Amazon.com

Like its predecessor Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve is a piffle of a caper, a preposterous plot given juice and vitality by a combination of movie star glamour and the exuberant filmmaking skill of director Steven Soderbergh (Out of Sight, The Limey). The heist hijinks of the first film come to roost for a team of eleven thieves (including the glossy mugs of Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Bernie Mac, and Don Cheadle), who find themselves pursued not only by the guy they robbed (silky Andy Garcia), but also by a top-notch detective (plush Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a jealous master thief (well-oiled Vincent Cassel) who wants to prove that team leader Danny Ocean (dapper George Clooney) isn't the best in the field. As if all that star power weren't enough--and the eternally coltish Julia Roberts also returns as Ocean's wife--one movie star cameo raises the movie's combined wattage to absurd proportions. But all these handsome faces are matched by Soderbergh's visual flash, cunning editing, and excellent use of Amsterdam, Paris, and Rome, among other highly decorative locations. The whole affair should collapse under the weight of its own silliness, but somehow it doesn't--the movie's raffish spirit and offhand wit soar along, providing lightweight but undeniable entertainment. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (197)

Please spare us Ocean's Thirteen
Genre: Comedy, Mystery

Genre Grade: A-

Final Grade: B-

This was a good follow-up to the first movie, although it did not even get close to matching the thrill of it. The story was MUCH weaker in this one, most of it contrived so confusingly that when you find out the outcome you are mad at how they took such an easy way out. You either like the tricks they do in this movie or you feel cheated. Or you feel a little of both, as I did.

I can't say much about the plot because there are so many spoilers, but I will say there is a big surprise with one of the characters from the first movie that is quite funny. Some people hated it (one of the "cheap" moments) but I thought it was great. There are many plot holes but director Soderbourgh keeps you so interested in the characters and flashy style of the movie that you might not even notice them. No other director could get away with it, that's for sure.

There is mild controversy over who, exactly, is Ocean's twelfth member. I honestly can't say 100% for sure because there are three people who could be considered as such. But there is one person who seems a little more likely to be that person because of a certain...event?

In conclusion, I hope that if Soderbourgh decides to give us another helping of this franchise that he gets a much more clever story for Ocean's Thirteen...

The real theft;steal your money with a bad sequel!
Hollywood returns to "independent" type cuts, erroneously assuming that it is the latest cash crop craze.So they hire youngsters to waste film and money shooting scenes that distract from quality dialogue, acting, and storyline.This is an excellent example of how NOT to make a movie.Don't waste your time unless you are a film student wishing to learn from others' mistakes.Not worth the price of popcorn!

Don't Waste Your Money
This movie should never have been made. It was dull and unispiring. The acting seemed forced and rather then everyone playing a part, a few characters were seen through out and nothing more. If you truly liked Ocean's 11 then leave it at that. My personal recommendation is that you do not watch this movie and rather just stick with the first film. You will be better off by far.

Save your money
Wow - what a bad movie. The all-star cast needs to exercice better judgment before accepting parts like these. The favorite side characters you'll remember from the first movie and played by solid/enjoyable actors (Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, etc...) are left with meaningless lines and no part to play. Brad Pitt's on camera eating habits in the first movie were something to smile at, in this one, it's simply annoying. Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts - what a stretch for the writers! The camera action is exhausting and attempts to add pace to a movie that does not have any. The plot is so twisted, it's unbelievable and ... without any interest. Soderbegh has done some excellent movies - this is probably his worst. Save your money, don't fall for the marketing hype. If you want Clooney at his clever and charming best, get "Out of Sight". If you want some good Soderbergh (nice camera work, interesting cinematography), get "Traffic". And I can't come up with something decent to suggest for Pitt since "Seven" or "Fight Club".

Much better than expected
Quite a few people I know told me the movie wasn't good so I didn't go see it on big screen. Now that I've watched in on DVD, surprisingly I quite like it and actually think it's as good as its prequel [in a different way though].

I like the combination of light action, romance, comedy, and a bit of suspense here. The strongest point of the movie must be a medley of huge stars [Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Garcia, Zeta Jones,Roberts]. Even supporting actors are all first-class! All of them play their parts really really well and even the supporting cast could hold their own against the big actors. It is amazing that you can feel a burst of energy and charms from these people in almost every scence. I actually felt like watching a celebrity party in a way, LOL.

Another thing I like in the movie is the sizzling romance. They didn't even have to use cheap sex scenes to tell the story. The chemistry between Clooney and Roberts is okay and the Pitt-Jones pairing is just incredible.

More good things: neat script with lots of funny quirky lines, good editing and delicious outfitting [but well we all know that Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Zeta Jones, and Roberts would look good even if they wore paperbags!]

Okay, now the weak points: The plot is kinda weak and not very believable. The movie could be confusing at times. I had to watch it twice to pick up some of the details. Also, those who go in expecting series of action would surely be disappointed. There is not a single violent scene in the movie if I remember correctly. The suspense element is not too good either. What else, there is not a whole lot of high tech gadgets for this Ocean's 12. Maybe these are why some people don't like this sequel as much as Ocean's 11.

So to sum it up, I think it's a fun movie if you watch it as a romantic comedy. The movie can't quite boast its action and suspense elements though.

Recommendation: Rent it and you'll get good two hours of entertainment. I bought the DVD just because I like many many funny scenes in the movie and wouldn't mind watching them over and over again.



... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Ocean's Eleven improves on 1960's Rat Pack original with supernova casting, a slickly updated plot, and Steven Soderbergh's graceful touch behind the camera. Soderbergh reportedly relished the opportunity "to make a movie that has no desire except to give pleasure from beginning to end," and he succeeds on those terms, blessed by the casting of George Clooney as Danny Ocean, the title role originated by Frank Sinatra. Fresh out of jail, Ocean masterminds a plot to steal $163 million from the seemingly impervious vault of Las Vegas's Bellagio casino, not just for the money but to win his ex-wife (Julia Roberts) back from the casino's ruthless owner (Andy Garcia). Soderbergh doesn't scrimp on the caper's comically intricate strategy, but he finds greater joy in assembling a stellar team (including Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and Carl Reiner) and indulging their strengths as actors. The result is a film that's as smooth as a silk suit and just as stylish. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (510)

Shallow "Ocean" Needs More Depth.
Steven Soderbergh adds a stylishly slick film to his roster with this re-make of the 1960 rat-pack Frank Sinatra outing. ................ Although the cast was terrific, with dialogue sharply delivered by top billing box office stars, as well as veterans Carl Reiner and Elliot Gould in amusing roles, something is missing within. That something is true character development. Despite all the aforementioned positives, this missing element takes away a dimension from the story. Who are these people? Roberts was married to Clooney before he was sent to prison, but I couldn't find the emotion between them until the very end of the film. There didn't seem to be much fire between Roberts and Andy Garcia's elusive, cold and non-descript character either. Garcia is a favorite of mine, but he doesn't shine with his usual warm, emotional performance here. ................. Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt? I never really got a good idea of any of them. So, despite the fantastic ensemble cast, exciting Vegas atmosphere, intriguing premise and Soderbergh's expert direction, this "Ocean..." left me somewhat dry. ............... While "Ocean's 11" is a movie that will certainly entertain you fleetingly as you view it, the desired effect while we watch, it's not one I'd see again and again. There are films that you know you can view repeatedly without tiring of them, and then some where you say, once IS enough. In my opinion, "Ocean's 11" falls into the latter category. ................ For me, character development is an important factor that makes a film realistic and believable, but if it is not integral for your enjoyment, I would not hesitate to recommend you catch this wave once too, at least for the positives it DOES have going for it.

Take it on its own, it's a very good film.
George Clooney, Brat Pitt, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Don Cheadle, Elliott Gould, Bernie Mac, Carl Reiner, Edward Jemison and Shaobo Qin are all brought together in one of the best ensemble cast films I have seen in a long time. That takes care of Ocean's Eleven (Danny Ocean played by Clooney) but they are matched against Andy Garcia & Julia Roberts. Steve Soderbergh (Traffic; Sex, Lies & Videotape) directs a masterpiece of action/drama with some of the biggest names in the business.

The mystique of Vegas, the lure of cash and the romance of life make this a film for everyone. Great dialogue, excellent dramatic shots from Soderbergh and incredible acting by the entire cast put most other crime based movies to shame. Andy Garcia makes you hate him, you feel for George Clooney, but you also see the reasoning in Pitt's character and Reiner's performace is great too.

Anyway, if you enjoy the James Bond movies, the Mission Impossible movies, or any other fun action films, you should give Oceans 11 a chance. DO NOT base your viewing of this on the original Sinatra and the Rat Pack film. The only similarities are the ensemble cast, Vegas Casinos, money and the title of the movie. This is not a remake, it is a reinterpretation based loosely on the original script. At least give it one viewing, you may fall in love.

yet another example............
Hollywood has managed in this film to once again show
how really great it is to be a thief.....And they managed to use, in my estimation, the top worst to do it.
Clooney, who always portrays himself in no matter what role he takes...Pitt who walks thru his role like a zombie throwing in one liners to make it interesting???? And let's not forget the token female, Roberts, who I am still trying to figure out how she can be the most beautiful woman in the world, or is it one of the top five in the world? I forget......
The only redeeming thing about this film was the presence of Garcia and maybe the Las Vegas location. I have no plans to see the sequel as I am sure it will be more of the same humdrum
as this turkey was. To me it was just as boring as the original one only an updated version.

mediocre, boring, pathced
1. Difficult to imagine such boring movie with so many stars. The very presence of Julia Roberts only slowed the action, and took precious time from the main action. Her role was schematic and straightforward: could have used some young, beautiful actress instead, and spend less time on her. At the end, it was not clear to me, why did she have to leave Benedict and return to Ocean. Benedict could have said anything he wanted to Ocean to get his money back.

2. Most of the characters remained obscure and flat. I had to watch it 2 times in a raw to just figure out their faces, but I still have no clue what was their crucial point in the action. Compare to "Sneakers" for example, where all characters were vivid and exactly on their places.

3. Il-logical sequence. Why not use larger O2 cylinder for the chinese guy (what was his name?) and have more time for surprises? Why did they need to introduce the explosives with a trunk and bother with "dying" of the Soul Blum/Zorga, why not simply put them in the container with the chinese fellow? When climbing down the elevator well, where was the elevator cell???
If it was UP, how did they got under it?

4. How easy was to steel the "pinch"!!! Just went there and got it! I want a pinch also. But, even if the pinch did black-out the whole city, how come the electricity came back so soon??? The EM pulse destroys fuses and inegrated circuits. The whole casion going completely black? Highly improbable: This is 21 century, USA guys. Safety comes first: Every public and comercial building has a few light bulbs that never go out. Just for cases like this. Same for the motion detectors in the elevator well: they should be UPS-ed. Unlike the batteries in the remote control triger of Brad Pitt.

5. Illogical: How did they get the porno-adds INSIDE the vault? There were 6 big bags of them, the ones that got blown-up at the end?

6. Who needed to show that a whole minivan can be driven from a distance by a remote control? Why give the terorists (and bank robbers wannabe) ideas they can use literally tomorrow???

All made-up from bits and pieces, turned out into a poorly connected patched movie. Boring and un-impressing.

I wasn't impressed.....
I heard great things about this movie, and it did very well at the box office, but it really wasn't that good. it was definitely confusing. Also, I didn't like how it only had one robbery. In movies like Bandits (which you should go see) there are several robberies. Also, there wasn't much character development. I reccoment Bandits instead. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Robin Williams won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck nabbed one for Best Original Screenplay, but the feel-good hit Good Will Hunting triumphs because of its gifted director, Gus Van Sant. The unconventional director (My Own Private Idaho, Drugstore Cowboy) saves a script marred by vanity and clunky character development by yanking soulful, touching performances out of his entire cast (amazingly, even one by Williams that's relatively schtick-free). Van Sant pulls off the equivalent of what George Cukor accomplished for women's melodrama in the '30s and '40s: He's crafted an intelligent, unabashedly emotional male weepie about men trying to find inner-wisdom.

Matt Damon stars as Will Hunting, a closet math genius who ignores his gift in favor of nightly boozing and fighting with South Boston buddies (co-writer Ben Affleck among them). While working as a university janitor, he solves an impossible calculus problem scribbled on a hallway blackboard and reluctantly becomes the prodigy of an arrogant MIT professor (Stellan Skarsgård). Damon only avoids prison by agreeing to see psychiatrists, all of whom he mocks or psychologically destroys until he meets his match in the professor's former childhood friend, played by Williams. Both doctor and patient are haunted by the past, and as mutual respect develops, the healing process begins. The film's beauty lies not with grand climaxes, but with small, quiet moments. Scenes such as Affleck's clumsy pep talk to Damon while they drink beer after work, or any number of therapy session between Williams and Damon offer poignant looks at the awkward ways men show affection and feeling for one another. --Dave McCoy ... Read more

Reviews (345)

JCMICHAELS.COM Good Will Hunting Review
Good Will Hunting is one of those films that I wasn't expecting much, since the writers, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are so young. But surprisingly this young duo was able to write a sophisticated script that, with the direction of Gus Van Sant, became an Academy Award winner. Those awards, Best Supporting Actor and Best Original Screenplay definitely show the movies strong points. Unfortunately the acting is a little wooden and awkward at times, but is forgivable.

Luckily this movie has great bonus features including my favorite, audio commentary with Gus Van Sant, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Also included are 11 deleted scenes with audio commentary, production featurette, and "Miss Misery" music video. In other words this DVD is loaded.

Overall, with all the bonus material and sophisticated story this is definitely a great rental. If on the other hand, you are huge fans of Ben and Matt, and have already seen it and loved the movie, then it really is a no-brainer, just buy it.

Beautiful, thought-provoking . . . perfect
This movie is either perfect, or as close as it's possible for a movie to be. The acting is outstanding. The direction is terrific. The script is heartfelt and real. The soundtrack, featuring Elliot Smith, is perfectly suited to the movie. All in all, it's one of the greatest movies I've ever seen, and it's my personal favorite.

Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is a janitor at MIT who harbors a secret genius for mathematics. Rather than bank on his intelligence, he spends most of his time riding around and drinking with his buddies (Ben Affleck, Cole Hauser, and a particularly funny and excellent Casey Affleck). However, his gift is discovered by a professor at the university (Stellan Skarsgard) who bails Will out of jail (in on a count of assault) on the conditions that he start doing math regularly with the professor and that he see a psychiatrist. Enter the psychiatrist, Sean (Robin Williams). To add to the mix, Will meets a Harvard student, Skylar (Minnie Driver) who is possibly the first woman for whom he's ever had real feelings. Over the course of the movie, all of these characters in their own way try to make Will live up to his potential.

The movie doesn't have much of a plot other than this -- however, that's fine, because it's meant to be more of a character study and it's a great one. Pretty much every scene is two people sitting down talking to each other -- yet it holds the viewer's interest because the characters are so captivating. Sean and Will's scenes in particular are terrific. Matt Damon and Robin Williams, besides both being fine actors, have a natural chemistry that you just can't fake. Damon and Minnie Driver are also great together (of course, as it's widely known, the two dated during the filming of the movie) and it's my opinion that both were robbed of their Oscars.

Ben Affleck shows that spark in this movie which he showed in most of his '90s movies, and he's great in his role -- but even better is his brother Casey. Watch the movie with the audio commentary, and you'll gain so much more appreciation for both the role of Morgan and the actor Casey. The same goes for Stellan Skarsgard. Cole Hauser is good with the few lines he has.

All in all, this is a great movie -- beautifully shot, well-written . . . well, I've said it all before. If you're not offended by excessive use of the word "f***" (and yes, some people really do talk like that) you should love it. Forget the naysayers -- "Good Will Hunting" is one of the most heartfelt, poignant movies in recent history. Too bad all the awards that year automatically went to the movie with the grandest special effects instead of the one with better dialogue and better characters.

A drama with emotional depth
This quiet drama about what genius means was the surprise hit of 1997, with friends Matt Damon and Ben Affleck both collaborating on the screenplay and acting. Damon plays Will Hunting, a troubled, gruff young man who works as a janitor at MIT despite his incredible self-education and intelligence. When a mathematics professor discovers that Will has solved a complicated problem left on the blackboard, he pursues Will as a potential protégé. But Will is not good with authority figures, as his past includes abuse at the hands of his father. When Will lands in jail, however, and the professor manages to obtain his release with the stipulation that Will work on mathematics with him and see a counselor, Will's whole life begins to open up. As a patient of psychologist Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), Will forges a relationship that acts as a catalyst for a new future.

Matt Damon does a wonderful job with the title role, although at times he seems a little wooden. As the therapist with a painful history that Will eventually connects with, Robin Williams turns in one of his less flamboyant performances. His suffering is palpable, and his need to save Will from himself lends real passion to the film. Affleck provides solid balance as Will's friend Chuckie, although his performance is less memorable than the other two, more of a function of the role than the actor. Minnie Driver is charming and believable as Will's new girlfriend Skylar.

The screenplay is intelligent and skillfully developed despite some unbelievable facets of the premise, most notably that such a wounded individual, no matter how bright, would have the discipline to teach himself as much as Will knows. Still, this movie only gets better as it progresses. The relationship between Will and his therapist is dynamic, poignant, and meaningful.

This is a good film to own, as it uncovers additional subtleties on second viewing, as long as you don't mind revisiting emotional angst. Its feel-good story arc is somewhat predictable, but the dialogue and interactions are not, making this flick surprisingly complex given the young ages of Damon and Affleck when it was made.

Good film, good job for a first time screenplay/movie.
This film, which was the first time for Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, in writing a screenplay, turned into a movie, is an impressive piece of work. About a shy, yet with an attitude, young man (who as we find out later was abused) who demonstrates his brilliance, but who will not let people get too close. Ben Affleck (before all of this "Bennifer" nonsense) is good as his buddy, who really wants him to use his "gift". With an outstanding performance by Robin Williams (who deserved his award) and Minnie Driver, the lads have put together a funny, poignant, movie; which wasn't "overdone" as some movies might be. Williams and Damon interact with each other with the right amount of "attitude" as they help each other overcome their fears, hopes, missed opportunities, and dreams. A better film than I thought it would be. I'd recommend it. The downside (for peope offended by language, i.e., profanity, is that there is a lot of it, especially the "F" word). If one can overlook that, if one's offended [I'm not overly so]; then, this movie speaks to the person inside all of us, as we ask ourselves some basic questions; what do we want out of life, do we have regrets, did we try hard enough to succeed, what does success mean, and so on. Damon's character refused to be "manipulated" by anyone, including the professor who had his own issues. Definitely worth seeing. Had a pretty decent soundtrack too.

Some Outstanding Moments, but Not a Masterpiece
GOOD WILL HUNTING was actually written by two of its stars, boyhood friends, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. I was surprised when I first learned this; the screenplay, while still a little rough around the edges, shows a lot of insight for the twentysomethings that Damon and Affleck were in 1997.

GOOD WILL HUNTING is the story of, who else, Will Hunting (Matt Damon), a janitor at MIT and a young man with a very troubled past. Will was an orphan and a victim of child abuse. As an adult he's a petty criminal with a short fuse and an uncanny ability to reduce the most complicated math problems and theorems to simple answers, something he does at night on MIT's chalkboards. Will is a mathematical genius with a photographic memory, but he neither recognizes his gift nor cares. He'd much rather be out with his other blue-collar buddies, drinking and getting into trouble.

Two things happen to change Will's errant ways. The first is the fact that his genius is found out by one of MIT's professors, Professor Lambeau (Stellan Skarsgard). Professor Skarsgard wants to do something to encourage Will to develop his gift. The second, and more pivotal thing that happens is that Will assaults a police office on one of his nightly binges and lands in jail.

Luckily, Will comes before a judge with some understanding of what he really needs. Instead of being sent to jail, Will is ordered to spend one day a week with Lambeau, studying math, and one day a week with a therapist in order to work through his short temper and his need to self-destruct. After a few false starts, Will ends up seeing Sean McGuire (Robin Williams), a teacher at Bunker Hill Community College and Lambeau's former college roommate. As things progress, it becomes more and more evident that Will is just as good for Sean as Sean is for Will. Will also receives help and encouragement from his childhood friend, Chuckie (Ben Affleck) and a pretty Harvard student from Britain, Skylar (Minnie Driver).

The plot of GOOD WILL HUNTING is very, very predictable, as is its ending, but that really didn't stop me from enjoying the film. There are some outstanding moments and set pieces, but overall, the film is only a little above average.

The dialogue is sometimes above average and, much to my delight, there was actually subtext, something so much screen and literary dialogue lacks these days. The thing that really rescues the film from mediocrity, though, are the performances from all the actors, especially an uncharacteristically subdued performance from Robin Williams. The scenes between Williams and Damon feel "real" and the chemistry between Affleck and Damon and Damon and Driver is palpable. Of course, the fact that Affleck and Damon have been lifelong friends and that Damon and Driver were romantically involved during the filming of GOOD WILL HUNTING didn't hurt the "chemistry" one bit. Still, it could have gone wrong. Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck were engaged when they made GIGLI and that fell flatter than any proverbial pancake ever could.

GOOD WILL HUNTING is a very solid, though predictable piece of entertainment, with strong performances from all concerned. I would recommend renting it before buying it, however, as it's not a film that one wants to see again and again. At least not in my opinion. ... Read more

Reviews (286)

Hilarious!
The first American Pie started the trend, but American Pie 2 has even more laughs. And it has retained and amplified one important aspect of the original, a somewhat cornball sentimentality that offers a nice counterbalance to the gross sight gags and pervasive atmosphere of salaciousness.

Jason Biggs continues to throw himself into the most embarrassing of situations with admirable gusto, and the movie hinges on his ability to play Jim's most humiliating shenanigans with an odd but appealing, dogged dignity...even when wearing only his drawers. His comic timing is even better than last time, and the movie's best moments come of his straight-faced delivery. And in this sequel you can see how Alyson Hannigan managed to walk off with the most famous line in the original: Given much more weight in American Pie 2, Hannigan is a delight, playing Michelle's offbeat geekiness but hidden warmth to perfection. And her deadpan delivery (the "trumpet" line is bound to become another classic) is beautiful as always. Shannon Elizabeth is surprisingly lacklustre, and Tara Reid is still stuck with the most boring character of the bunch, but otherwise the rest of the supporting cast (Seann William Scott is especially good, reprising uber-jock Stifler) is great, and the sight and verbal gags come faster and tighter than in the original, with the benefit of familiar characters. The famous central gag (won't give it away) had me belly-laughing for a solid minute, something I haven't done since the first time I saw Clerks.

No, it's not cerebral, nor is it an unprecedented classic. But for a good rowdy night of teen comedy, American Pie 2 hits the spot.

Go see this! Best sequel of the summer!
I've seen many movies this summer. As many of you know, there has been many dissapointing movies out there this summer.(Tomb Raider, A.I.,Scary Movie 2,and Planet of the Apes to name a few.) Sequels have been horrible lately, like Scary Movie 2 and Jurassic Park 3. Rush hour 2 was one of the better sequels this summer. When I went to see AP2 with my friends yesterday, I was expecting another sequel that was put together way too fast and didn't have any thought in it. I loved the first one, and I probably have watched the American Pie DVD about 100 times! I bought my popcorn and my drink and was ready for another bad sequel. Man, was I so wrong. AP2 was probably my favorite movie of the summer. I barely ate any of my popcorn or drank any of my drink I was laughing so hard. I thank Universal Studios for giving Eugene Levy a bigger part in this movie. Seann William Scott is extremely funny in this movie, with all his comments. I don't want to spoil it for all you people who haven't seen this movie, but there will be lesbians, some phone sex between Mena Suvari(Heather), and Chris Klein(Oz), a "champagne" bath for Seann William Scott(Stifler), an accident with superglue for Jason Biggs(Jim), the rule of three, and more of Eddie Kaye Thomas and Stifler's mom(What a MILF!just kiddin!) Go see this movie, You will not be dissapointed. It is the funniest, crudest movie of the summer. NOT for Kids!

Awful
Maybe the worst movie i've ever seen. Boring, very TALENTLESS actors, and bad jokes. Primitive film for primitive people.

Wow....what a great sequel!
I loved the first American Pie movie; I would watch it almost weekly with friends. I didn't think any movie could top it, but American Pie 2 comes very close, and at times, is better than the original. I also wanted to start off by saying, to the viewers who complain about such movies having too much raunchy humor, and therefore rating it low, you have to know going into these movies that they will be like this. Some people need to seriously lighten up, quit being a stiff, and have a good laugh every now and then. Also, to the last 1 star guy on here, you need a reality check. I'm not saying that the military is a bad thing, but you can't underrate the value of a college education/experience. It gives people who aren't born for the military (which is most of us) a chance to get a career and contribute to society, and it's also a social experience (the social experience aspect of college is probably more beneficial in the long run than even the educational aspect). And Road Trip was a great movie as well; LIGHTEN UP! (or quit your complaining). The only people that make your generation look bad are people like you!!

Anyway, Jason Biggs is in his usual role as Jim, despite getting laid last movie by a band geek, of having zero confidence in his ability to score (or do much else, for that matter). I disliked the opening scene, especially with that cheesy line "this is my first time......since my.....first time....so....technically, it's my second time," which made me weary about this movie. However, when Jim's dad (Eugene Levy) enters the room, the scene became hilarious, as Eugene perfectly plays the nimwitted father who is completely inept to the fact that no kid wants his/her father to see him/her naked. The movie continues as Stifler (Sean William Scott) and Oz (Chris Klien) discuss how many girls a man is supposed to have sex with during one year at college. This scene could have been a waste of a few minutes, but Scott, being the acting prodigy that he is, knows how to play the cocky card while not coming off as a complete a$$hole. When the four boys Oz, Jim, Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas), and Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) later meet at their local diner, Finch comes off as this sex god, having gotten laid with a Japanese girl in an art museum, his psychology professor, and of course, Stifler's mom. Finch and Stifler steal the show this time around, as the two have amazing chemistry as enemies. Stifler constantly makes fun of Finch's practice of tantric sex, and Finch constantly practices his tantra in various places just to piss off Stifler (like the plant in the house that the boys rent for the summer), as well as.......well, I won't reveal the ending. They rent this house to throw monster parties, and to help Jim have amazing sex with Nadia when she plans to visit him at the summer. Jim also gets practice from the nerd he "scored" with last time around, and when she told him that he sucked, I laughed my ass off! (not only at how she said it, but Jason Biggs needs to be told he sucks, and I relished that moment). Also, the scene where Jim is mistaken for a trombone king Petey is very poorly done (what a surprise, since Biggs is a the forefront of the whole scene). He isn't as bad in this sequel as he was in the first one, but overall, Biggs isn't even close to the talent of the others (which is how he usually is). However, I do have to admit that the superglue scene was quite funny, mostly because we expect lousy things to happen to Jim, though I have to give him credit for putting effort into at least that scene. Despite any other minor flaws this movie may have, it overall comes across as a strong comedy that often goes for the gut, and succeeds about 98% of the time, with viewers in constant pursuit of fresh air after laughing so hard.

The Best Part of the Pie
American Pie 2 is a sequel that is better than the original and better than the 3rd one.No denying that this one is the best one of the series. FAMOUS SCENES

1)Lesbian Scene 10/10
2)Super Glue 10/10
3) Trumpet Scene 9.2/10
4) Jim on Stage 8.5/10
5) Phone Sex 8.7/10
MORE!!!! ... Read more

Description

Chasing Amy is the third installment in the "New Jersey Trilogy" from award-winning writer-director Kevin Smith (Clerks, Mallrats, Dogma). Cult comic-book artist Holden (Ben Affleck) falls in love with fellow artist Alyssa (Joey Lauren Adams), only to be thwarted by her sexuality, the disdain of his best friend Banky (Jason Lee), and his own misgivings about himself. Filled with Smith's unique ear for dialogue and insight into relationships, Chasing Amy offers a thoughtful, funny look at how perceptions alter lives, and how obsession and self-doubt skew reality. ... Read more

Reviews (355)

Simply Fabulous!
"Chasing Amy" by director Kevin Smith is such an triumph. This movie about love, friendship and taking chances hits with so many punches. It's well rounded, it doesn't take the easy way out, NOR does it go for the safe laugh. The story surrounding comic book writer Holden (Ben Afflect) , his best mate and partner Banky (played beautifully by Jason Lee), and Holden's love for fellow comic book girl, lesbian Allyssa (Joey Lauren Adams) Who SO deserved the Golden Globe Nomination. It's sweet, lovely and such a testament to true love. Conflict between these three characters carries this movie with such intelligence.

One of the BEST love declaration speeches in movie HISTORY is in this movie, when Holden spills his cuts (in the rain, no less) to Alyssa. That scene sums up the whole movie. It's just such a good movie. Supporting cast includes the performance of Fan Fav. "Jay and Silent Bob" in a wonderful moment that sums it all up. Truly inspired writing on Smith's part.

I hope everyone appreciates it like I do. It's fabulous!

blech!
Why did this movie get such good reviews?? Maybe it would've been clearer when it came out, but I honestly thought it was terrible.

The main plotline made no sense whatsoever. There was no chemistry between Ben and Joey's characters, and suddenly, after about 10 minutes, he found himself deeply in love with her and had to make a 5 minute confession to her. Then it turns out she, a former lesbian, was in love with him all along too, and suddenly they're kissing in the rain. There was no build-up to this, and as such I felt nothing for their relationship or anything they were going through.

The drawn-out monologues in the movie are pretty silly as well. The characters talk at each other for long periods of time while the others just stare at them blankly. (Ben Affleck has indeed mastered the blank, gaping stare.) And parts of the movie are so silly that I wasn't sure if any of the movie was supposed to be taken seriously at all. Sometimes it seems it has a message, but then it's just stupid.

It was kind of entertaining at times, and the supporting characters were amusing. So that's why it got 2 stars. But overall it was a pretty bad movie.

another popular release.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edotion of the film.

This film the third release in the Jersey "trilogy" (quintilogy to be exact) is also the one where Silent Bob speaks more than any other release. In this film,(Ben Affleck) a comic book artist falls in love with young women who is also a comic book artist, only to discover that she is lesbian. The film is not for children and like the film "Clerks" almost got an NC-17 rating based solely on sexual dialog.

The Criterion DVD has numerous special features.
There is a new DVD edition video introdiction for the audio commentary explaining a comment made by Kevin blasting DVD's (The audio commentary as originally recorded for the laserdisc edition.)
The is full length audio commentary by director/actor Kevin Smith, producer Scott Mosier, actors Ben Affleck and Jason Mewes, associate producer Robert Hawk, Miramax executive Jon Gordon, and Vincent Pereira. There is also a Theatrical trailer, 10 deleted scenes with introductions. There is also a set of outtakes.

The Criterion Collection remains the exclusive distributer for the film's DVD format as of the time this review is being written.

'Till the other shoe drops
Interesting but pretty improbable, and ultimately it will be unworkable. It should have been written as a tragedy instead it is a farce.

ok but no clerks
this was an ok film, but still highly overrated i recommend clerks, clerks the series, or maybe mallrats instead of this. ... Read more

Reviews (510)

Shallow "Ocean" Needs More Depth.
Steven Soderbergh adds a stylishly slick film to his roster with this re-make of the 1960 rat-pack Frank Sinatra outing. ................ Although the cast was terrific, with dialogue sharply delivered by top billing box office stars, as well as veterans Carl Reiner and Elliot Gould in amusing roles, something is missing within. That something is true character development. Despite all the aforementioned positives, this missing element takes away a dimension from the story. Who are these people? Roberts was married to Clooney before he was sent to prison, but I couldn't find the emotion between them until the very end of the film. There didn't seem to be much fire between Roberts and Andy Garcia's elusive, cold and non-descript character either. Garcia is a favorite of mine, but he doesn't shine with his usual warm, emotional performance here. ................. Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt? I never really got a good idea of any of them. So, despite the fantastic ensemble cast, exciting Vegas atmosphere, intriguing premise and Soderbergh's expert direction, this "Ocean..." left me somewhat dry. ............... While "Ocean's 11" is a movie that will certainly entertain you fleetingly as you view it, the desired effect while we watch, it's not one I'd see again and again. There are films that you know you can view repeatedly without tiring of them, and then some where you say, once IS enough. In my opinion, "Ocean's 11" falls into the latter category. ................ For me, character development is an important factor that makes a film realistic and believable, but if it is not integral for your enjoyment, I would not hesitate to recommend you catch this wave once too, at least for the positives it DOES have going for it.

Take it on its own, it's a very good film.
George Clooney, Brat Pitt, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Don Cheadle, Elliott Gould, Bernie Mac, Carl Reiner, Edward Jemison and Shaobo Qin are all brought together in one of the best ensemble cast films I have seen in a long time. That takes care of Ocean's Eleven (Danny Ocean played by Clooney) but they are matched against Andy Garcia & Julia Roberts. Steve Soderbergh (Traffic; Sex, Lies & Videotape) directs a masterpiece of action/drama with some of the biggest names in the business.

The mystique of Vegas, the lure of cash and the romance of life make this a film for everyone. Great dialogue, excellent dramatic shots from Soderbergh and incredible acting by the entire cast put most other crime based movies to shame. Andy Garcia makes you hate him, you feel for George Clooney, but you also see the reasoning in Pitt's character and Reiner's performace is great too.

Anyway, if you enjoy the James Bond movies, the Mission Impossible movies, or any other fun action films, you should give Oceans 11 a chance. DO NOT base your viewing of this on the original Sinatra and the Rat Pack film. The only similarities are the ensemble cast, Vegas Casinos, money and the title of the movie. This is not a remake, it is a reinterpretation based loosely on the original script. At least give it one viewing, you may fall in love.

yet another example............
Hollywood has managed in this film to once again show
how really great it is to be a thief.....And they managed to use, in my estimation, the top worst to do it.
Clooney, who always portrays himself in no matter what role he takes...Pitt who walks thru his role like a zombie throwing in one liners to make it interesting???? And let's not forget the token female, Roberts, who I am still trying to figure out how she can be the most beautiful woman in the world, or is it one of the top five in the world? I forget......
The only redeeming thing about this film was the presence of Garcia and maybe the Las Vegas location. I have no plans to see the sequel as I am sure it will be more of the same humdrum
as this turkey was. To me it was just as boring as the original one only an updated version.

mediocre, boring, pathced
1. Difficult to imagine such boring movie with so many stars. The very presence of Julia Roberts only slowed the action, and took precious time from the main action. Her role was schematic and straightforward: could have used some young, beautiful actress instead, and spend less time on her. At the end, it was not clear to me, why did she have to leave Benedict and return to Ocean. Benedict could have said anything he wanted to Ocean to get his money back.

2. Most of the characters remained obscure and flat. I had to watch it 2 times in a raw to just figure out their faces, but I still have no clue what was their crucial point in the action. Compare to "Sneakers" for example, where all characters were vivid and exactly on their places.

3. Il-logical sequence. Why not use larger O2 cylinder for the chinese guy (what was his name?) and have more time for surprises? Why did they need to introduce the explosives with a trunk and bother with "dying" of the Soul Blum/Zorga, why not simply put them in the container with the chinese fellow? When climbing down the elevator well, where was the elevator cell???
If it was UP, how did they got under it?

4. How easy was to steel the "pinch"!!! Just went there and got it! I want a pinch also. But, even if the pinch did black-out the whole city, how come the electricity came back so soon??? The EM pulse destroys fuses and inegrated circuits. The whole casion going completely black? Highly improbable: This is 21 century, USA guys. Safety comes first: Every public and comercial building has a few light bulbs that never go out. Just for cases like this. Same for the motion detectors in the elevator well: they should be UPS-ed. Unlike the batteries in the remote control triger of Brad Pitt.

5. Illogical: How did they get the porno-adds INSIDE the vault? There were 6 big bags of them, the ones that got blown-up at the end?

6. Who needed to show that a whole minivan can be driven from a distance by a remote control? Why give the terorists (and bank robbers wannabe) ideas they can use literally tomorrow???

All made-up from bits and pieces, turned out into a poorly connected patched movie. Boring and un-impressing.

I wasn't impressed.....
I heard great things about this movie, and it did very well at the box office, but it really wasn't that good. it was definitely confusing. Also, I didn't like how it only had one robbery. In movies like Bandits (which you should go see) there are several robberies. Also, there wasn't much character development. I reccoment Bandits instead. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

If anyone ever doubts whether Nicole Kidman is a good actress, they should immediately be required to watch this outrageously wicked comedy from 1995, for which Kidman deservedly won a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Leading Role. While director Gus Van Sant handles the fact-based satire with razor-sharp precision, Kidman delivers a deliciously devious performance as Suzanne Stone, a small-town New Hampshire housewife who fancies herself the next Barbara Walters, Jane Pauley, Diane Sawyer, and Maria Shriver all rolled up into one meticulously coiffed package. So determined is she to have a successful career on TV that she'll stop at nothing--even the calculated murder of her husband (Matt Dillon)--to get the attention she feels entitled to. To carry out her scheme she recruits some unwitting local teenagers including one boy (Joaquin Phoenix, matching Kidman's excellence) whose infatuation with Suzanne leads to sexual escapades and predictably troublesome consequences. It's a satirical comedy in Van Sant's capable hands, but it's so close to tabloid reality that the film never seems implausible--which only gives it a funnier, more blood-chilling quality of humor. Featuring Illeanna Douglas, George Segal, and Seinfeld alumnus Wayne Knight in memorable supporting roles, this is one of the best comedies of the '90s--especially if you prefer comedies with a decidedly darker edge. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Sublime and Vastly Underrated
The fact that To Do For is not more highly regarded is a mystery to me. It only garners a 6.7 on IMDB.com. All of the ingredients were there, an incredible and gifted director in Gus Van Sant, what I consider to be Nicole Kidman's finest performance, a wicked and not just satirical script and an excellent supporting cast.

Of particular note is Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Jimmy Emmet, the typical high school metal head loser who becomes obsessed with Kidman's evil character, Suzanne Stone-Maretto. Phoenix is a gifted actor with a wide pallet to choose from. Contrast this performance with the job he does of playing The Abbe in Quills. It makes his role in To Die For all the stronger. Allison Folland is also a standout in her debut performance as Jimmy's pathetic friend Lydia Mertz. Together with Casey Affleck as Russel, the three unwittingly become assassins for the callous Mrs. Stone. The story is built up very effectively, and as a viewer there is never any doubt that these three "dorky" kids will pull the murder off.

Also magnificent and lending strong supporting roles are Dan Hedaya and Illeana Douglas who play Larry Maretto's father and sister, respectively. The part of Larry is played with near perfect un-bravado by Matt Dillon, who does so without his usual pomp and bluster. Basically, Larry is the perfect everyman trying to do right by his new wife and family [....]Hedaya is perfectly cast and uses his natural menacing qualities quite well. My favorite though, is Janice Moretto, Larry's sister played by Douglas, who is the only character who sees Suzanne for what she really is. The dancing on the grave ice-skating bit at the end is also really well done. Douglas doesn't fall once.

Hats off to Van Sant for a creating a satirical masterpiece that contains enough side elements to hold the viewers attention through more than one viewing. For instance, what exactly is Suzanne's relationship with her father? Also, the fact that Janice is most likely gay and this might be why she understands Suzanne so well. Cudos as well to the director for the style he employed, blurring the line between film and documentary. Some people have argued to me that To Die For contains too many cuts and flashbacks and consequently the viewer has a difficult time following the action. I do not find that to be true. Quite the opposite, I find the film to be compelling. Even after at least five viewings, To Die For firmly holds my attention throughout.

The Perfect Film for a Celebrity-Obsessed Culture
"To Die For" is a great little gem of a movie that, in my opinion, ranks as one of the best dark comedies of the last decade. Nicole Kidman, in what is probably her finest performance to date, is stunning as Suzanne "Stone" - her real name is Maretto - a completely self-absorbed, amoral, and utterly ruthless young woman who will let nothing stand in the way of her obtaining her goal of being a "television star". The film is shot in the style of a slightly wacky TV documentary, which only adds to the fun, as we see the "post-tragedy" interviews with those who were involved with the late Miss Stone. Stone is an attractive but cold-blooded blonde in a small New England town who is desperate to become a national celebrity on a national TV News Network. As proof of her warped psyche, she tells the audience "You're a nobody if you're not on TV" - which unfortunately does seem to accurately describe the feelings of many people these days. She's also determined to move up the social ladder in her little town, and so as the film begins she seduces and marries the handsome quarterback of the high school football team (Matt Dillon), the most popular boy in town. Dillon's sister despises Suzanne and sees right through her facade, but Dillon is so entranced he doesn't listen. Dillon goes on to work in his father's pizzeria, but Suzanne obtains a job as the weather forecaster for the local rinky-dink TV station, and begins to have dreams of glory. One of the darkly funny aspects of this film is that for all of Suzanne's scheming and ruthlessness she's not very bright, and her attempts to sound and act "sophisticated" are often hilariously inept. When her faithful but old-fashioned hubby tells her to quit her job and help him with the family business, she decides he's "impeding" her career and that she'll have to kill him. So she seduces an underage teenage geek (hilariously played by a very young Joaquin Phoenix), has a torrid sexual affair with him, and then convinces him to murder her hubby. At first she uses the shock of the murder to obtain further publicity - "you've got to think of your career first" - from the local and state media. Unfortunately, her underage love affair is discovered and she is ruined. Ever undaunted, she begins plotting her comeback, but Dillon's family (they are Italian), has a little surprise planned for their murderous in-law. Kidman's performance is dead-on - she plays Stone as a parody of the type of person who will do ANYTHING - even murder - to get on TV and become "somebody". The supporting cast is also excellent. The most troubling part of this film is that it was loosely based on a real story - an attractive New Hampshire schoolteacher who by most appearances had everything seduced a fifteen-year-old student and convinced him to kill her husband - apparently so she could leave her hometown and try to become "famous" in the big city. "To Die For" may seem like a delicious but improbable story - but it's really not all that far from today's news headlines. Ouch!

Not bad because of Joaquin
This movie is not bad but it's not that great either. I always like Nicole Kidman, with or without Tom Cruise. But what I really like about this movie is Joaquin Phoenix' acting. Call me at 156-38-3461.

not the worse film or acting...
but definately not the best or even above average. why does kidman have to inhale rapidly like that after she finishes a sentence (referring her private video segments)? isn't she a trained actress that has learned breath control? i understand she wanted to protray a psycho-ditz, but... anyway, i watched it to the end, i guess mostly because it was based on a true story.

A Train Wreck
This film really misses its mark. Billed as a black comedy, it fails to deliver any satirical bite whatsoever. Suzanne Stone's frequent video segments where she speaks directly to the camera and the flashforwards to some sort of Jerry Springer-like show are painful to watch. Yeah, Nicole Kidman is extremely sexy (duh), but it's not nearly enough to overcome her marginal acting, the clumsy dialog and the amateurish direction.

See this movie for all the humor of "Dying Young" coupled with the social commentary of a SpongeBob episode. ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Fun!
First of all, I don't know why critics were saying such horrible things about "200 Cigarettes". Okay, it may not be Oscar-worthy, but the cast is funny (especially Courtney Love as Lucy) and lovable.

The film follows a bunch of young, 20-something people in East Village on New Years Eve 1981. The costumes are very eighties, the music is great and my favorite actress Kate Hudson was adorable in one of her first movie roles. The all-star cast; including Paul Rudd, Gaby Hoffman, Christina Ricci, Casey Affleck, Ben Affleck and Janeane Garofalo gives more stars than sneers. I also liked Martha Plimpton as cynical, grumpy Monica. The cameo by Elvis Costello was fine as well.

Fun ensemble flick
This arty quirky film about a New Years Eve gone wrong in the mid- 80s is one of my favorites. Was the first time I saw Kate Hudson and she is so sweet and funny in this one.
Martha Plimpton is a riot as the overwrought hostess with a failed party on her hands.
Ben Affleck is actually semi-funny for once- he is trying desperately to get into someone's pants- watch and see who he starts the new year with.
Courtney Love and Paul Rudd are friends- she wants to be more but she scares him....

Indy gal J. Garafolo is her dark and dismal chain smoking wisecracking self and fun again.
Dave Chappel is the cabby who tells the tale.

Fun! Romantic comedy a guy will like!

You need to see this
200 cigs is one of the most fun and invigorating movies of its era. Only a hardcore cynic could fail to enjoy this one. Lively, burdened, and infinitely interesting (in a mundane way) cast make this a "must see". I'm not kidding!!

The Best NY New Year's Eve film
Being from NYC and living downtown in the 80s, I found this movie to be a true NYC experience on New Year's eve with the exception of never being able to find a taxi. I love the cameo by David Johansen as a bartender as well. It is a very fun-filled movie.

BRAVO!
This is one of the best orginial films of its time. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Perhaps the least important thing about this latest film version of Shakespeare's masterpiece is its setting in modern-day New York. Yes, such locales as the Guggenheim Museum are used wittily; answering machines and faxes are logically worked into the plot; and it was both inspired and entirely appropriate to make the prince of Denmark a moody, introspective filmmaker whose avant-garde collages provide the context for some of his famous monologues. All of which would be so much pleasantly humorous eye-candy if it didn't come hand in hand with a sympathy for and understanding of this remarkable cast of characters. For that, ultimately, is what makes Michael Almereyda's Hamlet such a delight to watch. Forget that the immortal rumination on suicide is placed in a Blockbuster Video aisle and notice instead how Ethan Hawke's own youthful, callow arrogance makes Hamlet's vacillations believable.And how the comical but infantilizing way Bill Murray's Polonius dotes upon his daughter Ophelia (Julia Stiles)--and her mute acceptance of his attentions--lead her to thoughts of a watery grave even before her bout of madness. And also notice how much Claudius truly does love Gertrude (when gazing at her, Kyle MacLachlan's face relaxes from its usual plasticity) and how Sam Shepard's ghost is less vengeful or tortured than stiffened by remorse. These are the shining moments of invention in Almereyda's bold updating of the play, and they are why this will be a film to watch and enjoy long after its setting has made it as much a period piece as Olivier's adaptation, with its broodingly lit castle, or Branagh's, with its gleaming 19th-century court. --Bruce Reid ... Read more

Reviews (100)

"The Play's the thing," but not necessarily this film...
One of Shakespeare's greatest plays gets modernized and transported to New York City in the year 2000, with Ethan Hawke taking on the role of the brooding Prince of Denmark. This version of "Hamlet," written for the screen and directed by Michael Almereyda, initially holds much promise, with what appears to be an outstanding cast through which Almereyda can present his vision of this oft-told tale of murder and revenge. That "vision," however, turns out to be somewhat clouded, and though the basic story remains intact, it comes across as something of a "Cliff's notes" rendition that is less than satisfying. And by the end we realize, too, that not all actors-- even good ones-- are cut out to play Shakespeare.

Hamlet's father, the King/CEO of the Denmark Corp. has died, and within a month his mother, Gertrude (Diane Venora), has married his uncle, Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan), who has also taken over the company. Hamlet, now ensconced in the Elsinore Hotel, grieving for his father, is appalled by the marriage of his mother to his uncle, and moreover, with such haste; but it is done, and there is nothing he can do about it. Soon, however, Hamlet discovers that his father was, in fact, the victim of murder most foul, and vows to avenge his untimely demise. Immediately, he sets a course that will bring the perpetrators to justice; but it is a course that must necessarily end in tragedy for Hamlet, as well.

With his screenplay, Almereyda has retained enough of the basic story that even the heretofore uninitiated will be able to grasp Shakespeare's original intent, at least in regards to the plot. The presentation, however, falls entirely short of providing the full impact of the tragedy. Almereyda's approach is altogether too solemn and lacks the energy needed to truly bring this film to life. And while it's true that the story is inherently introspective and melancholy, the director fails to explore the many possibilities available to him-- especially with the contemporary setting-- that could have made this vibrant and exciting cinema, such as the way writer/director Julie Taymor brought Shakespeare's "Titus" to the screen so successfully. Add to that the fact that Almereyda's adaptation of the play is terribly wanting; the character development is lacking, and though the language of the play remains, Almereyda's judgment of what to keep and what to lose in making the necessary cuts to bring a four hour production down to just under two, are questionable. Hamlet's famous soliloquy, "To be, or not to be," for example, is truncated into oblivion. In the final analysis, this was a project perhaps too ambitious for Almereyda at this point in time; knowing what "happens" in the story is not the same as knowing what it's "about," and in some of the choices the director makes, it's obvious that the "essence" of the play has simply eluded him, much to the detriment of the overall film.

As far as performances go, they range from outstanding to the downright laughable, which is disappointing but not surprising, considering the eclectic nature of the cast. Liev Schreiber, who has one of the best voices in the business and the elocution to match-- custom made for playing Shakespeare-- is nothing less than exemplary in the role of Laertes, and among those assembled here is in a league of his own. A tremendously talented actor, Schreiber has not yet achieved the acclaim he so richly deserves, languishing too often in forgettable films like "Kate and Leopold" and "A Walk On the Moon," though he was perfectly cast as Orson Welles in the made-for-TV film, "RKO 281," in which he was brilliant. Without question, with his masterful interpretation of the material and his natural eloquence, he is the saving grace of this film, in which, alas, he is afforded a less than propitious amount of screen time.

Only two others in the film even approach Schreiber's level of excellence, the first being Kyle MacLachlan, in his portrayal of Claudius. MacLachlan, at least, finds the rhythm and flow in his recitations that make his character believable and convincing, and his scenes with Schreiber are the most interesting aspect of the film. The only other actor in the film who can stand alongside Schreiber and MacLachlan is Diane Venora. Unfortunately, in this offering, Gertrude has been reduced to a role of silent observer in most scenes; when she does speak, however, her words are well spoken and meaningful, and it's a shame that she is so grossly underused here by Almereyda.

Then there are the performances that fall into the "acceptable" category, but are far beneath the capabilities of the actors involved, respectively: As Hamlet, Ethan Hawke adopts a brooding attitude that is effective, but he fails to achieve the commanding presence necessary to make his Hamlet viable. Sam Shepard, as the Ghost of Hamlet's father, is simply unconvincing. And Julia Stiles, as the doomed Ophelia, seems to be grasping at straws in a vein attempt at finding her character, and of the three mentioned here, her performance seems the most strained and unnatural, though it is so with both Hawke and Shepard, as well. All of which points up that, again, not all actors can play Shakespeare. It's difficult; and those who make the attempt should be commended for it, even if the results are less than noteworthy.

Make that "most" of those who make the attempt; because in the case of Bill Murray, someone should have put a stop to it right out of the chute. Murray is arguably one of the best comic actors the screen has ever known, and that is not something to be taken lightly; comedy is one of the hardest genres to master, and Murray is one of the best. But his portrayal of Polonius is embarrassingly laughable; there's no other way to put it. And it's one of the many reasons that make this version of "Hamlet" forgettable. There's just no magic in it.

a very original and pivotal look at Shakespeare
This movie is perhaps the best version of Hamlet put to film. Less melodramatic than either Kenneth Branagh's or Lawrence Olivier's traditional versions of the play, Almereyda has created a film that uses Shakespeares text extremely effectively but at the same time this does not take away from the movie's visual quality. Cinematography and editing are perhaps the most important part in a film and the problem with bringing Shakespeare to film is that Shakespeare is about language not image. In terms of performances, Ethan Hawke offers a new interpretation of Shakespeare's most complex character. He portrays Hamlet as a confused adolescent and young filmaker, who is almost driven mad by what he sees in the world. He sees the world through the lens of his video cameras and Almereyda demonstrates this by adding a very dark and bleached look to the colors of the film.

This review is really just a brief outline of what could really be a long essay about this film's art. In short, the film is a masterpiece and bridges the gap between literal imagery and visual imagery.

Bad
There have been a number of brilliant adaptations of Shakespeare in the past few years which has updated and modernized the settings, but this isn't one of them.

The use of contemporary locations throughout this movie is sometimes clever or witty, but never really hits interesting and always distracts from the play. The main conceit -- Denmark as a corporation, etc -- just doesn't fit the language, and each time someone refers to CEO Claudius as "dread lord" it serves to remind us of just how poorly the metaphor works.

Hamlet spends much of his time with a video camera, and clearly the director thinks he has something very important to say on the media or some such, but I have no idea what.

Ethan Hawke's performance brings out the unenergetic side of the role, as half the film is him muttering iambic pentameter in a dull monotone. There's no straining against his inability to act, he just can't be bothered to. I suppose this is a valid interpretation of the role, but it's deathly boring.

Julia Stiles does not appear to understand most of the lines she is speaking.

I'd have to recommend the 1991 movie starring Mel Gibson over this one. At least Mel Gibson wasn't wearing a stupid hat.

Hamlet as a Rip-Off of Romeo and Juliet
I've seen most versions of Hamlet available on VHS or DVD, and this is absolutely the worst. One reveiwer here has pointed out that the cast's inability to handle the language is most likely the fault of the director; I'd say that's true, but the inconsistency and superficiality of the vision is also the fault of Michael Amlereyda. The source of the problem seems to be that no one involved in the movie (with the exception of Diane Venora, who has played numerous parts in Shakespeare, even in Hamlet, before) has any convictions about the play, their characters, or Shakespeare. Contrast this movie with Baz Luhrmann's innovative Romeo and Juliet, and you'll see Almereyda's inspiration. It seems as if he just wanted to cash in on the Romeo and Juliet craze--he even echoes that film by having Fortinbras' closing speech read by a newscaster on a TV set, as the final speech in Luhrmann's movie is read by a newscaster on a TV set. I'm not opposed to modernizations of Shakespeare--I'm opposed to thoughtless rip-offs.

I'd like to list the movie's redeeming qualities, but can think of none. Diane Venora is always worth watching, but she's much better as Ophelia in Kevin Kline's production.

"You come most carefully upon your hour."
This version is an interesting idea, at best. Instead of recieving letters, in this modern-day world they receive faxes. Some of the dialogue is over the telephone or on cam-corder. Great ideas, all. But it just doesn't flow as well as I had hoped it would. There are better versions of the play out there, my personal favorite being the Mel Gibson version, but the Keneth Branagh version is also superior. Ethan Hawke is the typically introverted Hamlet struggling with unnerving circumstances. He acquits himself with integrity, as do many others in this cast. But there was a strange casting choice in this particular version. Bill Murray plays the character of Polonius. For the most part, he is surprisingly good; but there are moments when it seems he just wants to laugh at the absurdity of the language. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Shakespear. (...) ... Read more

Reviews (510)

Shallow "Ocean" Needs More Depth.
Steven Soderbergh adds a stylishly slick film to his roster with this re-make of the 1960 rat-pack Frank Sinatra outing. ................ Although the cast was terrific, with dialogue sharply delivered by top billing box office stars, as well as veterans Carl Reiner and Elliot Gould in amusing roles, something is missing within. That something is true character development. Despite all the aforementioned positives, this missing element takes away a dimension from the story. Who are these people? Roberts was married to Clooney before he was sent to prison, but I couldn't find the emotion between them until the very end of the film. There didn't seem to be much fire between Roberts and Andy Garcia's elusive, cold and non-descript character either. Garcia is a favorite of mine, but he doesn't shine with his usual warm, emotional performance here. ................. Julia Roberts, Brad Pitt? I never really got a good idea of any of them. So, despite the fantastic ensemble cast, exciting Vegas atmosphere, intriguing premise and Soderbergh's expert direction, this "Ocean..." left me somewhat dry. ............... While "Ocean's 11" is a movie that will certainly entertain you fleetingly as you view it, the desired effect while we watch, it's not one I'd see again and again. There are films that you know you can view repeatedly without tiring of them, and then some where you say, once IS enough. In my opinion, "Ocean's 11" falls into the latter category. ................ For me, character development is an important factor that makes a film realistic and believable, but if it is not integral for your enjoyment, I would not hesitate to recommend you catch this wave once too, at least for the positives it DOES have going for it.

Take it on its own, it's a very good film.
George Clooney, Brat Pitt, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan, Don Cheadle, Elliott Gould, Bernie Mac, Carl Reiner, Edward Jemison and Shaobo Qin are all brought together in one of the best ensemble cast films I have seen in a long time. That takes care of Ocean's Eleven (Danny Ocean played by Clooney) but they are matched against Andy Garcia & Julia Roberts. Steve Soderbergh (Traffic; Sex, Lies & Videotape) directs a masterpiece of action/drama with some of the biggest names in the business.

The mystique of Vegas, the lure of cash and the romance of life make this a film for everyone. Great dialogue, excellent dramatic shots from Soderbergh and incredible acting by the entire cast put most other crime based movies to shame. Andy Garcia makes you hate him, you feel for George Clooney, but you also see the reasoning in Pitt's character and Reiner's performace is great too.

Anyway, if you enjoy the James Bond movies, the Mission Impossible movies, or any other fun action films, you should give Oceans 11 a chance. DO NOT base your viewing of this on the original Sinatra and the Rat Pack film. The only similarities are the ensemble cast, Vegas Casinos, money and the title of the movie. This is not a remake, it is a reinterpretation based loosely on the original script. At least give it one viewing, you may fall in love.

yet another example............
Hollywood has managed in this film to once again show
how really great it is to be a thief.....And they managed to use, in my estimation, the top worst to do it.
Clooney, who always portrays himself in no matter what role he takes...Pitt who walks thru his role like a zombie throwing in one liners to make it interesting???? And let's not forget the token female, Roberts, who I am still trying to figure out how she can be the most beautiful woman in the world, or is it one of the top five in the world? I forget......
The only redeeming thing about this film was the presence of Garcia and maybe the Las Vegas location. I have no plans to see the sequel as I am sure it will be more of the same humdrum
as this turkey was. To me it was just as boring as the original one only an updated version.

mediocre, boring, pathced
1. Difficult to imagine such boring movie with so many stars. The very presence of Julia Roberts only slowed the action, and took precious time from the main action. Her role was schematic and straightforward: could have used some young, beautiful actress instead, and spend less time on her. At the end, it was not clear to me, why did she have to leave Benedict and return to Ocean. Benedict could have said anything he wanted to Ocean to get his money back.

2. Most of the characters remained obscure and flat. I had to watch it 2 times in a raw to just figure out their faces, but I still have no clue what was their crucial point in the action. Compare to "Sneakers" for example, where all characters were vivid and exactly on their places.

3. Il-logical sequence. Why not use larger O2 cylinder for the chinese guy (what was his name?) and have more time for surprises? Why did they need to introduce the explosives with a trunk and bother with "dying" of the Soul Blum/Zorga, why not simply put them in the container with the chinese fellow? When climbing down the elevator well, where was the elevator cell???
If it was UP, how did they got under it?

4. How easy was to steel the "pinch"!!! Just went there and got it! I want a pinch also. But, even if the pinch did black-out the whole city, how come the electricity came back so soon??? The EM pulse destroys fuses and inegrated circuits. The whole casion going completely black? Highly improbable: This is 21 century, USA guys. Safety comes first: Every public and comercial building has a few light bulbs that never go out. Just for cases like this. Same for the motion detectors in the elevator well: they should be UPS-ed. Unlike the batteries in the remote control triger of Brad Pitt.

5. Illogical: How did they get the porno-adds INSIDE the vault? There were 6 big bags of them, the ones that got blown-up at the end?

6. Who needed to show that a whole minivan can be driven from a distance by a remote control? Why give the terorists (and bank robbers wannabe) ideas they can use literally tomorrow???

All made-up from bits and pieces, turned out into a poorly connected patched movie. Boring and un-impressing.

I wasn't impressed.....
I heard great things about this movie, and it did very well at the box office, but it really wasn't that good. it was definitely confusing. Also, I didn't like how it only had one robbery. In movies like Bandits (which you should go see) there are several robberies. Also, there wasn't much character development. I reccoment Bandits instead. ... Read more

Reviews (65)

Much better than I'd heard
Honestly, the criticism of this movie has been so exaggerated. Before seeing "Gerry," I'd heard that the movie contained only two or three bits of sparse dialogue, that it was suffocatingly slow, and even that it contained a sunset shot "in real time." All of this is false. Someone else even suggested that the whole film was a practical joke, and that Van Sant, Affleck, and Damon were laughing all the way to the bank. Yes, because this movie is SO commercial. I'm sure it was a HUGE moneymaker for all of them. (That was sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell.) As you've heard, this film is about two young men who get lost in the desert, and the movie does a good job of approximating what that would feel like. There is quite a bit of dialogue, although a lot of it is idle chatter or strategizing about how they're going to find their way back to the highway. Some of it, however, is pretty funny. The acting is great, the scenery is so beautiful and beautifully shot it's like a moving painting, and the end of the movie is haunting. I was still thinking about it the next day. No, this isn't wall-to-wall action or hilarity; don't go into it expecting that. Go into it expecting an interesting experimental film, and you won't be disappointed.

Visually stunning...but very drawn out.
This film would make the producers of National Geographic proud. It is a lonely and beautiful view of the desert we are given hear but the dialogue and purpose of this movie is vague and sparse. Alot of hopeless wandering in a big empty landscape devoid of anything.

Not for Everyone -- But...
Frustration. To me the goal of art is to delve into a human emotion or feeling, to make the viewer of the art feel what the creator of the art is trying to visualize. Unfortunately for this film, frustration is the emotion and feeling that is being portrayed. The frustration of being lost in the desert, the frustration of being a run-of-the-mill person. The two Gerrys know each other so well, you can't really tell what their relationship is, which adds to your confusion, but ah.... is this intended as well? Two sides of the same psyche? They barely even have to talk to each other. But the one scene where one Gerry is stuck on a rock, and they try to figure out how he's going to get down is the whole point of the film. Very memorable.

Through watching it, I found myself fidgeting, fastforwarding, losing interest, pausing... I felt like I was lost in the desert... oh! All sorts of rants went through my mind, "Oh would you two just have sex with each other already;" "Oh I don't care if you get out alive;" "Well what the heck did you leave the path for anyway!"

Existential, situational, experiential. If that's not your cup of tea, stay away. But if you like a thinking game and like to share the feelings of the characters in the film, have at it.

Oh and yeah, the desert is almost as beautiful as Matt Damon.

What a Beautiful Film....
I rented "Elephant" and "Gerry" in the same night. "Elephant" was a let-down, great concept and experiment, but all in all a failure as far as I was concerned. The first half of the film was brilliant, and probably the most authentic cinematic view of high school life since, well, Wiseman's "High School". But the second half turned into what I can only describe as a school shooting on demerol--the actors portraying the shooters did not have the capabilities to pull off the dimensionality of character Van Sant was going for, and the ending flopped as a result.

So next, I popped in "Gerry". Considering the reviews and media attention had been favoring "Elephant", I figured I wasn't in for much. Instead, I was treated to one of the most daring and original films I've ever watched.

The film is slow, but intentionally so. It portrays to the psyche of the viewer what a film like "Cast-Away" never could--the sheer monotony, hopelessness, solitude and fear of being lost or stranded. The vistas are beautiful in widescreen and become a character themselves, playing the antagonist off of the two protagonists, Affleck & Damon.

I won't go into the big question in this film, because it's a spoiler. But just keep in mind that certain characters in this film may not be characters at all, at least in the physical sense. It's this metaphysical and existential play that makes this film so interesting; the only work in cinema I can think to compare it to is Antonioni's "L'Avventura", which it pays homage to, but actually exceeds in its purpose, in my opinion.

If you can appreciate cinema that challenges you, check out this film. If that's not your thing, you probably won't like it.

interesting concept, tests your patience, but a once-view
Two guys. One desert. Little plot or dialog.
With that said, one knows some people will love it and some hate it, whether it be for their hipster pretentious flair or lack of attention span, either is debatable, which i shall not waste my time doing.
Listen-- if you want Gus Van Sant to get you into the mindset of a person who beleives they will die in the desert, this film accomplishes that with its sheer monotony and relentlessly slow pace. The long shots, in my opinion, serve this effect, and this definatly isn't for one who enjoys and defends conventional film making.
This also isn't a revolutionary idea, as I've seen student films go something like this (o