Adams Movie Reviews

Two stars from the comedy film "Road Trip" -- D.J.Qualls and Rachel Blanchard (also famous as 'Cher' in TV's "Clueless") -- reunite for another journey to find the meaning of life. But this film is not a comedy. The new flavor added to this film is that Quall's character Neil is not a geekish student introduced for laugh; just see Neil's favorite book, which is J.D.Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye," and this film is as serious as the cynical protagonist of that book, Holden Caulfield.

"Chasing Holden" starts with an interesting premise. After short stint at an institute, Neil (who happens to be a son of governor of New York State) comes to a posh prep school where he is given an assignment by his English teacher (Sean Kanan, also writer of the iflm): "Write your own idea of what happened to Holden after the book ended." Can you do that? Holden as an adult? Holden working for some company?

Intriguing but impossible, I guess. Holden should be eternally the symbol of rebellious youth, you know that. So, Neil writes a letter to the author himself requesting the answer or clues, while as we know that Mr. Salinger has been refusing any contact with interviewers.

In the meanwhile, Neil becomes acquainted with a lovely and good-natured girl 'T.J.' T.J. understands him and his feelings, and in the middle of the night they leave the small town and its oppressive establishment behind, seeking for freedom. And the first place to go is, New York City.

I can say that this film is well-intentioned. Neil is too absorbed in the fictional character, and using this setting, the film's script seems to be trying to make an intelligent statement about this now classic book of American literature. Yes, I read that book when I was young, and I loved it, but not as much as Neil did. Suppose you got a life like Holden ... and suppose you know that too real. What would you do?

But, despite the good acting from the two leading actors, the whole result of the film is confusing and very weak. I point out only one mistake of the film: too many clithed episodes of the story. There are so many of them that in the middle of the story we forget Neil's original purpose of meeting the author Salinger. There is a gun unwisely stolen; there is a father who neglects his son, and so on. You know there is a secret the girl hides, and to make it worse, you know that too soon.

And I found the conclusion too incredible. One famous musician's life also somehow crept into the script, but its effort to wrap up the initially interesting story is far-fetched and unacceptable. The answer Neil gets after so many adventures is too obvious from the first -- like I said, it's something like a grown-up Holden. Nobody sees him, and nobody knows him. And like that idea, "Chasing Holden" is just too impossible -- except when Mr. Salinger shows up and tells HIS own story. That's the only way you can do "Chasing Holden."

This movie is an emotional roller coaster from beginning to end. I am glad I saw the movie because I am, like most everyone, a fan of Catcher in the Rye, but the movie has a sad ending and makes you sad as well. Not a great movie if you are looking for something uplifting or frolicking, but an just okay film nonetheless.

This is a wonderful Coming of Age movie for young people age 13-17. The film is not some silly runaway to NYC story. It tells the good the bad and the ugly about the life of these 2 teens and how they met and their adventures. Somewhat sad story, but very thought provoking.

Technically OK, but like all the videos in this series, it suffers from its removal from the theatre setting, being apparently made for TV. There is no live audience, and G & S doesn't seem to work without that.

I enjoyed the performance of our local (amateur) Savoyards better than this.

Gilbert and Sullivan are most well known for such comic opera gems as 'The Mikado', 'The Pirates of Penzance', and 'H.M.S. Pinafore'. 'The Sorcerer' is not one of their better-known works, presumably because its slow beginning tends to decrease general interest before the fun really begins. This was dealt with rather well by the Ambrosian Opera Company, which used plenty of colour and lots of bright voices to liven things up a bit until the turning point near the end of the first act. Visuals, as is the habit within this series, did tend to be exaggerated a tinge more than necessary, but it's arguable that this holds the interest of the uninitiated. Commendable performances were given by all, especially by Clive Revill (baritone) as the title character and Nuala Willis (contralto) as Lady Sangazure. Their duet in the second act is really quite a lot of fun to watch. I vote we bring this back on the market.

How do I know this? Because 9 out of 10 sci-fi shows take place in some kind of unoriginal dystopia that takes forever to explain and re-explain. Why do they love these worlds? If you spend every day of middle school strung up on your locker by your underwear, it's natural to start having fantasies of everybody in the world dying. Everybody except for those few resourceful guys that are good with computers and physics. And some hot chicks to keep them company.

"Jeremiah" takes place 15 years after a plague has killed everyone who's hit puberty. (Finally, a plot-based defense of Hollywood ageism!) Curiously, the plague not only killed everyone past "the age of innocence," it also did a number on anybody without a Canadian accent. If you don't recognize a cast member immediately, chances are they were plucked out of a dinner theater somewhere in Winnipeg. Apparently, in the future everybody pronounces the word "about" kind of funny. Canada is an increasingly popular spot to shoot post-apocalyptic sci-fi (Dark Angel, for one) because of its perpetually gray skies and emotionless talent pool. And also because the Canadian government gives huge handouts to greedy producers looking to save a couple bucks.

From the quality of these scripts, my guess is that they saved some dough on the writing staff by taking a van down to a nursing home in Hollywood and loading up all the old writers from "Mannix" and "Battlestar Galactica." The poor old codgers probably thought they were going to Canada for some cheap prescriptions, only to find themselves locked in a 10x10 cell until they churned out a season's worth of material.

The result? I haven't heard such laugh-out-loud sanctimonious dialogue since I was a kid watching Saturday morning shows like "Isis" and "Ark II." But just as you get comfortable thinking you're watching an after-school special from the '70s with Scott Baio...BAM! The two leads have sex with a couple of prostitutes. This fulfills Showtime's nudity requirement, and cements its reputation as HBO's dumb, slutty cousin--enjoyable for half an hour, but never worth paying for.

So what becomes of such an embarrassment? Does Showtime quietly pull the show like they do with all of their other terrible original entertainment? Do they issue a blanket apology to anyone who might have seen the show, even if it was only for a few seconds while changing channels? No. They've released a boxed set.

I think jeremiah (based on a series of graphic novels by hermann huppen) is an excellent show, and another example of JMS at his best. Although some of season 1 fell a little flat (mostly scripts NOT written by JMS), it is still an excellent show for any that like long, arc based entertainment. I was actually impressed with Luke Perry and Malcolm-Jamal Warner, and I never thought in a million years I would say that. The stories are entertaining, and sometimes frightening (Firewall, Tripwire, etc.) Most importantly, it sets the stage for what has so far been an outstanding season 2. As a HUGE JMS fan, I can't wait for this set to hit shelves.

UNDERDOG is a fun frolic for those who remember the cartoon about the shoe-shine boy who has an alter ego. The adventures on this DVD brought back a few memories. There are even special features that include episode listings and cliff hangers along with other short cartoons.

The voices are witting and the rhyming is clever but it has a few signature trademarks that once you see it, will be the start of many great memories.

A fun and inexpensive DVD with a few extras for the kids and adults. (11-29-02)

I thought that this one was rather bare compaired to the last 2 releases... I thought that it could have had more episodes but the one like liked the most was the one about the witch who put Polly asleep for one thousand years... Other then that I did not like this one as well as the other ones...

Somebody needs to say that all three of these star Tex Ritter and one is directed by serial expert John English.

I met a man who told me he had a large collection of westerns I asked him if he had any of Tex Ritters. His reply was he did`nt rate him as a western star or Roy Rogers, Lash Larue or any of the old Saturday cinema hero`s . I found it difficult to control myself. These were my boyhood hero`s. He only had the major stars James Stewart, Audie Murphy, John Wayne ect. Not that there is anything wrong with these people as they also rate highly in my own collection. But imagine my delight to find this on DVD and to be the first to review it..Don`t expect it to be first class quality as it is not it has scratches, it jumps and in one of the three movies a large piece is missing. But this is how I remember it from those bygone years when I was the front row kid in our local theatre now sadly gone and it is wonderful to see my great hero once again.Any of you who are the right age to remember those days I urge you to buy this DVD and to the people who produced it how about some more. Johnny Mack Brown, Charles Starret, Rocky Lane,Buck Jones and Tim McCOY are names that come to mind.

On the one hand, "Element of Doubt" is an interesting thriller with good performances that keep you guessing. On the other hand, it's more distasteful than fun -- unlike Hitchcock's "Suspicion," which is obviously its inspiration.

It's certainly worth seeing -- once. But what makes subsequent viewings of mysteries enjoyable are other elements (like humor or particularly interesting performances) that compensate for the lack of surprise once you know the plot twists. Unfortunately, you won't find those extra elements here.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a new movie. Not at all. This is actually Disney's very first direct-to-video live action films, which was first released in 1997. It did not go over well and has long since been the hardest to find of the trio. Unlike the other two theatrical films, this movie was only ever released in full frame... so us widescreen enthusiasts have nothing to complain about here. What I can complain about is the overall cheap-feeling that this film has. Rick Moranis is the only original character, and the action does not have the epic, theatrical quality of the original films. This feels like a 2-day shoot soundstage production with a very closed-in feeling. It's kind of like taking the first five minutes of "Toy Story," with the army men on the staircase, etc. and extending that claustrophobic feeling for the 65-minute running time. All in all, this most compares to a typical Disney Channel Original Movie. In fact, it's been shown as one ever since its release!! Not exactly a Disney highpoint, collectors will want this third film to complete the collection...

A man, probably calling women whose names are in the phone book, finds one who, just divorced, is in need of sexual validation. She learns his game and turns the tables.

Cash and Jeff come across an abandoned baby in the Painted Desert; both want the baby, but Cash claims it as his own. Over the years, the former pals display animosity in an ongoing dispute over cattle, mining and water rights. Meanwhile, the baby boy, Bill grows into a strapping young man........The real star of this Pathe antique is the beautiful scenery. The photography is beautiful in this slightly stiff production which is mainly notable for Gable's talkie debut as bad guy, Brett (who blows up Boyd's mine!) The now rarely-seen Helen Twelvetrees (yes, that was her REAL married name) plays Mary Ellen Cameron.

i have seen this movie a few times and it isn't the best movie, but i didn't hate it. actually until i just read the reviews i thought it was a comedy, mocking the first movie. like a "scary movie" type thing. but to know that the writer might have been serious does down-grade the movie a bit. i didn't think the cheesy characters and scenes could be anyhting but a joke!

with that said it was stupidly funny, i would reccomend watching it for a cheap laugh.

Troubled boy, Sebastian, plays troublesome pranks that end with more finality than he seemingly bargained for; placing him in "hot" water while making this reviewer laugh. Troubled boy then goes to stay with father who is living with rich wife and the focla point; rich daughter, Kathryn, who has it and accordingly is it "all." Head of the class in popularity, dancing the ditches of demise in seething, she seems bent on making or breaking anyone she chooses.
And that seems fine to troubled boy at first, because the new life, it seems like the promise land. Herein, troubled boy is smart enough to try and begin anew, placing everything that he has done on the blank slate called "bribery" and forging himself a new "he." The only "snag" with that is the fact that he thinks that he and Kathryn should find out who is the master of the house. He thinks he should teach her a lesson that she perhaps knows, one on domination, and thus a duel begins.
And the game, o the game, that's what its all about.

While I can agree with the critics in some ways and say that this movie wasn't original and that it wasn't like the first Cruel Intentions, I do disagree with them regarding how the movie was played out. The reason I say that is because the punchline to the build of everything, the breaking of the shell that was once called dignity in the playground of souls, it is done well.
Cruelty, that is the name of the game and, honestly, these people know how to play.
From the very beginning, the viewer is thrust into a world where things aren't exactly as they seem. Multiple players are playing games on multiple levels, some not really knowing they are players in the process at all, and nothing is sacred. And the way they go to extremes to destroy one another, all for a little spite, it places a warm spot in a heart that paid money to see some damage being done.

Regardless of proposed "intentions" by watchers, this movie wasn't geared to teach me a lesson on good triumphing over the vile plots of some manipulative soul, nor was it supposedly going to showcase an arena in which the outcome has already been decided. No, the ending of the movie, by those standards, would leave many people sitting at home and questioning why. And, honestly, that's why I thought it was worth watching. The "scripting" of something that happens at the ending, it doesn't produce the same drab results that make everyone wonder why the game was played in the first place. Instead, the bottle produces a little bit of wickedly-spawned lightning, and that is always good for the wandering soul.

Perhaps the production "value" has decreased and perhaps there is more of the seemingly unlovable aspects that R-rated moviegoers seem to imply that they don't want to see - a girl being driven to the big "O" in public by being duped into thinking that the proper way to ride a horse is more stimulating than it should be and (gasp) nudity - but these things happen in the big kid's ballpark. Frankly, its part of the game being played and it makes everything more manipulative - not to mention more meriting in the ratings category. In fact, that's why, in some ways, some of the games had an evil chuckle behind them because, again, nothing is sacred.
The only real flaw I found in it was that it ended too soon, cutting off the downward spiral that would have, otherwise, been a delicious spiral to watch descend.

Cruel Intentions 2: Manchester Prep's origin is a bit weird, like a singer who becomes a soap star, CI2 was a television show that became a movie - albeit a straight to video movie. Originally this film was meant to be a two episode pilot for a show to be called 'Manchester Prep'. This helps explain the quirky nature of the picture, its poor production values, miscasting, plot inconstancies, underdeveloped characters and the unshakeable feeling that about 20 scriptwriters worked on the film. I am amazed the same guy; Roger Kumble, wrote and directed CI2 as well as the original. Despite its many many faults, if you can sit out the first third of CI2 (where it takes itself very seriously) the second two 'acts' are well worth it. After watching about 40 minuets of what I though to be utter rubbish and deeply regretting the [money amount]I spent hiring this movie, I was just about to give up on CI2 but fortunately I stuck it out and it suddenly got very very funny. Then it got very very cool with a great twist and more lesbian kissing. It would be very easy to write this movie off as being crap but I can't help but feel that there is an uncredited scriptwriter out there who knows far more than they are telling and turned this very ordinary film into a masterpiece by having their way with the plot while the directors back was turned.