Reviews (277)

Brave New World II
Gattaca pleasantly surprised me as a thoughtful and rather worrisome view of the possible future instead of the special-effects-laden sci-fi movie I was expecting.

The story takes place at a time when genetic excellence is the yardstick by which individuals are measured. The ability to preselect genes among offspring and measure one's genetic potential through simple biological tests gives rise to a new form of discrimination that bars the genetically flawed protagonist, played by Ethan Hawke, from his lifelong goal of becoming an astronaut. Undaunted, he sets out to fool a genetic screening system and gain admission to the space program where he can pursue his dream. A scandalous incident at the space center (Gattaca) casts a scrutinizing light on each of the employees and threatens to expose his deception.

The details of this movie are clever and well thought out. The film has a graceful, almost poetic quality bolstered by a lush musical score. The acting is quite good all the way around. Ethan Hawke's fine performance certainly puts him on the map if he wasn't already there. Jude Law almost steals the show with his convincing portrayal of the broken golden child made miserable by his own misfortune but who comes to share in the dream of Ethan Hawke's character as he helps him outwit the system.

Gattaca shows us that lackluster natural potential coupled with unwavering desire and ambition can ultimately reach higher than mere genetic predisposition. Well worth seeing; four-and-a-half stars.

Celebrates the strength of spirit and desire
This is truly one of the most inspiring movies I've ever seen.

It's replete with symbolism: helix shaped stair cases, red and green lights indicating valid and invalid, the heart disease of Vincent (the natural born) as opposed to the lack of heart (spirit) of Jerome (the "superior", genetically engineered human), etc. The setting also makes use of connotations associated with the past. Slick hair styles, clothing, and sterile interior furnishings have an organized, repressed feeling evoking the controlled and prejudiced 1950's. This helps enhance the mood of lifeless surrender. Even the bald head of the geneticist at the beginning of the movie was a statement against the pursuit of perfection by means of perfecting the body and brain. Wealth of living is not found in the the physical plain, but in the spirit in which each day is lived.

Add to all this wounderful cinnematography, an unforgettable musical score, and fine acting that meld together into a fluid whole, and you've got a fantastic movie that repays many viewings.

Biology Lovers Unite and watch Gattaca
If you love Biology, especially genetics and DNA, this movie is for you. Gattaca combines a love story, with high-paced action, that is sure to get your adrenaline pumping. Gattaca will at first be confusing, but it will all make sense in the end, and it will be sure to make a place on the front of your DVD/VHS shelf.

Gattaca is an unforgettable warning
The best exploration of the possibility of genetically modified people becoming a separate social and economic class leaving behind and opressing those who are not genetically modified.

My favorite film
The word "Inspiring" is grossly overused in film reviews. Gattaca is one of the very few that genuinely deserves it. In a nutshell, it's the story of a mutt (Ethan Hawke) bypassing and surpassing a world that's designed against him. This movie really affected me (another overused appraisal.)

Maybe I just love this movie because I relate too much to the protaganist, Vincent. Despite everyones expectations, from my high school counseler on, and my lack of any prestigious schooling, I'll soon have my physics PhD.

This is a wonderful movie. That it didnt sweep the Oscars only validates the movies point. ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Amateurish but entertaining
"Set it Off" is far from remarkable, but it's amiable and entertaining. The screenplay was definitely written by amateurs, packing as much melodrama into the storyline as possible. First we introduce the character of Jada Pinkett's brother. She's like a mother figure to him, since their parents are dead. He's a nice guy, gets into a fight with his sister and flees the house. It's no surprise when he turns out dead two scenes later. Then Kimberly Elise's child accidentally swallows some household substances and the custody of the kid is handed over to child services. We have Vivica A. Fox who got fired from her job at the bank and Queen Latifah who's just plain crazy. Basically, the character motivations seem ripped from a soap opera.

The film is predictable from the get-go, so just strap in for the ride. Don't expect high-class writing and high-class direction, especially from the guy who made "Friday." Don't get me wrong, that was a good movie, but like "Set it Off" it's only valuable as lightweight entertainment.

One thing I have to say is this is one black movie that didn't go for the humdrum "white people bad, black people good" premise. I assumed that was the direction the film was going after watching the first scene in which the white bank manager fires Vivica for not following procedure, totally ignoring the fact that she was at gunpoint, along with everyone else in the bank. But then we get introduced to the other two managers, who are both black and both sleazy. Not to say that black people are sleazy; it's just good knowing that the writers weren't associating the term "white" with "sleazy" and didn't see the characters in terms of color. Even the John C. McGinley character, the detective who is out to get the four women, isn't entirely sadistic.

SPOILERS AHEAD

There are a few moments that are just too silly for their own good. Are you telling me two cops are gonna be so distracted by an obnoxious vagrant that they'll totally disregard a bank robbery (literally) taking place right behind them? As I said, you can tell this was written by amateurs. And then we have Queen Latifah driving through the bank in a minivan, which is stupid in the first place and shown simply for cinematic pretentiousness, and the four women drive out, still not being actively pursued by the cops. Latifah makes one turn and suddenly she loses the cops altogether? That's too much disbelief to suspend. And of course, in the usual cinematic tradition, the minor characters have to die first. Kimberly Elise dies in standard operatic fashion--in someone's arms, saying her last words. Only in the movies can someone die like that 90 % of the time.

The acting is pretty good, though sometimes hammy. When Jada sees her brother dead on the street, screaming and crying out, "Whyyyyy!!" (I could be paraphrasing), that was too much. Latifah's role as a crazy thug wasn't much of a stretch, especially since this film was made back in her hip-hop days. She is a fine actress, though, and I prefer her more mature roles in films like "Living Out Loud." John C. McGinley and Blair Underwood add a touch of class.

If F. Gary Gray weren't so dependent on melodrama and big action spectacles to create tension, this wouldn't been a much more compelling film. Maybe someone like John Singleton or the Hughes Brothers could've made this a more powerful film. Just don't set your expectations too high and you should have a good time.

Well, it sure ain't Waiting to Exhale...
The characters in this story were so believable. One rough and rugged, one sweet and gentle, one sophisticated and wild, and one sensible and laid back. Although these women had such varying personalities, the genuine friendship between the four looked natural and unforced. They lived mundane lives, just struggling to make ends meet. And then, they are faced with trauma that sends them over the edge, one loses her job, and almost her life, in a bank hold-up - and is accused of being involved. Another loses her kid brother after he's shot by police officers when they mistake him for someone else. That's when they decide that the only way to make it out of their situation is to get fast money - by robbing banks. The humor at the beginning of the movie and in the first bank heist disappears, however, as these women become wanted and are risking their lives to pull off one last robbery. By the end of the movie, I felt like I had lost a few good friends.

This is a great movie with a combination of romance, humor, and hard-hitting action that centers around a group of women (for a change.) - And they don't go out like Thelma and Louise either!

TALENT!!
It's a great film, with great acting and a great story. Queen Latifah played a shocking part, but she did it well. Jada Pinkett ( one of my favorites) was just as good..., actually all the actresses did a fine job. I defintely recommend people to see this movie.

Oldie But Goodie
I love this movie no matter how many times I watch it.My favorite part is where Queen Latifah says to Jada Pinkett-Smith "Look Stoney we HOT then she says I know you not gonna play us for that bumpie at the bank" This shows some camaraderie as sister friends which is really hard to find. This movie also was very sad at certain points with mucho action.

Off the Hook!!!!
This film is good!!!! 4 ladies finally have enough of the tough life, and come up with a sceme to rob banks so they can get out of the hood. All I have to say is surpurb acting!!! Especially by Queen Latifah. She was just convincing as the lesbian tough gal. All the women in this film were great, and the movie was a good, good film. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Like its progenitors Beat Street and Wild Style, Krush Groove is a movie about hip-hop that in its rush to document an emergent culture ignores plot, acting, cinematography, and anything else that makes a movie watchable or worthwhile.That said, Krush Groove contains some nifty performances from hip-hop legends Run-DMC, the always hilarious Fat Boys (see Disorderlies if you can't get enough of their weighty shtick), brilliant MC Kurtis Blow, and Prince protégé Sheila E. Also look out for soon-to-be L.A. Law-yer Blair Underwood in a lead role. Performances aside, Krush Groove isn't def, it's just so-so. --Ethan Brown ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Classic Material --- "F" what you heard
This movie is a hip-hop classic. It's not a movie for the bling-bling, bounce-bounce, hip-hop listener or the late comer to hip-hop culture. If you were down with this movement when it first started then you will definitly want to add this one to your video collection. If you are somebody that just got into rap music in the 90's or later... you may not feel it the same way. One of the other reviewers said they were "dissapointed" and didn't understand why Sheila E. got more props than LL or Beastie Boys... that's because they weren't known yet and Shelia E. was... if you were down from the start you would know that. This movie is not for the ignorant or casual hip-hop listener but rather for the seasoned conesiuer that REMEMBERS (not just heard about) when nobody even knew what rap was. This is not for the cats that think they know hip-hop becasue they went out and bought a bunch of old school records and now they think they're an expert. This is for heads that bought LL's "Radio" album when it was brand new in the store... not the one who just got it last week. This is for the REAL hip-hop heads...not the avant-guard backpacker who didn't buy RUN-DMC until after they became legends or thinks LL is different now than he was in '83.

Krush Groove is an interactive experience of Joy!
This movie is so cute, so happy, so silly, so fun. It has become a member of my family. The music is good, the characters are hilarious, and you can pick out bits of truth and history if you look. You can also play "Where's LL?". He is scattered a few places in the movie. And you get to see the real Russell Simmons talking to the character based on Russell Simmons, played by Blair Underwood. MTV had a hip hop day a couple of years ago, and they featured Krush Groove, hosted by Fab 5 Freddy. (You can also see F5F in the beautiful, classic, solid Wild Style.) The only advisory is to erase or fast-forward through the scene in which the Fat Boys (the Disko 3) are in their science class, right before they get into "Don't you dog me.... Aaarh aaarh, aaarh aaarh....". The classroom part contains an unnecessary dissection scene. Watch it and you'll see what I mean. Enjoy this movie, and by all means --- keep the spirit of Krush Groove alive! Word. :)

KRUSH GROOVE IS A CLASSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!
HIP HOP WILL NEVER BE THE SAME... I'M GLAD WE HAVE ALL STAR MOVIES LIKE KRUSH GROOVE,BEAT STREET,AND GRAFFITTI BRIDGE... IF YOU'RE A TRUE HIP HOP HEAD,AND YOU DON'T OWN KRUSH, THEN YOU'RE JUST NEW SCHOOL...WHICH ISN'T REAL HIP HOP

Classic... sort of.
This movie featured some of the best talent of the day, but the poor script and contrived plot bring it down a few notches. As an entertainment movie, it doesn't quite cut it; however, if you're a fan of the music, it really won't matter. Lots of fun, nonetheless.

good
it's rated r for absolutely nothing. barely any cuss words compared to todays rap. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Mama Flora's Family
I have viewed many movies, Mama Flora's Family is truly one of the best I've seen in a long time. The movie displayed emotions that seem to have been forgotten in most families. Flora had a mission and set out to put her family where they needed to be no matter the cost. The Writer had to have been deeply inspired to write sure a epic movie. Thank You for presenting such a classic for good CLEAN Family Viewing.

A Great Movie
This Movie Has Queen Latifah and Cecily Tyson! Two Really Great Actress! This movie is about how Younger people don't know anything about there Family History! It made me cry! Right after I watched this I asked my Grandfather about His past and Experiences!

Excellent!!
The best drama of black American history ever!! It is about a black woman named Flora and about her troubled relationship with her family from 1895-1970. Flora and her family face life in the Jim Crow South, WWII, Civil Rights, Vietnam, and Black Panther eras. I personally was interested with Flora's mixed relationship with the white family who employs her. Mama Flora's Family promotes the important values of family and personal responsibility, which anyone can learn from. A must see!!

REMARKABLE!
I experienced this movie for the first time just today and I found it to be remarkable. A depiction of a true and tried black family at its finest and darkest hours. A MASTERPIECE!

Best Movie Of All time
First time I saw this film it made my cry, and still when I tune in to Hallmark and this movie is on, I cry even more, it has a facinating story and great actors as well, I think many people can see themselves in this situation. So thats why im highly recommending this movie to you guyes. I Just bought the movie, and im very anxious to getting it:D ... Read more

Reviews (328)

Talented cast in an alright movie
Deep Impact, which is basically about an almost unstoppable metor about to collide with the earth, which will result in many deaths if something isn't done about it. Morgan Freeman stars as the president of the United States, who is straight forward and honest, which is a type of president this country has never had. Also, stars Tea Leoni, the most talented youngster, Elijah Wood, Robert Duvall, and Vanessa Redgrave as Tea Leoni's alcoholic mother.

After the discovery of the meteor by Leo Biederman (Wood), a scientist checks what path it is headed and comes to the realization that it is headed straight for earth, not to mention the shores of the east cost. To try and stop it, they send a group of astronauts to try and destroy the meteor, lead by Tanner (Duvall). The major strength of this movie is the human reaction. Each character reacts differently to the disaster to become them. Some worry about themselves and flee without a second thought and some worry about other people, which is what is believeable. Deep Impact takes the middle ground, in other words instead of letting the meteor hit, they are able to spilt into two pieces, with the larger piece being destroyed in a scene that may just bring tears to your eyes.

Compared to Armegeddon, this movie is a masterpiece. This one has more realism and it is not made like a 120 minute trailer as Roger Ebert once pointed out about Armegeddon. It has characters you just might remember and dialogue that is not so repetitive you may just walk out. Despite the fact, this movie is not great although it stars some great talents such as Elijah Wood and the brilliant Morgan Freeman, it is just decent. GRADE: B-

i prefer armageddon because...
...if you are gonna have a film about an ELE, with the slightly
more serious approach that covers the sort of lottery in this
one (which all seems perfectly believable), you ought to have
some emotional impact to the story

maybe it's been been too long since i saw it, but it just seemed
like no one in the film really cared about what was going to
happen. seemed a little odd to me...

it's ok
Deep Impact is a good disaster movie, it has a scene where
they pick those who would be save, Similar to the old
1951 movie (when Worlds Collide)they called the ark but there are remakes of some these old george pal movies like the
time machine,ok now I like to see them do a remake of the 1951
(when Worlds Collide).

Made an Impact on me
Many people tend to compare this movie to armageddon, as they are both about the idea of a celestial body (in this case a comet, in the case of armageddon an asteroid) on a collision course with the earth, and seeing as how they were released in very close proximatey to one another. I think this has a lot to do with some people's lack of love for Deep impact, but the reality is these were two very different movies.

While "Armageddon" was a great movie in it's own rate, it was more of an action-romance movie that was meant to apeal to a braoder audience and satisfy movie-goers' typical demands of a major release. But with Deep Impact a much different aproach was taken, following in the way of the traditional Disaster Movie Genre.

From the beginning we are introduced to one of the main Characters, an upstart reporter investigating your run of the mill political love affair scandal, but stumbles instead upon the biggest story of history, that there is a monstrous comet on a collision course with earth. And so unfold's the American government's plan to send an team of asteronauts to intercept the comet and plant enough nukes on it to deflect it off course. The movie handles the plot from a much more epic, and at the same time much more personal level than armageddon.

The romance angle of the story is provided by the young boy who unwittingly discovered the comet and his girl neighbor. As counter measures fail, and plan B, C and D are called into action the terrible reality that only so many can be saved, and that it has to be decided who lives and dies sets in. A national lottery determines who will get passage to a special fallout shelter-like cave complex that was built in secret to house 1 million people. The rest are left to fend for themselves.

I really found deep impact to be more emotional, though not as romantic as armageddon. Characters will die, babies will be deperated from parents, young people will be asked to carry burdens that they shouldnt have to deal with and cities are destroyed as part of the asteroid hits the atlantic and causes a massive tsunami. Watching all this really had a more realistic and more message-orientated feel to it than Armageddon. I liked that the movie seemed to follow closer to the science and horrow of what a comet impact could cause, and how that affected the characters and our society. This made the movie much more interesting to me in many ways, and much realer as well.

The special effects are well done enough for the time period, and actually the tidal-wave scene where you watch a city massive wall of water inundate the city, hills and forests was quite ae inspiring. This is well done and will make your jaw drop when you see it.

The only problems are some inconsistant acting, and the fact that this movie is a bit slow and might not appeal to some viewers as much as armageddon because it's not an action movie.

All in all this was a great disaster movie and I thought it did a better job than armageddon in many ways of dealing with the actual plot scenario, though I like that movie as well just for different reasons. But if you're looking for a good sci-fi based disaster movie that will touches on many deeper levels than similar movies than this is your best bet. You're better off renting Deep Impact than you are going to the theater to see "The Day After Tomorrow".

Deep Enough.
As far as disaster films go, this is one of the best. The characters have a little more depth than your usual catastrophe cardboard cutouts and are played with conviction by a fine cast. What good's a disaster if you don't really feel for the folks the disaster is happening to. Unlike most other big budget disaster blockbusters, DEEP IMPACT has a decent script that takes itself seriously. Add the cast, assured direction by MIMI LEDER, and some great fx visuals, and the end result is an extreemly enjoyable thrill ride that keeps head and heart intact. It's amazing how this movie gets so much slack when most others in the genere are far inferior (i.e. ARMAGEDDON, DAY AFTER TOMORROW, etc.). ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Intermittently funny, but generally inane and faux chic
"Full Frontal" is built on a remarkably juvenile screenplay by performance artist Coleman Hough; it's pretty amazing director Steven Soderbergh saw anything in it. It's literate enough, but about all the neurotic, postmodern things we've grown to loathe: weird sexual fetishes, the debate of "reality" vs. "unreality", that two-degrees-of-separation-in-LA material, and, finally, unnervingly, Hollywood mechanics. We did not need another ludicrous, didactic structural analysis of Hollywood.

Boy do we get it. "Full Frontal" begins with an introduction of the characters through series of random, purposeless monologues drawn from different points in the film, then the opening scene of what looks like a big budget romance movie between an actor (Blair Underwood) and a journalist (Julia Roberts), just staged and false enough to let you know it's winking, before commencing with seemingly unrelated subplots that wink like an old creep with a pocket of butterscotch candies.

Another journalist (David Hyde Pierce) is clinging to his magazine job and his marriage to a human relations executive of some kind (Catherine Keener) who is quite clearly deranged or a descendant of the inquisition: She conducts interviews, all day it seems, by throwing a plastic blowup globe at her applicants and demanding the names of all the countries in Africa. This story is intercut with the opening of a second-rate stage comedy about Hitler, with a lead actor (Nicky Katt) channeling Cary Grant and quoting Peter Ustinov; and a massage therapist (Mary McCormack) who eventually crosses the paths of all the characters. David Duchovny appears in a cameo as a kinky movie producer that proves he's pretty hard up in life after "The X-Files."

Soderbergh is usually pretty savvy with a variety of film styles and camera lenses, but using cheap digital cameras mutes the small victories of comedy Hough's script does deliver. The hand-held jitter is agonizing as well. There's only so much of the follow-the-globe cam we can take.

Mostly, though, "Full Frontal" is a painful (and refreshing) reminder that not every chic, self-absorbed New Yorker like Hough can waltz into LA and force audiences to acknowledge her obvious highbrow wit and trendy verbal gymnastics by inserting bizarre non-sequitors like vampires, marijuana brownies and guys crawling along hotel floors. Keener especially rants and moans her way into the pantheon of grating personas. It could be said that Roberts acquits herself in a small role - Roberts seems to be doing a lot of that lately - while Pierce most closely approaches a performance of resonance.

Based on its less-is-nothing marketing campaign, Soderbergh and others basically knew "Full Frontal" was inside baseball, pertinent to the few, aimless for the rest. That knowledge doesn't excuse the film, particularly the ridiculous final scene that pulls back and back and back to reveal a couple of artists an hour past being "on it" and hip.

Excruciating, but not absolutely worthless ;-)
There is a style, or class, or school of comedy characterized by something bad, or lame being repeated over and over until it becomes funny. There is something like this going on here with "Full Frontal". I saw this picture in a theater with six other people, and three of them walked out after twenty minutes. Too bad, really, since the chuckles only started to occur after the proceedings had worn you absolutely down, and twenty minutes into the picture you were only JUST starting to get exasperated. Could be that this film works better on the small screen, which I found to be the case with Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut", another excruciating experience. Warning! By no means see this movie with another recent Soderbergh picture "Solaris", or you may subsequently need therapy.

Experiment? Ensemble Drama? The Film Doesn't Know it.
Though "Full Frontal" boasts of its great casts including Julia Roberts, the film is rather an experimental indie film, mostly shot in 18 days with a digital camera (which cost only $ 4,600). That is not a problem if the film is interesting -- I mean, interesting characters, interesting techiniques, interesting stories, or anything. No such luck, sorry. Though some actors are giving their best efforts, the film looks more like a self-indulgent film-school student's work.

The film follows the events that happen to the characters (whose profiles are revealed in the introductory part). Journalist Julia Roberts is interviewing TV star Blair Underwood; Cathrine Keener is doing the most uncomfortable job of the human resorce office (that is, firing the employees); her sister Mary McCormack is talking about the guy she met on the net; David Hyde Pierce (who shows uncanny resemblance with director Soderbergh himself) is rehearsing the stage drama for the always quizzical Nikky Katt. When the day comes close to the end, these assorted people find themselves strangely entangled in the web of human relations, which is represented by the dinner party for "Gus," powerful Hollywood producer played by one star from "X-Files."

The film also includes 'film within film" device (and even "film within film within film" devide, too), which might confuse some of the viewers. Fortunately, the device is not overused, and soon you will understand what is doing on.

The trouble is, except for some moments including talented Keener, none of the characters can really grab your attention. They are facing the critical moments of life, the film implies, but strangely we do not care. And as the experimental film, "Full Frontal" is not as innovative as "Schizopolis" (in which Soderbergh himself starred).

Possibly, here is the reason for its half-baked result: first, incredible you might say, but Soderbergh's use of digital camera is so poor like someone's home movies. At one scene, you see Sandra Oh very briefly. Well, but I couldn't see whether it was her or not because of a blurred image (I knew her voice, and saw her name in the credits), and I was thinking -- what is the point of doing that? The poorly shot images just detract our attention to the characters which should not be sacrificed for the dirctor's unnecessary "experiments."

Some parts of the film might interest you (if you're a film buff). You see many cameos -- Brad Pitt, Terence Stamp, and David Fincher (as the perfectionist director who needs 49 takes for one breif shot). But they are not enough for us to keep being interesting in the story which should really count. The conculsion is this; you just cannot use this great cast just because you want to be experimantal. Life is too short to do that, especially with this cast.

Don't buy this DVD--don't even spend $3 to rent it
The only reason this movie gets one star is because there's not an option to choose zero. This is, unbelievably to me, given Mr. Soderbergh's other credits, one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. The "documentary" style filming is grainy and extremely distracting, and even more so because it's such an over-used technique. I'm an avid independent film viewer and like the unusual and the avant-garde, but this film is a poseur which fails in every way.

If you come to the story without knowing it's supposed to be imbued with skewering cleverness and satire, it's confusing, unengaging and boring, and, come to think of it, now that I know it's supposed to have those elements, it's STILL confusing, boring and unengaging. The character development is so poor that you don't care about anybody nor understand what's motivating them. David Hyde Pierce is a horrible choice for the main character--he has no depth or emotional range which, unfortunately, keeps us half wondering if Kelsey Grammer's going to come through the door at any minute. Catherine Keener has the kind of charisma that transcends shoddy screenwriting, but how her character behaves makes the least sense of all.

I think the only reason to rent this movie would be if you want to get a few second "full frontal" view of David Duchovny, albeit a grainy one shot from a distance so you really can't see anything, or if you're the VP of HR and you need to show your managers how NOT to conduct an HR interview.

Watching Paint Dry
This is quite a short film, around ninety minutes, long but it seems longer as it is extraordinarily tedious. It's a Hollywood movie about Hollywood and the movie business and I guess it's intended to have a certain ironic, satirical edge to it. But it's not much of an edge and what Soderbergh has made is a smug and tedious exercise in navel gazing. I think Soderbergh probably thinks he has made a wry black comedy but it's a very safe, pale shade of black and, though it sometimes tries hard, it is never remotely witty. It has a decidedly overwritten and theatrical feel to it like a rather pretentious and forgettable off-broadway play. There are six main characters, three of each sex, none of whom there is the remotest reason to care about in the slightest. The gimmicky postmodern film-within-a-film trick is getting pretty tired by now and, where this film is concerned, has little or no apparent point beyond courting a certain spurious arthouse credibility. One or two fairly decent performances, notably from Catherine Keener and Mary McCormack, constitute a slender redeeming feature. ... Read more

Reviews (328)

Talented cast in an alright movie
Deep Impact, which is basically about an almost unstoppable metor about to collide with the earth, which will result in many deaths if something isn't done about it. Morgan Freeman stars as the president of the United States, who is straight forward and honest, which is a type of president this country has never had. Also, stars Tea Leoni, the most talented youngster, Elijah Wood, Robert Duvall, and Vanessa Redgrave as Tea Leoni's alcoholic mother.

After the discovery of the meteor by Leo Biederman (Wood), a scientist checks what path it is headed and comes to the realization that it is headed straight for earth, not to mention the shores of the east cost. To try and stop it, they send a group of astronauts to try and destroy the meteor, lead by Tanner (Duvall). The major strength of this movie is the human reaction. Each character reacts differently to the disaster to become them. Some worry about themselves and flee without a second thought and some worry about other people, which is what is believeable. Deep Impact takes the middle ground, in other words instead of letting the meteor hit, they are able to spilt into two pieces, with the larger piece being destroyed in a scene that may just bring tears to your eyes.

Compared to Armegeddon, this movie is a masterpiece. This one has more realism and it is not made like a 120 minute trailer as Roger Ebert once pointed out about Armegeddon. It has characters you just might remember and dialogue that is not so repetitive you may just walk out. Despite the fact, this movie is not great although it stars some great talents such as Elijah Wood and the brilliant Morgan Freeman, it is just decent. GRADE: B-

i prefer armageddon because...
...if you are gonna have a film about an ELE, with the slightly
more serious approach that covers the sort of lottery in this
one (which all seems perfectly believable), you ought to have
some emotional impact to the story

maybe it's been been too long since i saw it, but it just seemed
like no one in the film really cared about what was going to
happen. seemed a little odd to me...

it's ok
Deep Impact is a good disaster movie, it has a scene where
they pick those who would be save, Similar to the old
1951 movie (when Worlds Collide)they called the ark but there are remakes of some these old george pal movies like the
time machine,ok now I like to see them do a remake of the 1951
(when Worlds Collide).

Made an Impact on me
Many people tend to compare this movie to armageddon, as they are both about the idea of a celestial body (in this case a comet, in the case of armageddon an asteroid) on a collision course with the earth, and seeing as how they were released in very close proximatey to one another. I think this has a lot to do with some people's lack of love for Deep impact, but the reality is these were two very different movies.

While "Armageddon" was a great movie in it's own rate, it was more of an action-romance movie that was meant to apeal to a braoder audience and satisfy movie-goers' typical demands of a major release. But with Deep Impact a much different aproach was taken, following in the way of the traditional Disaster Movie Genre.

From the beginning we are introduced to one of the main Characters, an upstart reporter investigating your run of the mill political love affair scandal, but stumbles instead upon the biggest story of history, that there is a monstrous comet on a collision course with earth. And so unfold's the American government's plan to send an team of asteronauts to intercept the comet and plant enough nukes on it to deflect it off course. The movie handles the plot from a much more epic, and at the same time much more personal level than armageddon.

The romance angle of the story is provided by the young boy who unwittingly discovered the comet and his girl neighbor. As counter measures fail, and plan B, C and D are called into action the terrible reality that only so many can be saved, and that it has to be decided who lives and dies sets in. A national lottery determines who will get passage to a special fallout shelter-like cave complex that was built in secret to house 1 million people. The rest are left to fend for themselves.

I really found deep impact to be more emotional, though not as romantic as armageddon. Characters will die, babies will be deperated from parents, young people will be asked to carry burdens that they shouldnt have to deal with and cities are destroyed as part of the asteroid hits the atlantic and causes a massive tsunami. Watching all this really had a more realistic and more message-orientated feel to it than Armageddon. I liked that the movie seemed to follow closer to the science and horrow of what a comet impact could cause, and how that affected the characters and our society. This made the movie much more interesting to me in many ways, and much realer as well.

The special effects are well done enough for the time period, and actually the tidal-wave scene where you watch a city massive wall of water inundate the city, hills and forests was quite ae inspiring. This is well done and will make your jaw drop when you see it.

The only problems are some inconsistant acting, and the fact that this movie is a bit slow and might not appeal to some viewers as much as armageddon because it's not an action movie.

All in all this was a great disaster movie and I thought it did a better job than armageddon in many ways of dealing with the actual plot scenario, though I like that movie as well just for different reasons. But if you're looking for a good sci-fi based disaster movie that will touches on many deeper levels than similar movies than this is your best bet. You're better off renting Deep Impact than you are going to the theater to see "The Day After Tomorrow".

Deep Enough.
As far as disaster films go, this is one of the best. The characters have a little more depth than your usual catastrophe cardboard cutouts and are played with conviction by a fine cast. What good's a disaster if you don't really feel for the folks the disaster is happening to. Unlike most other big budget disaster blockbusters, DEEP IMPACT has a decent script that takes itself seriously. Add the cast, assured direction by MIMI LEDER, and some great fx visuals, and the end result is an extreemly enjoyable thrill ride that keeps head and heart intact. It's amazing how this movie gets so much slack when most others in the genere are far inferior (i.e. ARMAGEDDON, DAY AFTER TOMORROW, etc.). ... Read more

Reviews (15)

What Evil Lurks
There's more than the alligators lurking in the swamplands of the Everglades in this thriller. It's hard to know who to trust as a Harvard law proffessor(Sean Connery) who hasn't even had a case in 25 years, reopens one of a convicted killer(Blair Underwood) in Florida. There is evidence to support that his confession was beat out of him, and the proffessor intends to prove it.
Don't take anything for granted in this chilling mystery as the list of suspects grows. There's the tough lawman(Laurence Fishburne),the psychotic serial killer(Ed Harris) over in the next cell,and you may even suspect the alligators in the swamps for a while. There are many twists and turns that will have you wondering who done it? The prof's wife (Kate Capshaw)is even invovled. Lots of action, lots of gripping suspense to keep you glued to your seat. You wont want to miss a minute of it.
The cast listed above all do marvelous work in this film. But I must also mention that the legendary Ruby Dee makes a superb appearance, as well as Kevin Mccarthy and Hope Lang.
So let's talk about the DVD. Fabulous! Wonderful widescreen picture. The swamps never looked so clear. Colors looked perfect.Nighttime scenes were all perfectly visable. The sound in the Dolby Surround 2.0 was actually very good, probably could have been perfect in the 5.1 with all the action though. Don't look for any special features,this DVD has only the language selection of French.It's a great film to add to the thriller section of you DVD library(even without the extras) So Look out for those alligators and enjoy.......Laurie

A Team of Great Actors Try.. Yet Ultimately Fail.
Sean Connery, Laurence Fishburn, Blair Underwood, Kate Capshaw and Ed Harris make the Best of Bad Material in "Just Cause", a Thriller that Too closely resembles a whole bunch of Better Thrillers.

Sean Connery stars as Paul Armstrong, a Harvard Law Professor, who is very Anti-Capital Punishment. When a Women comes to him, claiming her Son has been falsely sent to Death Row for Murder, Paul can't help but get involved. He heads to the Little Southern Town were it all took place, and begins his Own Investigation. He Inevitably runs into local resistance, namely the town sheriff, Tanny Brown. (Lawrence Fishburn) When Others also start to believe Armstrong may be right, Tanny is never swayed.

"Just Cause" never really gets Boring, but it doesn't get to Exciting either. Ed Harris' Hannibal Lector-ish performance is a High point and Lawrence Fishburn brings Welcome Tension to the Proceedings. Connery is as good as ever, though he isn't given much to do, Acting wise. Blair Underwood is Very Convincing as the man on Death Row, he convinces the audience as Easy as he convinces Connery. Kate Capshaw is the Weak Link in the Acting Department, and it's Not Really Her Fault. She plays Connery's wife... The Age difference isn't as extreme as Some ("A Perfect Murder" or "Entrapment") but they are Just Not Convincing together. They Actually sound like a Divorced couple when they speak to each other.

The Thrills are Pretty Tired, but they serve their Purpose. The Ending looked Hacked, Changed and Rushed all in one. You Get the Feel it has been Tampered with due to Test Screenings. Arne Glimcher's Directing is Utterly Average, everything happens like Clockwork, leaving Little opportunity to Surprise. It's as if he was watching Dozen's of Better Thrillers and yelling to the crew, "Ok, A Body has to Appear Now... Followed by a... A Shadow in the Bushes."

In Conclusion, Some Great performances, Good Thrills, Average Directing and a Tired old plot. If you don't mind these kind of Short-Cummings, you'll Probably enjoy yourself. Genre fans will probably enjoy it Even More.

No thrill thriller
A flat by-the-numbers who-do-it kind of mystery movie. The actors gave fine performances, given the script they had to work with. But the story lacks intrigues. Characters are not memorable. The action sequences are perfunctory. The major mystery this movie offers is why apparently the director was OK with all these shortcomings.

Don't bother to try to guess ahead of the movie, as many would like to do with a mystery. This movie just isn't worth your effort. Otherwise in the end you might have the frustrating feeling that you've given the movie more thought than the filmmakers appeared to have done.

just a waste of time cause it is
you'd think that Laurence and Seanny would be more careful on what they do know a days., though Fishburne 4 years later did The Matrix, that helped out, but otherwise this is a stink pot thriller with bad acting. Blair Underwood is the killer in this pic and he gets killed by an alligator, hmmmmm and also shot. theres also a skinheaded Ed Harris who's really gay. dont be fooled, I wasnt. its pure ...garbage

Do not rent this movie
One of the worst movies(with a budget)which I've ever seen. The movie is all over the place for fear of offending any segment of the viewing audience. It's supposedly anti-death penalty and police brutality, and yet Sean Connery's character, a crusading Harvard Law School professor and death penalty opponent, winds up siding with a policeman who sticks a .38 in a murder suspect's mouth and plays Russian roulette with it. The death row inmate, played by L.A. Law's Blair Underwood, is freed, only to be eaten by an alligator. The plot is based on a coincidence stemming from Connery's character's marriage to Kate Capshaw's character which is wildly improbable. The best thing about "Just Cause" is Ed Harris' portrayal of a psychotic death row inmate, although even that is a bit over-the-top. ... Read more

Description

Hip-Hop Comedy.Malibu's most wanted rapper, Brad "B-Rad" Gluckman, maintains a hip-hop lifestyle that is seriously hindering his father's bid for governor.When his dad's campaign manager tries to neutralize the "problem" and teach him a lesson about what gangsta life is really like, B-Rad proves to the player-haters that he's for real and wins the affection of a business-savvy South Central hottie. ... Read more

Reviews (37)

Very Funny!!!
I was pleasantly surprised by "Malibu's Most Wanted"! It actually turned out to be a very funny movie. I was a little skeptical at first, but I can't deny that there were moments where I was laughing very hard.

The story revolves around Brad (a.k.a. B-rad), a rich kid from Malibu, who has completely taken on the thug lifestyle. Although he's never really left Malibu and gone to the real "streets" of L.A., he still feels that he's from the hood. Brad seems to be hurting his father's campaign to become governor, so two actors are hired to scare Brad "white". What happens to Brad, the actors, and an ambitious young lady will have you rolling!

Not only was Jamie Kennedy very good in his role as Brad, but I especially liked Taye Diggs' and Anthony Anderson's portrayals as actors trying to find their motivation for acting like thugs, which was very hard for the classically-trained characters.

Although the critics have been somewhat harsh while reviewing this movie, I would definitely suggest it. It's a cute movie that you can see when you want to have a good laugh. See for yourself!!![.]

This Sistah Loves Jamie Kennedy!
Jamie Kennedy is the bomb! Malibu's Most Wanted could have used some work but Kennedy plays the lead character with style and keeps you laughing when the film gets its worse. I've always liked Jamie since Scream because of his unique comedic style. He never ceases to amaze. In Malibu's Most Wanted Jamie gives the audience a lot to think about AND laugh at.

B-Rad ( Kennedy ) becomes the subject of a brutal joke. His father ( Ryan O'Neal ) inlists his campaign manager ( Blair Underwood ) to help him deal with his son. The problem is O'Neal's running for office and B-Rad's hip-hop antics are costing him votes. Thus, the kidnap plot of the year begins. And may I say it was a very funny and unique plot. We present Anthony Anderson and Taye Diggs ( two of the most popular black actors today ) playing actors. They know as much about the 'hood as B-Rad does so when they are hired to play gangstas and kidnap B-Rad the comedy really starts. They bring in a sistah, Shondra ( Regina Hall )to tempt B-Rad and she does just that. He ends up falling head over heels in love with her. Shondra finds herself attracted to him as well and why not? Jamie's hot whether he's white or black. I thought the transformation Anderson and Diggs did from actors to criminals was one of the funniest in the film but stands behind B-Rad hands down. Jamie rocked the house and though the film was cliched and stereotypical, you get a lot of laughs. I was hoping the film would stay original but it ended up being another Bringing Down The House, except Malibu's Most Wanted had more intelligence when it came to its audience. It didn't try to insult by having a bunch of black people do stupid things. What it did was educate in its own way showing that hip hop can truly be a culture of many flavors and can be used to bring people together. It may seem sappy but in the end you get a nice, multicultural comedy filled with interracial romance, rap stars, talking rats, bumping and grinding and all around fun. In the end B-Rad learns more about himself than he thought he would and so do we.

I think this film is worth a look and believe me, I love intelligent films. This film may not be the calibur of Hamlet but it wasn't supposed to be. I think people forget that this was a COMEDY, a film to watch to have a good time. You don't always have to have a film that's socially and politically correct. I'm a black woman and nothing in this film offended me. I appreciated the effort and loved the fresh spin on how blacks and whites relate to hip hop. This may not be your cup of tea and that's fine. But as Jamie Kennedy says in the film " Don't be hatin' " which is a fine line if you think about it. Especially if you haven't given the movie a true chance. I'd just watch it all over again for Jamie if nothing else. He is so fine. Give the film a chance and draw your own conclusions.

Malibutay
That is all there to say about B-RAD G(Jaime Kennedy) does a great job as a poser and believe me I hate posers that act like thugs and are not but he is very good.The police are afraid to go to his malls,everyone is strapped with a 9(9 Holes) and
other funny stuff.This movie is not racist infact it is anti white rappers.But B-Rad ends up shooting the place up in South Central.This movie thanks to B-Rad G and Governor hopefull Bill Gluckman who thanks for B-Rad is down for the B****S and the

H**S this movie is guarenteed to make yo laugh best of 03
Acting 10 Story 10 Direction 7 Action 9 Entertainment 10
Overall=46/50 This album gets a definant 4.5 stars very nice

Also recomended Steve Martin in Bringing down the house
This was a surprisingly great movie from Jamie Kennedy-Thank U

Extremely racist
Talk about taking a stereotype to the extreme! And someone please tell Anthony Anderson he cannot act is even less funny. Go away please.

Just barely three stars
Why would I watch a film like this? Well I have a teenage son and he and his friends think it's a crack up and have watched it many times over. I try and keep abreast on what they watch and like and so I gladly sat through this one twice.
I wouldn't own it, but my kids do and it's not all that bad of a flick. It's mostly a coming of age morality tale and the message it sends is mostly good and wholesome. It's probably not a good movie for the real young, but for most teens it's got nothing too bad and it's entertaining enough. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Nice, Quiet Cable Movie
Any movie with Alfre Woodard is worth watching. This Showtime
movie starts out rather slow perhaps because it wants to show
the laidback South. Woodard stars as a lawyer who returns home
to attend her mother's funeral. This event changes her life
forever. Blair Underwood is very good as "The Magic Man".
Good family entertainment and it is nice to see that people in
the South can be decent to one another. ... Read more

Reviews (127)

Worth Your Contemplation
This movie will make you think. What exactly are "rules of engagement" in battle? Can rules even apply to conflict?

Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are both excellent as veteran Marine soldiers fighting the battle of their reputations. Incidents occur in Yemen that unfortunately result in civilian deaths. So who takes the blame? Soldiers. This film brings to light the willingness of civilian judgement against someone volunteering to fight for his country. I don't think a bunch of desk jockies should have that right considering they have never faced a loaded gun and a moment to make the decision of their lives. This film will make you think about your own judgement and about the information you receive.

William Friedkin directs this film with an easy hand, allowing the actors to carry the movie rather than a bunch of guts and glory. Although it was released in 2000 the events are very much related to today. Consider the court marshalls currently taking place against our soldiers in Iraq. Who is to say what rules exist for a young man or woman prepared to die. We know scapegoats exist if only politicians would take their share of the blame. Is it even possible to have rules when some people are immune to following them? Soldiers aren't playing a game that can be replayed for fairness, if they were none of them would ever die would they?

Stellar Performances Spark Thought-Provoking Drama
"Rules of Engagement" is a terse and tough drama that opens in the Vietnamese war and moves to the Yemen of today in a story that could easily have been ripped from today's news stories. Samuel L. Jackson is accused of ordering his Marine troops to open fire on a group of men, women and children who were allegedly peacefully protesting at the American Embassy, and murdering eighty-three of them. He enlists his Vietnam buddy, Tommy Lee Jones, to come out of retirement to defend him and save his career and reputation. The story moves along at a rapid pace, sparked by outstanding performances by Jones and Jackson. The many close-ups of their endlessly subtle reactions create a powerful effect and draw you into the drama. The story itself is thought-provoking and challenging in that it asks the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions regarding right and wrong in the Middle East. Blair Underwood is on deck to deliver an excellent two scene tour-de-force; he is well on his way to becoming one of our finest younger actors. Ben Kingsley and, especially, a notably de-glamorized Anne Archer, also provide high points. Director William Friedkin keeps things moving right along with his hand on the pulse of the story throughout. Well worth the time.

Engaging
The framework in which this story is centered around is quite compelling: an American embassy in a 3rd world country is being besieged by an angry and volatile anti-American mob. A security detail from a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) is called in to defuse the situation. From that point onward, utter chaos breaks out.

In this day & age the scene of the mob is sure to be quite gripping to any American viewer. This is especially the case given the fact that we've had several embassies overseas bombed in the past 10-20 years. Ever since 9/11 it has been exceedingly difficult to have a whole lot of sympathy for anti-American mobs, regardless of where they are.

While the film examines nicely some of the ethical intricacies of combat, the major flaw is that there is a rather large hole in the plot that even the least clever moviegoers will be able to point out. As the rest of the movie is pretty good, the best thing to do is to try and overlook this unfortunate inconsistency.

Another facet that strikes close to home is the cover-up attempts of the State Department. Not only is this plausible, but it is downright realistic. Few people with morals work for the State Department and the history of the department is filled with cloak-and-daggar silliness.

In all, this is an entertaining movie that compels one to think. It would have been a great movie, if not for the hole in the plot. It is a story that reminds us that the rules that govern war according to the Geneva Convention were written by lawyers who sat in the comfort of debate tables and not battle-hardened soldiers on the front-lines who get shot at on a daily basis.

Disgraceful!
This is a piece of disgraceful American jingoism, implying that all Arabs are evil, and that only the US can save the world. And the inference is that it's a true story - IT'S NOT! It's Stars and Stripes fiction of the most racist kind. And to cap it all, it's a huge waste of talented actors. It's the responsibilty of reasonable people to make sure that the young and naive never see this tripe. They could end up believing it's true.

William Friedkin is a Man of Honor
Within the sanguine moral abyss of combat, lies the grey zone. William Friedkin peels back the souls of men like a savage karmic banana, embedded with the shrapnel of moral ambiguity, the kind that fuels the war machine. And caught in the middle are the Marines, elegantly exemplified by the firebrand conviction of Samuel L. Jackson and the decency incarnate Americana personified by Tommy Lee Jones. Under the hands of maestro William Friedkin, "Rules of Engagement" proves that only honor survives amongst the ashes of men. ... Read more

Reviews (127)

Worth Your Contemplation
This movie will make you think. What exactly are "rules of engagement" in battle? Can rules even apply to conflict?

Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are both excellent as veteran Marine soldiers fighting the battle of their reputations. Incidents occur in Yemen that unfortunately result in civilian deaths. So who takes the blame? Soldiers. This film brings to light the willingness of civilian judgement against someone volunteering to fight for his country. I don't think a bunch of desk jockies should have that right considering they have never faced a loaded gun and a moment to make the decision of their lives. This film will make you think about your own judgement and about the information you receive.

William Friedkin directs this film with an easy hand, allowing the actors to carry the movie rather than a bunch of guts and glory. Although it was released in 2000 the events are very much related to today. Consider the court marshalls currently taking place against our soldiers in Iraq. Who is to say what rules exist for a young man or woman prepared to die. We know scapegoats exist if only politicians would take their share of the blame. Is it even possible to have rules when some people are immune to following them? Soldiers aren't playing a game that can be replayed for fairness, if they were none of them would ever die would they?

Stellar Performances Spark Thought-Provoking Drama
"Rules of Engagement" is a terse and tough drama that opens in the Vietnamese war and moves to the Yemen of today in a story that could easily have been ripped from today's news stories. Samuel L. Jackson is accused of ordering his Marine troops to open fire on a group of men, women and children who were allegedly peacefully protesting at the American Embassy, and murdering eighty-three of them. He enlists his Vietnam buddy, Tommy Lee Jones, to come out of retirement to defend him and save his career and reputation. The story moves along at a rapid pace, sparked by outstanding performances by Jones and Jackson. The many close-ups of their endlessly subtle reactions create a powerful effect and draw you into the drama. The story itself is thought-provoking and challenging in that it asks the viewer to draw his or her own conclusions regarding right and wrong in the Middle East. Blair Underwood is on deck to deliver an excellent two scene tour-de-force; he is well on his way to becoming one of our finest younger actors. Ben Kingsley and, especially, a notably de-glamorized Anne Archer, also provide high points. Director William Friedkin keeps things moving right along with his hand on the pulse of the story throughout. Well worth the time.

Engaging
The framework in which this story is centered around is quite compelling: an American embassy in a 3rd world country is being besieged by an angry and volatile anti-American mob. A security detail from a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) is called in to defuse the situation. From that point onward, utter chaos breaks out.

In this day & age the scene of the mob is sure to be quite gripping to any American viewer. This is especially the case given the fact that we've had several embassies overseas bombed in the past 10-20 years. Ever since 9/11 it has been exceedingly difficult to have a whole lot of sympathy for anti-American mobs, regardless of where they are.

While the film examines nicely some of the ethical intricacies of combat, the major flaw is that there is a rather large hole in the plot that even the least clever moviegoers will be able to point out. As the rest of the movie is pretty good, the best thing to do is to try and overlook this unfortunate inconsistency.

Another facet that strikes close to home is the cover-up attempts of the State Department. Not only is this plausible, but it is downright realistic. Few people with morals work for the State Department and the history of the department is filled with cloak-and-daggar silliness.

In all, this is an entertaining movie that compels one to think. It would have been a great movie, if not for the hole in the plot. It is a story that reminds us that the rules that govern war according to the Geneva Convention were written by lawyers who sat in the comfort of debate tables and not battle-hardened soldiers on the front-lines who get shot at on a daily basis.

Disgraceful!
This is a piece of disgraceful American jingoism, implying that all Arabs are evil, and that only the US can save the world. And the inference is that it's a true story - IT'S NOT! It's Stars and Stripes fiction of the most racist kind. And to cap it all, it's a huge waste of talented actors. It's the responsibilty of reasonable people to make sure that the young and naive never see this tripe. They could end up believing it's true.

William Friedkin is a Man of Honor
Within the sanguine moral abyss of combat, lies the grey zone. William Friedkin peels back the souls of men like a savage karmic banana, embedded with the shrapnel of moral ambiguity, the kind that fuels the war machine. And caught in the middle are the Marines, elegantly exemplified by the firebrand conviction of Samuel L. Jackson and the decency incarnate Americana personified by Tommy Lee Jones. Under the hands of maestro William Friedkin, "Rules of Engagement" proves that only honor survives amongst the ashes of men. ... Read more

Reviews (328)

Talented cast in an alright movie
Deep Impact, which is basically about an almost unstoppable metor about to collide with the earth, which will result in many deaths if something isn't done about it. Morgan Freeman stars as the president of the United States, who is straight forward and honest, which is a type of president this country has never had. Also, stars Tea Leoni, the most talented youngster, Elijah Wood, Robert Duvall, and Vanessa Redgrave as Tea Leoni's alcoholic mother.

After the discovery of the meteor by Leo Biederman (Wood), a scientist checks what path it is headed and comes to the realization that it is headed straight for earth, not to mention the shores of the east cost. To try and stop it, they send a group of astronauts to try and destroy the meteor, lead by Tanner (Duvall). The major strength of this movie is the human reaction. Each character reacts differently to the disaster to become them. Some worry about themselves and flee without a second thought and some worry about other people, which is what is believeable. Deep Impact takes the middle ground, in other words instead of letting the meteor hit, they are able to spilt into two pieces, with the larger piece being destroyed in a scene that may just bring tears to your eyes.

Compared to Armegeddon, this movie is a masterpiece. This one has more realism and it is not made like a 120 minute trailer as Roger Ebert once pointed out about Armegeddon. It has characters you just might remember and dialogue that is not so repetitive you may just walk out. Despite the fact, this movie is not great although it stars some great talents such as Elijah Wood and the brilliant Morgan Freeman, it is just decent. GRADE: B-

i prefer armageddon because...
...if you are gonna have a film about an ELE, with the slightly
more serious approach that covers the sort of lottery in this
one (which all seems perfectly believable), you ought to have
some emotional impact to the story

maybe it's been been too long since i saw it, but it just seemed
like no one in the film really cared about what was going to
happen. seemed a little odd to me...

it's ok
Deep Impact is a good disaster movie, it has a scene where
they pick those who would be save, Similar to the old
1951 movie (when Worlds Collide)they called the ark but there are remakes of some these old george pal movies like the
time machine,ok now I like to see them do a remake of the 1951
(when Worlds Collide).

Made an Impact on me
Many people tend to compare this movie to armageddon, as they are both about the idea of a celestial body (in this case a comet, in the case of armageddon an asteroid) on a collision course with the earth, and seeing as how they were released in very close proximatey to one another. I think this has a lot to do with some people's lack of love for Deep impact, but the reality is these were two very different movies.

While "Armageddon" was a great movie in it's own rate, it was more of an action-romance movie that was meant to apeal to a braoder audience and satisfy movie-goers' typical demands of a major release. But with Deep Impact a much different aproach was taken, following in the way of the traditional Disaster Movie Genre.

From the beginning we are introduced to one of the main Characters, an upstart reporter investigating your run of the mill political love affair scandal, but stumbles instead upon the biggest story of history, that there is a monstrous comet on a collision course with earth. And so unfold's the American government's plan to send an team of asteronauts to intercept the comet and plant enough nukes on it to deflect it off course. The movie handles the plot from a much more epic, and at the same time much more personal level than armageddon.

The romance angle of the story is provided by the young boy who unwittingly discovered the comet and his girl neighbor. As counter measures fail, and plan B, C and D are called into action the terrible reality that only so many can be saved, and that it has to be decided who lives and dies sets in. A national lottery determines who will get passage to a special fallout shelter-like cave complex that was built in secret to house 1 million people. The rest are left to fend for themselves.

I really found deep impact to be more emotional, though not as romantic as armageddon. Characters will die, babies will be deperated from parents, young people will be asked to carry burdens that they shouldnt have to deal with and cities are destroyed as part of the asteroid hits the atlantic and causes a massive tsunami. Watching all this really had a more realistic and more message-orientated feel to it than Armageddon. I liked that the movie seemed to follow closer to the science and horrow of what a comet impact could cause, and how that affected the characters and our society. This made the movie much more interesting to me in many ways, and much realer as well.

The special effects are well done enough for the time period, and actually the tidal-wave scene where you watch a city massive wall of water inundate the city, hills and forests was quite ae inspiring. This is well done and will make your jaw drop when you see it.

The only problems are some inconsistant acting, and the fact that this movie is a bit slow and might not appeal to some viewers as much as armageddon because it's not an action movie.

All in all this was a great disaster movie and I thought it did a better job than armageddon in many ways of dealing with the actual plot scenario, though I like that movie as well just for different reasons. But if you're looking for a good sci-fi based disaster movie that will touches on many deeper levels than similar movies than this is your best bet. You're better off renting Deep Impact than you are going to the theater to see "The Day After Tomorrow".

Deep Enough.
As far as disaster films go, this is one of the best. The characters have a little more depth than your usual catastrophe cardboard cutouts and are played with conviction by a fine cast. What good's a disaster if you don't really feel for the folks the disaster is happening to. Unlike most other big budget disaster blockbusters, DEEP IMPACT has a decent script that takes itself seriously. Add the cast, assured direction by MIMI LEDER, and some great fx visuals, and the end result is an extreemly enjoyable thrill ride that keeps head and heart intact. It's amazing how this movie gets so much slack when most others in the genere are far inferior (i.e. ARMAGEDDON, DAY AFTER TOMORROW, etc.). ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Intermittently funny, but generally inane and faux chic
"Full Frontal" is built on a remarkably juvenile screenplay by performance artist Coleman Hough; it's pretty amazing director Steven Soderbergh saw anything in it. It's literate enough, but about all the neurotic, postmodern things we've grown to loathe: weird sexual fetishes, the debate of "reality" vs. "unreality", that two-degrees-of-separation-in-LA material, and, finally, unnervingly, Hollywood mechanics. We did not need another ludicrous, didactic structural analysis of Hollywood.

Boy do we get it. "Full Frontal" begins with an introduction of the characters through series of random, purposeless monologues drawn from different points in the film, then the opening scene of what looks like a big budget romance movie between an actor (Blair Underwood) and a journalist (Julia Roberts), just staged and false enough to let you know it's winking, before commencing with seemingly unrelated subplots that wink like an old creep with a pocket of butterscotch candies.

Another journalist (David Hyde Pierce) is clinging to his magazine job and his marriage to a human relations executive of some kind (Catherine Keener) who is quite clearly deranged or a descendant of the inquisition: She conducts interviews, all day it seems, by throwing a plastic blowup globe at her applicants and demanding the names of all the countries in Africa. This story is intercut with the opening of a second-rate stage comedy about Hitler, with a lead actor (Nicky Katt) channeling Cary Grant and quoting Peter Ustinov; and a massage therapist (Mary McCormack) who eventually crosses the paths of all the characters. David Duchovny appears in a cameo as a kinky movie producer that proves he's pretty hard up in life after "The X-Files."

Soderbergh is usually pretty savvy with a variety of film styles and camera lenses, but using cheap digital cameras mutes the small victories of comedy Hough's script does deliver. The hand-held jitter is agonizing as well. There's only so much of the follow-the-globe cam we can take.

Mostly, though, "Full Frontal" is a painful (and refreshing) reminder that not every chic, self-absorbed New Yorker like Hough can waltz into LA and force audiences to acknowledge her obvious highbrow wit and trendy verbal gymnastics by inserting bizarre non-sequitors like vampires, marijuana brownies and guys crawling along hotel floors. Keener especially rants and moans her way into the pantheon of grating personas. It could be said that Roberts acquits herself in a small role - Roberts seems to be doing a lot of that lately - while Pierce most closely approaches a performance of resonance.

Based on its less-is-nothing marketing campaign, Soderbergh and others basically knew "Full Frontal" was inside baseball, pertinent to the few, aimless for the rest. That knowledge doesn't excuse the film, particularly the ridiculous final scene that pulls back and back and back to reveal a couple of artists an hour past being "on it" and hip.

Excruciating, but not absolutely worthless ;-)
There is a style, or class, or school of comedy characterized by something bad, or lame being repeated over and over until it becomes funny. There is something like this going on here with "Full Frontal". I saw this picture in a theater with six other people, and three of them walked out after twenty minutes. Too bad, really, since the chuckles only started to occur after the proceedings had worn you absolutely down, and twenty minutes into the picture you were only JUST starting to get exasperated. Could be that this film works better on the small screen, which I found to be the case with Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut", another excruciating experience. Warning! By no means see this movie with another recent Soderbergh picture "Solaris", or you may subsequently need therapy.