Hudson Movie Reviews

Doctor Dolittle was undoubtably concocted by liberals to further their environmental agenda. If you are skeptical, let me give you a brief outline of the movie.

First, we see a doctor who can talk to animals. This skill comes in handy when the doctor is consulted by animals concerned about the fact that their homes are being destroyed by evil lumber companies. The good doctor agrees to help fight for the animals in order to save their homes. To accomplish this task, Doctor Dolittle must mate two endangered bears in the forest. If the two bears have cubs, then the evil industrialists would be forced to abandon their ambitions.
And so despite the attempts by those sinister developers to sabatage the doctor's plans, he mates the bears and the forest is saved. At one point, when the animals organize, a developer actually says "I have fought the Democrats, so I can fight animals." Could the producers make it any more obvious that the developers are Republicans? And would it be racist to point out that all the "good guys" are black and all of the "bad guys" are wealthy whites?

This movie is politics aimed at young children, and references to them are not at all subtle. Does the movie ever once mention how stupid it is to halt harvest of an entire forest in order to save two bears? Does it touch on the fact that wood is an extremely valuable resource that must be harvested for the survival of America? Does it speak of the jobs that will be lost in the lumber companies due to the setback? Of course not. This movie just goes to show how liberal Hollywood really is. If your family is on the left of the political spectrum, you should love this movie. If not, the movie wouldn't be worth the price of the shipping.

Don't waste your money. There are better action films out there with heartfelt acting. This one isn't it.

The blonde babe is an incredible actress, wish they would have given her more lines......

From there, the movie quickly runs out of steam as movie fate throws a few uninteresting characters into the stew of an unintersting cannibal family. Creepy mom talks with a larnyx box. Creepy little sister sits on Leatherface's lap who nods in agreement as annoying big brother moralizes about the saw being family, or something.

There is no suspense. There are no characters we like or loathe enough to care about whether they live or die. And all attempts at humor fall flat.

Leatherface does get a very nice silver plated saw, but even that is all shine and no substance. It might as well be Alec Baldwin for all we care.

The sad thing about it is all the other TCM movies are scary and fun and contain at least one element of shock and so you can't wait for this one to be out on DVD and when it comes out, it lacks even the jiggle of Jell-O.

If you must have a fourth TCM movie on DVD, make it House of 1,000 Corpses

There are a huge number of really big problems with this film. For one, take the premise. A writer needs to produce a manuscript of his next novel in order to receive a $125,000 advance. I have worked in publishing, and have a friend who writes far more successful than the fictional novelist in this film, and the idea of a writer with only one novel behind him receiving a $125,000 advance is simply preposterous. So, the movie lost me from the get-go.

Much of the film is told via a gimmick, a gimmick that unfortunately doesn't work. Luke Wilson plays a novelist who hires stenographer Kate Hudson to help him produce a novel in less than a month so that some criminals to whom he owes a great deal of money won't do exceedingly nasty things to him. As he dictates, the film narrative becomes that of the book, and in these scenes the hero's (played by Luke Wilson) love interest is played by Sophie Marceau and a secondary female character is played by Kate Hudson. Of course, during the course of the movie/novel, Hudson gradually supplants Marceau in Wilson's affections. Predictably, towards the end of the film, the novelist's old flame shows up, who is also played by Marceau. He is forced to choose between his old girlfriend and his new love interest. This shifting back and forth is not handled well, and part of the problem is that the story within the story is abominably uninteresting. The scenes between the novelist and the stenographer are far better, but there is no tension in their relationship except what is lent to it from the novel's story. Ironically, the stronger part is logically propped up by the weaker part.

Another problem with the movie is that Hudson simply isn't used very well. Her part is horribly written, with her at several points in the novelistic half of the film playing various kinds of foreign servants, whether Russian or Spanish. Kate Hudson's greatest strength is her face, which is a magnificent vehicle for expressing emotion and joy. But disguised as a German servant, she adopts a wig and heavy make up and is barely recognizable as Kate Hudson.

There are a few nice moments in the film, but as a whole, the talents of the three primary performers were simply not used effectively. I have enjoyed several films by director Rob Reiner in the past, including THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY, A FEW GOOD MEN, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, and THE GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI, but unfortunately I seem as a whole to like his films a bit less with each new project. Hopefully in his next project he can get back to the comedy that he was so good at earlier in his career.

Overall; This movie is a good chick - flick watch it once or twice and thats probably enough for you.

There are a huge number of really big problems with this film. For one, take the premise. A writer needs to produce a manuscript of his next novel in order to receive a $125,000 advance. I have worked in publishing, and have a friend who writes far more successful than the fictional novelist in this film, and the idea of a writer with only one novel behind him receiving a $125,000 advance is simply preposterous. So, the movie lost me from the get-go.

Much of the film is told via a gimmick, a gimmick that unfortunately doesn't work. Luke Wilson plays a novelist who hires stenographer Kate Hudson to help him produce a novel in less than a month so that some criminals to whom he owes a great deal of money won't do exceedingly nasty things to him. As he dictates, the film narrative becomes that of the book, and in these scenes the hero's (played by Luke Wilson) love interest is played by Sophie Marceau and a secondary female character is played by Kate Hudson. Of course, during the course of the movie/novel, Hudson gradually supplants Marceau in Wilson's affections. Predictably, towards the end of the film, the novelist's old flame shows up, who is also played by Marceau. He is forced to choose between his old girlfriend and his new love interest. This shifting back and forth is not handled well, and part of the problem is that the story within the story is abominably uninteresting. The scenes between the novelist and the stenographer are far better, but there is no tension in their relationship except what is lent to it from the novel's story. Ironically, the stronger part is logically propped up by the weaker part.

Another problem with the movie is that Hudson simply isn't used very well. Her part is horribly written, with her at several points in the novelistic half of the film playing various kinds of foreign servants, whether Russian or Spanish. Kate Hudson's greatest strength is her face, which is a magnificent vehicle for expressing emotion and joy. But disguised as a German servant, she adopts a wig and heavy make up and is barely recognizable as Kate Hudson.

There are a few nice moments in the film, but as a whole, the talents of the three primary performers were simply not used effectively. I have enjoyed several films by director Rob Reiner in the past, including THIS IS SPINAL TAP, THE SURE THING, THE PRINCESS BRIDE, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY, MISERY, A FEW GOOD MEN, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT, and THE GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI, but unfortunately I seem as a whole to like his films a bit less with each new project. Hopefully in his next project he can get back to the comedy that he was so good at earlier in his career.

Overall; This movie is a good chick - flick watch it once or twice and thats probably enough for you.

Claire decides to take over the case after she meets the military appointed council, Lt Terence Embry (Adam Scott). Clair also enlists the aid of Charlie Grimes (Morgan Freeman), the man regarded as the best civilian military defense council. The only problem is that he is a recovering alcoholic. Claire also faces the fact that her employer does not want her or its name associated with this case for fear of bad publicity.

Now that that's all out of the way, here's why this is not a good movie: it's predictably unpredictable. A movie like this must, by Hollywood rules, have a twist ending. By about one-third of the way into the movie I correctly predicted what the twist ending would be.

Having already figured the movie out I thought I might sit back and enjoy the journey to the predictable ending. That wasn't going to happen. Even the journey they take to the ending in this film is unoriginal. From Charlie's drunken binge to Claire's sister (played by Amanda Peet) falling for the inexperienced Lt Embry to the ominous presence of Maj James Hernandez (Juan Carlos Hernandez), this movie was as predictable as the number after 1, 2, 3.

There really is nothing to recommend this movie. The plot is unoriginal and the acting is flat. About the only winning performance in the whole film is that of Caviezel with Freeman giving a below average (for him) performance. Skip this one.

Freeman is paired with Ashley Judd in this 2002 film, five years after they worked together in "Kiss the Girls." However, this time Judd does the heavy lifting and the basic premise is quite compelling. Judd plays Claire Kubik, a defense attorney whose is about to make partner at a big law firm. Life is good. But then her husband is arrested by the FBI and changed with having murdered civilians is El Salvador when he was in the Army. That is only half the shock, because Claire also finds out that he married her under an assumed name. Her husband is going to be court-martialed for the massacre and if found guilty he will be sentenced to death. But when she sees the young first lieutenant (Adam Scott) assigned to defend the case, she makes herself co-counsel, and, to help her understand the playing field, she tracks down Charlie Grimes (Freeman), an ex-military lawyer and recovering alcoholic.

The character's alcoholism is one of the aforementioned buttons, because of course the sobriety of Grimes comes into play. I will grant that the situation is contrived well in terms of the plot, but contrivance becomes the key word to describe this plot element. The net benefit is a mild sense of concern because, well, Grimes is played by Morgan Freeman and is clearly a good guy. The other button that gets pushed is that "High Crimes" is another one of these films were the United States military is portrayed as being psychopathic killers. Not only that, they are INCOMPETENCE psychopathic killers. Claire's husband claims somebody else is to blame and that there is a conspiracy going on and eventually she starts getting too close to the truth and shadowy figures try to take care of her in a way that is ultimately guaranteed to shine even more publicity on this case. Fortunately, some of the shadowy figures are on Claire's side.

I want to point out that my disdain for the U.S. military being portrayed as incompetent psychopathic killers existed long before the war to liberate Iraq. Just as I got tired of villains turning out to be Nazis and drug crazed Vietnam vets, I am already tired of villains being ultra-right military men whose ideological beliefs overwhelms their professionalism and sense of morality. Claire's husband says the real killer is a guy named Hernandez (Juan Carlos Hernández), now a Major, who looks brazenly homicidal. But the military is covering things up apparently, so it is not a big deal.

Judd's performance is what hold the movie together on these terms. She might be questioning everything her husband ever told her since the day they met but in the courtroom here legal instincts take over. Every motion she makes might be denied, but she knows how to dissect witnesses with a nice combination of sharp questions and pointed attitude. This is one of those films where it ain't over until its over, so I was ticked off, but I was also entertained, so if you have different buttons than I do you will obviously enjoy this film more than I did. Also, a tip of the hat to Tom Bower as FBI Special Agent Mullins, who gets off some nice shots during a scene with Claire on a park bench; always nice to see a veteran actor milk his little scene for everything it is worth.

amanda peet is asom

Altogether a very forgettable film that has a lot of talk about nothing. Don't believe the great reviews about this film: you might like it if you're a 14-17 year-old fantasizing about how "cool" college life might be with all the "cool" people and "parties." If you're not in that category, skip this boring film and save both your time and your money.