzo? Capurso? No clue) character's letter. That scene came out of nowhere and it was honestly fantastic. Mike and John are just laughing about the weird kid they were discussing, and then there's Giovanni Ribisi who looks up once and continues to rewrite the bloodsoaked letter that Vin Diesel meant to give his father. That small display of camaraderie really tugged my heartstrings, even though it was such a short scene. Think of Anton Ego's flashback at the end of Ratatouille. The same technique was applied here; one scene perfectly characterizing a previously unimpressive character.

Runner-up would be the scene where the rain starts pouring down as the bullets start flying. There's a little puddle of water, and at first it's undisturbed. At first one drop hits it, then two, then five, then twenty, then hundreds, and the gunfire intensifies in unison with the falling rain. It was clever and unexpected and it made me laugh.

The use of indirect characterization in this movie made me a bit more appreciative of it. Tom Hanks's character, John Miller, is pretty silent and reserved for most of the movie. His distant personality evidently left a mark on his comrades, because they've taken to betting on who will be able to obtain some tidbit of information on him; where he lives, where he was born, what he does for a living. They assume he is some sort of hero in real life too, but after one rather intense scene that threatened to dissolve the whole company, Spielberg uses an anticlimax more effectively than I can remember one being used in recent memory. Miller reveals his past, and it's not at all what they were expecting. This is payoff for the mild anticipation built up over the film, and it's also the moment when John is humanized just like the rest of the soldiers were. Most protagonists get developed early on and keep developing as the movie goes on, but Spielberg holds off his character-defining moment for a long time and works superbly.

The real surprise about the film is that the most dynamic character isn't Private Ryan or John Miller. It's Upham, the rather weak and cowardly soldier that Miller brings along as an interpreter. Miller develops slowly and gradually, Ryan develops a lot near the end, but Upham is one of the central characters in the story and he is constantly being developed. That's just another thing on a big long list of things this movie did right. By developing two major characters at appropriate points and also developing a supporting character constantly, the movie gives you a lot of protagonists to root for the whole way through.

Also, this movie is framed in the same way Titanic is. Saving Private Ryan begins and ends in the present, and the story in the middle is told in a big flashback. It worked for Titanic, and it works equally well for Saving Private Ryan. The movie could easily have ended with a conclusion to the battle over the bridge, but I think I and a lot of others would feel a little robbed. Seeing the main character in the present reliving the sacrifices made in that war is a fantastic way to end a movie that focuses strongly on character, and although this method seems to annoy some people, I think it works really really well when it's done right. And so far I've not seen it done wrong, so I'll continue to support framing as long as it adds that essential extra dimension to a movie, as it did with Titanic and Saving Private Ryan.

Well, I don't really have anything but glowing praise for this movie. My sister thinks it was a pretty good movie, but was bothered by the sometimes almost inaudible dialogue and the constant use of military terms. I admit, I'm no more familiar with military terms than she is, so they confused me as well. And the dialogue can be hard to hear at times. If there's not things blowing up and drowning out the words, then the men are mumbling and whispering, which can be equally difficult to hear. But aside from those minor flaws, I don't really have anything negative to say about this movie. For a movie that aims to be so many things to so many people, it doesn't stumble or fall flat at any point. Apart from being a surprisingly realistic depiction of war, it's also a surprisingly realistic depiction of those who participate in it. I've not yet met a person who openly hated this movie, or even disliked it. For a while I wondered how a movie could be so universally appealing, but having seen Saving Private Ryan at long last, I understand now. It's just a really great movie.

For a while, I was unaware that a movie adaptation of The Grapes of Wrath existed. I knew it was a famous and much loved book, but I guess it never occurred to me that someone might adapt it onscreen. But then came AFI's new Top 100 Movies List, and I saw The Grapes of Wrath on there. Initially I was shocked and pleased, and then I thought rather sheepishly to myself, "Should've guessed." After discovering the movie, the obvious thing to do would be to put it on Netflix immediately. I checked my parents' movie collection, since The Grapes of Wrath seemed like a movie they might already own. They didn't, so I Netflixed it.

Even my mother was surprised at how early the movie was made (1940). She had guessed 1960, and was shocked to see it in black and white. I never checked the year it was made, meaning I was fairly surprised too. But unlike my sister, movies don't have an age limit with me. I'll watch any black and white movie as long as it's worth watching.

...I'm still trying to decide on how to mark this movie, actually. I do indeed believe it's awesome, but I can't tell if that's because it was based on an already awesome story or if the movie itself is just great. The movie does follow the book rather faithfully; I haven't read the book in a long while, but I could still see that the events were taking place almost exactly as they had in the book. I suppose you can't take too many chances when adapting something already considered a masterpiece, though.

As it is whenever you see a book you've read onscreen, you are shocked by how your interpretation of the characters is much different than the movie's. The same was true here: Ma was more corpulent than I had imagined, Grandma was frailer in my mind's eye, and Grandpa was a lot younger. And then, of course, Rosasharn's name was different from what I had always thought it was. ROH-zuh-sharn was how I always read it ('sharn' as in 'sharp'). I knew it meant Rose of Sharon, but it never occurred to me that they pronounced it ROH-zuh-shaarn (shaarn as in 'share'). I makes a lot more sense, now I think of it.

There was some great acting in this movie. Tom Joad was pretty good throughout, Pa stood out whenever he had a scene for himself, Grandpa was hilarious in his short time onscreen, and Ma was simply fantastic the whole way through. Casey was also exactly as I had depicted him in my head, and he did a fine job acting. The exchange between Ma and Tom at the very end was brilliant, better, even, than the book it came from. Ma has a very motherly disposition. Although she can be forceful when she needs to be, she has a very worried tone and face most of the time, which fit perfectly when Tom decided it was time for him to go. And Henry Fonda (Tom) was a great actor (and he looks a lot like Willem Dafoe. Anyone else notice that?), so his performance was just as good as Ma's.

It takes a bit of time to get used to the prices of things back then. Five cents for a bucket of peaches? That sounds like a horrible ripoff in this day and age, but back then, I guess five cents went a really long way. A red flag went up, though, when the waitress in the restaurant claimed that the candy canes were two for a penny. That seemed like a lot of value for one penny even considering the time the movie took place in. But then the guy tells her off for selling the candies for less than they're worth, and I appreciated the scene anew. Especially since the waitress seemed so stone-hearted just a few moments ago.

I love the humanity of this story. There are so many random acts of kindness in it, and it really shows how kind people can be at times. The aforementioned candy scene was one of them, and there were multiple others along the same lines. The man tipping the Joads off about the upcoming riot. The kindly owner of the camp where there was running water and dance nights. The cops letting the Joads pass because of Grandma. It all shows how hard times were, and how everyone knew what everyone was going through. That can bring out the best and the worst in people. For the owners of the peaches and oranges, it definitely brought out the worst. But for the common folk, they all had great sympathy for one another. Which is what makes this sad tale slightly heartwarming as well.

I'm not entirely sure why they never showed Rosasharn giving birth. She seemed pretty close to delivering at the movie's end, relying on the others to transport her where she needed to go. Perhaps the filmmakers didn't think it was too central to the plot, and decided to end it with Ma's nice little speech. Or, maybe they just didn't know how to handle the miscarriage onscreen. Maybe they didn't have the technology to produce a miscarried baby. I don't know. I thought it was a pretty good way to end the novel, but the movie's ending seems...more proper, I guess you might say. Ma acknowledging the hardship of the weeks passed while still not giving up hope is a fitting end to this tale.

I guess I can't help but to give this movie a 10. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it, as much as I enjoyed reading Steinbeck's novel of the same name. Some people found it dull, since it takes place in an area where so little happens and the people deal with issues we can't even imagine today. I never once found it boring, though. The characters in the book (and movie, by extension) are all superbly written, and they tie the story together. The plotline could be rather boring if it weren't for the family that was experiencing it. That was what made Steinbeck's book so good; he gave names and faces to those thousands of nameless migrants looking for work, and brought them to our attention by doing so. I suppose this perfect 10 is more for the book that Steinbeck gave to the world more than the movie, but the movie captures the magic of the book about as perfectly as I could ask for, and I think it deserves a 10 just as much as the book does.

My friends seem pretty evenly split on this movie. Half of them thought it was one of the funniest movies they've ever seen, half of them couldn't hate it any more than they already do. Quite a divide there; that's a rift I don't often see. The last time I heard that sort of argument was over Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 (because everyone likes the first one, and rightfully so). But although my friends had such strong opinions about this movie, I was pretty sure what my opinion of it would be. The fact that Adam Sandler was the star of this movie was a surefire guarantee that it would be awful. Not necessarily because of Adam Sandler, but because I've come to associate him as the go-to guy for studios when they want to make a horrendous, unfunny comedy that no one else in their right mind would be caught dead in. Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy raise a similar red flag in my mind. But as an unofficial critic, it's my job to watch movies and rate them, and as a friend, it's my duty to know what my friends are talking about so I can join in. Which is how I got stuck watching this movie.

I group Click in with a group of equally unfunny and frightfully colorful movies that I like to call Mid-'06 movies. Think RV and Pirates of the Caribbean 2. This is basically the group of movies that the Starz Channel seems to be promoting, for whatever idiotic reason, and that's where I found Click. I would never sink so low as to pollute my family's Netflix list with this movie, so I decided I'd use Starz the only way it should be used; to catch up on movies your average teenager has already seen in theaters but you deemed unworthy of wasting nine dollars on (or to catch the odd hit movie that teenagers somehow liked and was also rather good (The Prestige, Cars, The Illusionist, Monster House), but that's more of a rarity. Starz much prefers lousy comedies undeserving of their attention). I've seen bits and pieces of Click before I saw the whole thing, but even though I knew I wasn't missing anything except a couple of tepid gags, I wanted to see it start to finish.

What did I miss? Not much; just a bunch of whiny children and their equally whiny neighbor, a little backstory on the Janine character, and some more stuffed duck raping (seriously, the producers must have laughed themselves witless at this gag, because they shove it into the movie at the most inappropriate and random times. Thing is, it stopped being funny before it ever started being funny.). I also saw the scene of my friends was open-mouthed at right away; where Michael (Sandler) insults his kids architectural designs. Michael encourages them to come up with some designs for a house, and then when they do, he just laughs at them and (verbally) tears them apart. What kind of father does that to his kids? Even for a generation of teenagers that idolizes Adam Sandler, how is that funny? "Ha ha Adam Sandler is insulting his own children!"? I don't think I get it any more than my friend did.

Kate Beckinsale sure is out of her element here. There are no supernatural monsters to slay here. Her biggest opponent in this movie is her own husband. And I quite agree with Christopher Walken (or Morty, as he's called in this movie); how on Earth did a morally sound woman like Donna (Beckinsale) end up marrying someone as loathesome and unlikeable as Michael Newman? There is truly nothing to like about the guy. Even if you disregard the fact that he's being played by Adam Sandler and judge off his behavior in this movie alone, what on Earth could have possessed Donna to marry someone like him when there are decent men about? I'm not jealous or anything; I'm just dubious. I guess the producers just felt like they should give Michael a wife that scores points with the teenaged boys who would like this sort of movie.

Let's take a look at some of the movie's worst failed gags:

First off, we have Ben, Michael's son, proclaim, "Are you shitting me?!" when Mr. Newman Senior (Henry Winkler) does a magic trick for Ben and his sister. The funny part of this is that a child is using adult words! Well, sorry Click, you're maybe a decade or so too late. Back in the 90's this may have actually shocked someone. In this day and age, though, I hear worse words from even younger kids. Unless Click was trying to satirize modern culture or something, but that seems a little too ambitious for a movie that features:

Kids who mature so remarkably quickly that it takes little more than a year for them to mature from Dragon Tales into CSI. Again, if you're really forgiving towards this movie, you could view this as satire. Personally, I see it as more of a "Ha ha those kids are saying funny things that a kid that age wouldn't normally say!" sort of joke, which...isn't all that funny. There was a time when this could be pulled off properly; anyone remember Peter Graves's hilariously pedophilic inquiries from Airplane!? Now that was a clever way of surprising the audience; those questions were really really out of character for a guy like Peter Graves to ask, and the audience picked up on it. This gag is just insulting, though, because all you really need to know to get it is that kids like kid shows when they're kids, which goes without saying.

The dog having sex with the stuffed duck. This gag appears literally seven times or more in the movie, and each time there's a spin on it which is obviously supposed to suggest a funny gag getting funnier each time. The grand finale for this winning gag is two dogs, not one, exercising their genitals on the duck. This is another joke that I feel partially insulted by just because the filmmakers actually believe this would make me laugh. I suppose this must look absolutely hilarious to those kids who laugh whenever they hear the word 'sperm', but for anyone who isn't a frat-boy or a comedy-starved teenager, this is a pretty pathetic attempt at roping laughs out of an audience.

At one point in the movie we have Michael exploring all the possibilities of a normal DVD, but applied to his own life. One of them is Commentary. This leads to James Earl Jones narrating the more mundane aspects of Michael's life with his deep and impressive voice. Well, no premise can go untouched, so the Commentary was brought back for no real reason (Michael never presssed the Commentary option when it returned. It was brought back for cheap laughs only.). As James Earl Jones continued to narrate Michael's life, Michael yells back, "Shut up, James Earl Jones!" James Earl Jones's response is, "No, YOU shut up, bigmouth!" So much is wrong with this exchange that I literally cringed at it, no exaggerations. First of all, I ironically just found out who James Earl Jones is, having watched him act in The Great White Hope. For a pretty good and dignified actor, seeing him involved in this movie is just depressing. Second, the rupture of the fourth wall has been done and overdone so many times that it's not anywhere close to being funny in Click. And lastly, the exchange itself. "No, YOU -do whatever-" is a comeback second only to "Your mom" in terms of age. And then there was the unnecessary addition of the word 'bigmouth' just so that, in case we had any doubts, we are absolutely certain that James Earl Jones is, indeed, insulting Michael.

For its appallingly bad sense of humor and failure to make me smile even once, this movie ought to earn a 0. The problem? It ends up being passable against its own will, tossing in a few seconds of genuine sadness. The problem there, though, is that it's Adam Sandler bidding his father a touching farewell that his father will never hear, and it's Adam Sandler who is dying in a rain-drenched street as his children and wife cry. This would probably break my heart in any other movie starring any other actor. My father is alive and well, but that doesn't mean I'm unaffected when characters lose parents. I don't have to experience it to guess how awful it must feel. But it's Adam Sandler, playing a character so unlikeable you're glad for the family when they're rid of him. The morality lesson is a trite and unoriginal one, however true it may be: Family is the always the most important thing. True enough, but other movies have done that message better and I saw it coming a mile off. I ignored the moral. But the loss-of-a-father subplot was almost a separate part of the film (it's connected because, of course, fathers are a part of your family.), and I was very nearly touched by the emotion there. Shame Adam Sandler had to ruin the moment for me; any other movie and those scenes would have earned it an extra star or two...Well, actually, that's what I'm giving Click. An extra two stars. Just because it had its heart in the right place after all, making a commendable attempt to evoke pathos in its audience. But even despite its earnest enough attempt, I don't know if I could live with myself if I gave it any higher than a 2, just because the comedy was some of the worst I've seen in a long while. Nice try, Click, but no cigar.

Viewing this movie in full turned out to be a much harder task than you would think and much more than I expected. Initially this was part of a Sean Connery package on OnDemand, coupled with the first four films. I saw the first four, but I got cut off right before the third act with You Only Live Twice. No matter, though, I have Netflix for movies I want to see. I put down You Only Live Twice and waited for its delivery. It came with Lawrence of Arabia, and the two movies...ended up showing up right before a family vacation. I took both movies and only ended up watching the former; somehow I forgot to watch You Only Live Twice. So when I came home I realized how long it had been in my possession and decided it was time to watch it after I got resettled in my home. So I started watching it, and then 1/4 of the way in my friends called me over. The movie wasn't going anywhere, so I accepted. But I was laughing to myself the whole time, wondering if I'd ever get the opportunity to actually watch the movie. That opportunity came today, and after nearly two months of unfavorable circumstances, I finally sat down and watched the whole thing.

The opening scene had me hooked. I always had a mild interest in space, but it was the abduction of the spaceship that caught my attention. Apart from it being the precursor to a cool plotline, the fact that the abductor left Chris floating in space was just eerie. Being abandoned in space is one of the worst ways to die, I'd imagine. And then, right after that brilliant opening shot, we have James Bond being shot to death! Quite the one-two punch. I still don't completely understand how he survived that; I can only assume that the bullets were non-lethal (if that's even possible, which I doubt). He does survive, though, and his apparent death serves as a good cover for him for a good part of the movie.

Mr. Henderson seemed like he would end up being a recurring character throughout the film. He was quite knowledgable of Japan and he seemed friendly to James Bond when they met. But then, while Henderson is explaining what's going on and why he suspects it's going on in Japan, he's murdered by a knife in the back. That came absolutely out of nowhere, and while it greatly advanced the plot, I was amazed for a few seconds. Following that is the death of Helga Brandt, who also seemed as though she'd be an important character later on. As Number 11 in SPECTRE's pecking order, she seemed a little too important to kill off. Guess not (though should I be surprised? If Number 2 could be defeated and killed, why should Number 11 fare any better?). And lastly, James's friend and soon-to-be Bond girl is murdered in her sleep by a ninja. That's what I like about this movie in particular. There are surprises coming at you left and right, which gives the movie an air of unpredictability and leaving you unsure of what will happen.

I was doubly excited to see the climax today, having been denied it multiple times. And what a climax it was. I was impressed by the giant underwater brawl in Thunderball, but this finale was even better. With Bond captured and held captive in the crater, the ninjas being shot down by the protective guns, and the US and USSR on the brink of war, the situation sure seemed grim. But then Bond managed to outsmart his captors for a few seconds, long enough for him to open up the crater for the ninjas. After his sly maneuver, the ninjas storm the base and slowly but surely conquer it. Although all the scene consists of is grenades exploding, bodies flying, and guns firing, it's an impressive scene.

And so Number 1 is finally revealed. I chose not to look him up on the Internet prior to his revelation, but I somehow learned that he would be unveiled in this movie. And indeed he is. That ruined the surprise, but it was still a cool moment, seeing the man so determined to kill Bond. Immediately I saw where the inspiration for Dr. Evil had come from (I already guessed when I noticed Number 1 pets a cat the same way Dr. Evil does, but the resemblance was a bit more striking than I had guessed). Donald Pleasance has quite an evil stare, a stare only made creepier with his scar twisting the shape of his eye socket. He's certainly an effective villain, and about the best one the Austin Power series could have based Dr. Evil on.

Everyone remembers Oddjob from Goldfinger. He was the silent assassin who was invulnerable to Bond's best moves and was lethally strong. Well, we get a bit of a retread in this movie. Number 1 has an assistant named Hans, a tall blonde man who never speaks and carries out his orders without question. After the base is taken and Number 1 narrowly escapes, Bond finds Hans above the pit of piranhas. After seeing the awesome fight between Oddjob and Bond, I was rather curious what this clash would yield. Unfortunately, though, we get no insight into Hans's character, nor an especially impressive fight. The fact that Bond can't hurt him is pretty cool, but beyond that, he was little more than another obstacle in Bond's way. Shame; I was hoping he'd be at least as memorable as Oddjob after his inevitable death.

I found it kind of odd that when Bond and Aki were exploring the docks, none of the men who ganged up on them had guns. Oh sure, they had all these fiendish metal tools and menacing faces, but it seems like a simple pistol would be more effective if Bond pulls a Bond and gets away from them all. Eventually he does run into a few gunmen, but for the most part, his attackers are more into melee fighting. I guess a dock wouldn't need to be defended by guns most of the time, but it did strike me as odd, especially since tourists are killed for even seeing the boat. For such high security, it was badly guarded.

I did like Bond's escapades in the Osato building, though. He managed to infiltrate the place by donning the disguise of Henderson's assassin, and feigned an injury to get the driver to take him back to headquarters. With a mask and a hat, the driver had no reason to believe that it wasn't the assassin he was taking back. When they get inside and the man attempts to tend to the assassin's wounds, he pulls off the mask and is greeted with a "Good evening" from a man who is certainly not the one he expected to take back. Bond fights him off with difficulty (this man also seems relatively impregnable...Seems like a running theme, now I think of it. Weird, considering James Bond is a pretty strong guy himself. I guess the bad guys are simply stronger.), and notices a door he accidentally knocked open while fighting. He opens the safe it contains with a nifty little device and takes some stuff out of there, not taking time to look but sure it must be important. Despite the guards rushing toward the alarm he set off, Bond escapes quite cleverly and fairly believably.

...Well, I originally intended to give this movie a 7, but looking back, I see little reason why it shouldn't have as high a score as Goldfinger. My main (and perhaps, only) problem with You Only Live Twice is a lack in character development. I suppose I could attribute that to the characters dropping like flies, but everyone was a static character in this movie, with the possible slight exception of Kissy, who ends up warming up to Bond by the movie's end. Tiger, Bond's friend throughout the film, makes a great protagonist whether or not his personality changes. The movie has definite style, though. It flows seamlessly, whether or not you can keep up with it, and it has some fantastic scenes along the way; Little Nellie's flight/fight with the helicopters is one not to be missed. Along with the intelligent plot and the grand unmasking of SPECTRE's head man, this is a movie to be remembered in the Bond franchise. It's also, unfortunately, one of the last to feature Sean Connery as Bond, so savor it.

I never liked Broadway. I've only in the last year or so come to appreciate movies fully, but I swear I will never get into Broadway. The thing with movies is that there are hits and there are misses and everyone knows it. But on Broadway, pretty much every play they have is thrust upon you as being The Greatest Performance of Our Time!, It Will Have You Laughing All The Way Home!, I've Never Cried So Hard During A Musical!, or whatever praise they feel the play is worth. Broadway does tend produce some pretty good and original stories, but it's the mind-numbing overpowering pretentiousness of it all that drives me crazy. I can't sit through a single play without being suffocated by the smug atmosphere of it all.

Rent is a fantastic example of this. I never saw the play (nor do will I ever want to after watching the movie), but the movie was so satisfied with itself that it bothered me. From the opening scenes where all of the poor folk yell that they don't want to pay rent, I knew this movie would grate on my nerves. I wouldn't want to pay rent either, but there's a (rather obvious) line between not wanting to and actually not doing it, as these people were. That's just freeloading. I don't care how much paying rent 'limits your artistic freedom' or whatever excuse you want to come up with, it's just something you have to do.

Worse yet, though, are most of the characters. I say most because some of them are tolerable, but a lot of them are absolutely loathesome. Maureen is the perfect example. First she dumps Mark (one of the better characters in this movie) for Joanne, and then she just starts flirting with any other woman she can find. Needless to say Joanne is upset by this, and this leads to a rift between the supposed lovers. So at the movie's end when everyone is happy and reunited with their true love (except Mark, the poor guy, who ends up alone), am I supposed to feel happy for Maureen? The heartless flirt who can't commit to anyone? Should I be glad that she, of all people, found true love? Evidently so, but I seriously don't get that.

The same is true for Roger and Mimi. Mimi isn't a bad character or a good character, necessarily, but her romance with Roger is perhaps the best of all of them. Of course, no one can be truly happy until the end of the third act, so there needed to be a reason for Roger to hate Mimi and cause conflict between them. The reason? Mimi sat down with her ex-boyfriend Benny to plead the cause of the stupid bohemians who don't want their little culture destroyed. And Roger lashes out at Mimi for this for no good reason. "I can't believe you talked to another man without my permission! I will hate you forever!" is basically what he said, but obviously you're supposed to take his side because Mimi has a career as a pole dancer and that must make her an unfaithful lustful girlfriend! Logical? Hardly. But of course they make up in the end anyway.

Collins, another decent character in the movie, is also deprived of a happy ending. His partner, a drag queen named Angel, dies of AIDS before the end of the movie. When everyone is celebrating their good fortune and their friendship and the power of love and whatever other happy morals you want to stuff in, the poor guy is just singing along with them as though Angel is at his side too. I'm indifferent to Angel; at times he came across as a little annoying but not on the same scale as Maureen or Roger. But he did provide some decent characterization for Collins, in life and in death. It seemed kind of a shame to kill him off when the loathesome Maureen could have had the same effect and would be a lot less of a loss.

Mark, as the token "generic niceguy protagonist with a monosyllabic name," had little conflict to face during this movie. In the beginning, I thought his plot might be to try and get back together with Maureen. That didn't happen, leaving him rather shafted by the movie's end. Then there was this subplot about him 'selling out' by giving his footage to some mainstream news program (Oh no! Mainstream!! Don't do it Mark, be a non-conformist! You've sold your soul if you cross over to their side of unspeakable unartistic evils!), but that also went nowhere. I suppose his place in the movie is like any other niceguy protagonist; placeholding. He's the bond that ties some of the folks together, so that the characters have excuses to interact with each other. His final product, a movie about his friends laughing and smiling with a few shots of the New York streets thrown in, ends up reuniting all of the reunitable, though (by the way, I got the impression that that was supposed to be a documentary. Well, if my friends made a short clipshow about us, I'd like it, but I don't think a general audience would. I could buy that being a special little product for her friends, but a documentary? Doubtful.).

So what's the message of this movie? 'Be a rebel', probably. And that's why so many smart little teenagers love Rent, I bet. They'd like to think they're that one special flower who could change the world or combat AIDS if people would just let them *~be free*~. There are different degrees of rebellion, though. There's a difference between not doing what your parents tell you to and actually not paying money where money is due. Go ahead and not pay rent all you want, but unlike in this movie, people won't stop and admire your free-flowing youthful spirit. They'll kick you right out of that apartment. Which is what I dislike about this movie. I'm hardly a rule-follower myself, but at least I know how to toe the line and not flamboyantly and unnecessarily dance across it.

I can see why people would enjoy this movie, but I definitely didn't. The reason I'm not giving it a zero, though, is because it doesn't deserve it. Obviously, I didn't like this movie at all, but impartially speaking, it wasn't an absolutely terrible movie. It was just a bad one. There are some decent characters, as I mentioned, and not all of the songs fall flat. I could sympathize with Joanne. Much as Maureen was an abominable and loathesome character, Joanne wasn't. Hotheaded perhaps, but that doesn't equate to a bad character. Mark was tolerable, as was Angel. Collins was borderline cool, and Benny could have had potential if he hadn't been portrayed as The Man trying to bring down the free thinkers (!!!!!). The problem with the movie is that it underperformed but tried to overreach anyway, and it's about 45 minutes too long. After their big outburst about being individuals and non-conformists, the movie could have ended right then and there, but of course a little more misery had to be tossed in so that it could be remedied by the end anyhow. It's not unbearably long, but unnecessarily long. I suppose I'd recommend it to the average viewer with average dreams, but for anyone who's not an 'oppressed' teenager and not a stunted twenty-something, you should probably avoid this movie.

For some reason, I got the impression that this movie was famous when I found it on my OnDemand menu. After checking on RT, I discovered that it wasn't. But I checked back anyhow to see what it was about, since its kill-by date was approaching and I like to see if I should catch any movies that are about to be erased. I decided this one sounded interesting enough, so I thought I may as well watch it. I always sort of did like movies about important people, because I get to learn about well-known people while still be entertained by a movie.

Right away I had doubts, though. I learned from the brief synopsis that this movie was about the attempts to separate Jefferson and his white mistress, since this movie took place in a time where racism was abundant. Obviously the movie's biggest endeavor should be to make the audience care about this problem, hope that Jefferson and his mistress aren't separated. But as I said, I was dubious at first. The two of them seemed kind of distant. They were nice enough to each other, but if it weren't for the occasional kiss here and there, you might not even know that Eleanor Bachman was his mistress. That's no way to establish a romance, and I figured this movie for a dud early on.

But in my opinion, I think it's foolish to dismiss a movie just because of certain misgivings. Or, at least, to stop watching it. I didn't let go of my doubts, I just buried them and continued watching the movie in hopes that it would prove me down. Closing one's mind to a movie straight away is usually an unwise thing to do. Unless you're watching Epic Movie or I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, the movie at least deserves an unbiased viewing. That's my philosophy, anyhow.

And the movie did improve as it progressed. The boxing scenes were fluent and realistic. The romance was actually furthered, much to my surprise. Jack and Eleanor spent time bonding on their own, despite the public disapproval. The dialogue was, for the most part, well done. Jack's one-liners and witty remarks seemed a little too ubiquitous to be believable; hardly anyone is that clever all the time. But the movie was flowing nicely after a somewhat rocky start, and I didn't regret my decision to continue watching.

Of course, it wasn't a masterpiece. If it were, it would be as famous as I had somehow been led to believe. But it had a surprising amount of standout moments.

The opening shot was kind of subtlely clever. All you saw was a fixed-camera view of two men fighting. The camera was placed low, which meant all you could see was their legs, the arena, and the crowd behind them. This shot was pulled off excellently; the crowd was booing angrily as the pair of black legs advanced and the white legs faltered. Eventually the white legs buckled to show the white participant, and the black legs remain standing to a hail of boo's. There's not a lot to the scene, but it's a nice surprise and it was executed well.

The development in character was well done. At first, Jack is barely bothered at all by the opposition from his white audience. He just smiles and lets it bounce off him, even daring to toy with the hateful spectators. It starts to get to him, eventually, though. His confidence begins draining, and he no longer feels so safe goading the white folk. They're really out to get him and his mistress any way they can, and it begins to unnerve him.

Racism can be such a convenient veil to hide behind. It's so easy to evoke sympathy toward a black character, because all it takes is some hateful catcalls and violence to show racism. That sort of thing actually happened, and then it becomes an issue of humanity. The sympathy is sort of forced out of you. Here, though, it's in solitude, away from all the racism, where Jack starts to break down. It's his character that's crumbling here, not his pride in being black or whatever. It's him as an individual person who is despairing in the midst of it all. Now don't get me wrong; I hate racism as much as the next guy. But it's just such an easy card to play in movies, and I was glad to see that they didn't just toss a bunch of offensive words at him and attribute that to his misery.

The fight between Eleanor and Jack was half-and-half. I think the idea behind it was a lot better portrayed than the fight itself. Jane Alexander herself wasn't that good of an actress, and it showed a bit during their last fight. But you could feel their rage and frustration, at the world and at each other, hit its breaking point. They were both spiraling out of control, yelling at each other as both a means of breaking the other down and building themselves up. This isn't a revolutionary way of fighting or anything, mind you. That's how it happens a lot in real life, after all. But that's exactly the point. That battle of wills was pretty realistic.

The climax of the movie was pretty cool as well. Jack is about to accept defeat, bow down before his enemy, when he looks around and sees everyone sneering and chuckling as he lies on the ground at the feet of this giant white man. And he gets up and completely pummels him. His opponent suddenly became an outlet for all of his bitter and resentful emotions. He was like a manifestation of all the hopes of his audiences. He was this thing that they sent into the ring to knock him down once and for all, and I don't think Jack's pride, as a black man and as a human being, would let him accept that. There's no dialogue that expresses this, but you can see it in James Earl Jones's face as surveys the crowd. Great scene.

And then there's the very end. Injured and bleeding, Goldie and Tick support him as he leaves the ring. He talks with a reporter for a little, and then hears the crowd supporting his foe and tells his friends to keep going. The crowd swarms past, holding their champion on their shoulders, yelling and cheering. And as they clamor past, the camera focuses down a hall where Goldie, Tick, and Jack Jefferson are quietly walking away, supported by no one. No dialogue here either, and there was no need for it. The imagery alone sums up everything the movie tried to convey and it ties it up perfectly.

So overall, this is a pretty good movie. Most of the characters you're supposed to like are likeable, and the reverse is true for the antagonists. The reason I'm not rating this higher is the character development. Jack Jefferson was done masterfully here. James Earl Jones was a great actor, and he was a good choice for the most dynamic character in the movie. But the rest of the characters were rather forgettable by the end of the movie. For all the drama in Eleanor Bachman's tale, her story ends rather hollowly. The other characters are all but inconsequential, even Jack's own mother. This story is about Jack, as well it should be, but all of the other characters were ignored to a degree. What you're given right away is what you get for the rest of the movie, and nothing more. The good thing is that all of the characters make a good impression on you right away, but still, that is a pretty glaring flaw, and that's why I can only give this movie a 6.

In my ongoing quest to watch as many movies as possible, you run into a lot of movies like this. Unextraordinary in every degree, but not exactly bad. Personally, I prefer movies over music and video games, three of the biggest forms of media. Video games take far too long to sit through and consequently judge accurately, and songs are just a matter far too subjective to really get into. I like movies for how they nicely blend the subjective and objective aspects of entertainment. Which is why I like them the most. Even so, though, it can be bothersome to sit through movies with nothing technically wrong with them, but at the same time are utterly uninteresting and not really worth the time. Were it not for Sean Connery, an actor I just recently discovered, I don't think this movie, Medicine Man, would have caught my eye at all.

The thing about this movie is that it's simply...acceptable. It has no real redeeming aspects to it, but it's not awful or unbearable either. It's just makes for a somewhat dull hour and a half (give or take). As a critic, I suppose I should be appreciative of the effort that went into all movies that I watch, but I suppose it's inevitable that I start to get jaded after a while. Regardless, I have but one reason to truly denounce this movie. Medicine Man was a fairly solid movie, but it just lacked any compelling reason to watch. Quality isn't necessarily synonymous with innovation. Quality is more what you do with what you have, whether or not that involves reinventing a specific Genre or archetype or whatever. E.g. Titanic. Dissected and looked at blow by blow, it's just a love story like any other, with a unique choice of location. But that's not what made it a good movie, it's what the makers of it did with the plot, characters, and other aspects of it.

Enough raving, though. The one real problem with Medicine Man is simply that the leading female protagonist, Miss Rae Crane, is obnoxious, bullheaded, and has a rather grating whiny voice with a slightly Brooklyn accent. I don't think any sane human being could find Sean Connery annoying, but it's pretty easy to get fed up with this obstinate woman who seems only to exist to impede Connery's research and criticize his way of life. Whenever Mr. Robert Campbell (Connery) tries to share his discoveries and methodology with her, all she does is complain and disapprove. After a while, the two start to get along a little better, but the first half hour or so of the movie could be enough on its own to dissuade someone from watching.

That's my chief complaint. Apart from the fact that, on a grand scale, the movie underachieved, there's nothing really wrong with it. That's what makes viewing, but more so judging, these sorts of movies difficult. I can't really fault them for anything more than not living up to preset expectations. So I suppose all I have left to do is to talk about what I did like about the movie and why anyone should actually consider giving away an hour and a half of their time to watch the movie.

The plot should probably be enough to rope in any indiscriminating movie-goers. If cancer was a problem back in the early 90's, then it's become an even bigger one in the new millenium (or at least a more famous one). Now more than ever, a movie about the cure for it could be potentially interesting to certain viewers. The movie also does a good job at juggling science and character, allowing the two to mingle quite well. The average viewer probably doesn't want to watch an hour and a half of two scientists exchanging theories and formulas, so the moviemakers added in the nonchalant character of Dr. Campbell to contrast with the more serious character of Dr. Crane (or Dr. Bronx, as he calls her). The two often butt heads along the path to the discovery of the cure for cancer, and that's the reason for watching it. And despite the initial persona of Dr. Crane grating on my nerves, she does become a lot more tolerable later on. The segments where she's smashed actually were pretty amusing, and she seems to ease up on Dr. Campbell as the movie progresses.

Dr. Campbell alone was probably the best part of the movie. He had some great lines here and there, and his character was one you can easily sympathize with. To anyone used to James Bond, as I was, it must be quite a shock to see Sean Connery playing a wizened old researcher in the forest. The beard and long, ponytailed hair almost obscures his fairly recognizable face, and his voice has changed noticeably. Some say it's embarassing to see an actor of his caliber acting in a mediocre movie like this, but I think the movie would be a lot worse without him, so I'm glad he was chosen for the part. If nothing else, it's good to see how old age is treating him after not seeing him since his time in the 60's movies.

Another thing I'm glad for is that they didn't feel the need to dress the native women in the movie. I'm not saying this because I like seeing naked women on screen or anything, but it's more because I appreciate when a movie is authentic. That is really how native folks look, and however shocking it must look to us 'civilized' folk, with our fully-clothed bodies and all, that's how it's done. Although I have some questions as to why there was a small montage featuring and lingering on the naked women as they were assisting the scientists with the flower harvesting, the nudity was a nice touch, simply because it made the movie more believable.

My favorite scene of the movie was when the two discovered what it was that they were doing wrong with the serum. Campbell suddenly realizes that the serum is spot on, despite failure after failure after failure, and asks Dr. Crane, in utter amazement, what she just did differently. She notes that she used a different sugar solution. Knowing the sugar must hold the key, he walks over to the pot full of sugar and dumps it on the table. And inside is the answer. No spoilers; the answer to the big dilemma is the whole reason to keep watching, and I wouldn't want to rob anyone of that reason. The lack of dialogue right then allows you time to realize exactly how that's possible, which I thought was a wise decision. Dialogue would ruin the scene, and make it not quite as shocking.

3 seems like a little too harsh of a score for this movie, really. As I can't seem to stop saying, there's nothing really glaringly wrong with this movie. The execution is fine, the characterization is fair, the plot is solid, and the setting is rather eye-pleasing. It's just that it didn't do enough to make itself memorable, and isn't really worth rewatching once you've seen it the first time. The message of eco-awareness is a heartwarming one, but other movies do it better than Medicine Man does. I suppose if you're familiar with Sean Connery you might want to watch this movie just for the sake of seeing him again, but unless anyone else shares my goal of familiarizing myself with as many movies as physically possible, there's not much reason to watch Medicine Man.

As I sat down at my computer chair, looked up what this movie got, and proceeded to add my own Review to the lot, something occurred to me. This 'something' is that it is sometimes really really difficult to write the amount I usually write about a movie. And the reason for this is because some movies just don't have much material to work with. I watched Love Potion #9, rather enjoyed it, but I really don't have a whole lot to say about it other than it's watchable. There's no spiritual message here, nor is there anything groundbreaking in the execution. I always have liked when movies get titled after songs (James Bond series), but really, this movie is simply another movie that I've watched. I don't know what more to say. But I'll do my best anyhow.

A stereotype of these movies is that the nerdy lead(s) end up looking better after a few adjustments to their appearances. Well, ideally that's how it would be. Such a thing happens here, except...Honestly, I just can't find Sandra Bullock attractive at all. Glasses or not. She just has these really pointed and sharp features that you just can't improve. Tate Donovan actually cleans up pretty well. After he didn't slick down his hair and let it become curly, he looked reasonably presentable. But Sandra Bullock...Ugh. You just can't improve her. Sorry.

I did like how they experimented with the mysterious substance first before messing around with it. You'd think they'd just get as much as they can and test it out, but since Diane and Paul are scientists of sorts, they go about testing it properly. As such, they understand its limitations and its strength pretty well before they actually test it on themselves. And they also agree that they should never talk to each other when they're using the potion, especially if they're both using it simultaneously, because that could be rather problematic.

The scene where Paul's friend bets him to talk to the blonde girl was pretty well-done, and a week or so later I'm still remembering it. The guy dares Paul to talk to her for twenty bucks, and Paul refuses. And then this guy just starts dishing out bills, eventually ending up at $100. At that point, my thought process mirrored Paul's: "Why not?" What has he got to lose? So what if she shuts him down completely (which she did), you get $100 out of it, and that's not too shabby for simply walking up to a girl and talking to her. Of course I know how hard that kind of thing can be, but the money's a good motivator.

One thing I never really understood about this movie was the relationship between her and that guy (Gary, was it?). They got together and had a bit of sex all of a sudden. I didn't really understand what just happened, but the consequent scene with Paul and a hooker made me think that he was some sort of male prostitute. I don't know what it was; maybe I just wasn't paying attention closely enough. But those scenes didn't make any sense at all to me. I'm pretty sure they were meant to show how inadequate at romance the two of them were, but it just baffled me overall.

Another thing I did sort of take issue with was the frivolity of the relationships in this movie. Diane especially simply juggled between boyfriend and boyfriend. I understand that their unspoken aims were to be as promiscuous as they could, but Paul's exploits were largely composed of one night stands, which, although perhaps not the most advisable way of interacting with girls, are a lot better than duping members of the opposite sex into thinking you're genuinely interested in them. You could see Diane's excitement at being so popular, yeah, but she basically abandoned any guy when she found someone better looking. The only time this was excusable was when Gary (?) got the potion and used it against her, so that she couldn't help but betray Paul while under its influence. But the other times she just shifted around aimlessly with men to whom she looked as though she was commited. There's nothing wrong with flirting, which is what Paul did most of the time, but Diane tricked them into relationships which ceased quite abruptly when some other man caught her eye. Maybe I'm just too proper and idealitic, but, for me at least, that was a bit irksome to watch.

Some scenes in the movie actually did get me laughing, and some of them did toy with my heartstrings a bit, which is why I'm scoring this movie fairly high.

The sequences with the amorous male champ/amorous female cats were pretty hilarious, as was the inevitable answer to the question, "What happens when you take the substance, not as a potion, but pure, undiluted magic?" Also, Paul's arrest due to being in a sorority after 9:00 was golden. The situation alone was pretty amusing, but then the mug shots of Paul were just awesome. He had this huge grin on his face that totally said, "This is just about the best way to be arrested that I can imagine," and it cracked me up.

For the emotional parts, I felt Paul's breakdown and avid pursuit of Diane after she ditched him was a surprisingly accurate portrayal of love lost, better than I'm used to seeing in movies. The poor guy completely lost the will to live after being replaced, but then pulled himself together so that he could try to win her back. And he tried laudably hard to get her back, too. The most awkward and embarassing situations weren't enough to keep him from trying to win her back, and I felt that really made his character all the more believable.

And, as long as I'm talking about well done scenes, Paul's recruitment of his friends was a lot better done than I expected it to be. His story sounds quite crazy, and I don't blame the guys for not believing him at all. Desperate and sincere as he may sound, a love potion is pushing insanity. But then along comes the hooker, Marissa, and the men get to witness the effects of the potion quite strongly. After realizing they had fallen prey in the same way Diane had, they are more than willing to help Paul in his endeavors. After all, there was the proof they needed. The potion existed, and although they didn't see it, they knew there was no other explanation for their attraction and consequential disgust toward Marissa.

Once again I find myself the smallest bit resentful of RT's Rating system. Logically it makes sense for 5 to be Fresh, because then the divide would be even (including 0, there would be five Rotten ratings and 5 Fresh ones.). But at the same time, 5 as a Fresh rating would mean that a lot of movies hovering between %50 and %60 would be considered Fresh when they don't deserve it, and that shouldn't happen. So although I think Love Potion #9 is entirely watchable and not a bad movie to kill time with, it's getting a 5 and a Rotten rating. Still, most movies that get 5s are doing something right; otherwise, they wouldn't be borderline Fresh.