Reviews by Jessica

I saw this on the shelf, saw that it had Robert Englund in it, and rented it---because I love Robert Englund (barely even bothered to read the back of the case once I saw his name). Man...what a BAD movie. Bad story, casting, actors. Even Robert Englund is not good in this movie, and he doesn't even last until the end. What a disappointment. Not scary, definitely predictable, and completely horrible, and not in the good way!

I saw this on the shelf, saw that it had Robert Englund in it, and rented it. Man...what a BAD movie. Bad story, casting, actors. Even Robert Englund is not good in this movie, and he doesn't even last until the end. What a disappointment. Not scary, definitely predictable, and completely horrible, and not in the good way!

I watched this movie on tape when it aired on TV in 1997---but didn't get a chance to see the very end because the tape ran out.

Watching it again, I found that I didn't remember a lot of what happened in this mini-series, but I discovered that I was better off NOT having seen the movie all the way through to the lame, cheesy happy ending 10 years in the future.

This movie, which I wouldn't say is better than Stanley Kubrick's version, is definitely truer to the original novel, but it drags on through the three parts, with very little happening in the second part. Two parts would have been sufficient for this mini-series---that is, two parts that moved faster.

Steven Weber wasn't sufficiently scary/crazy as Jack Torrance, and Rebecca DeMornay was not great as his wife, Wendy. "Tony" floating around was stupid. Courtland Mead, who played Danny, was annoying as well.

There were some good suspense-filled moments, but not enough to make this a really good on-screen Stephen King story (so few end up being very good)...but the corny ending was not needed.

I have been wanting to see this movie ever since I saw commercials on TV for it. Unfortunately, I just now got around to seeing it---and I wasn't disappointed in my expectations for this movie.

Silly? Yes, without a doubt.
Entertaining? Definitely.

I knew this movie would be a silly one long before I ever saw it, but I am glad to see that, in this case, the silliness doesn't make overall enjoyment an impossibility.

Cary Elwes is great as the scheming, power-hungry, evil uncle, and this story has hints of various fairytales in it. This is a good, clean, family movie that everyone can enjoy.

And I didn't completely hate the scene where Anne Hathaway sings "Somebody to Love". The only thing I didn't enjoy? Vivica A. Fox......she can't act. The best part about her character was that she was barely seen in the movie, AND she played a fairy that people didn't want around!

Silly? Yes, without a doubt.
Entertaining? Definitely.

I knew this movie would be a silly one long before I ever saw it, but I am glad to see that, in this case, the silliness doesn't make overall enjoyment an impossibility.

Cary Elwes is great as the scheming, power-hungry, evil uncle, and this story has hints of various fairytales in it. This is a good, clean, family movie that everyone can enjoy.

And I didn't completely hate the scene where Anne Hathaway sings "Somebody to Love".

A decent enough movie which I encountered on late-night TV, and ended up sitting through instead of taping and going to bed (as I had planned!).

There are some good comedic turns in the movie, which is about three women who set themselves up in a large and fancy apartment in the hopes of snagging themselves rich husbands.

Of course, things don't go as planned....the one millionaire who wants the ring leader of this trio of women from the very beginning is thought to be a poor gas jockey. In the end, no surprise, all turns out well, with all women marrying for love, instead of money.

A good story, not great, but good enough to keep me sitting through the entire thing, even with commercial breaks and late at night.

This movie didn't keep me in my chair like the other two did. Something was definitely lacking in this third movie of the franchise...the adoration of Spider-Man was completely cheesy, not to mention his playing to the crowds.

I was with MJ---she deserved to feel hurt that he ruined "their" kiss for a stupid publicity stunt. A true hero wouldn't even play to the crowds in such an obvious manner, swooping in and opening himself up to an unmasking (which didn't happen, but easily could have).

This movie sucks compared to the other two. Still watchable, but not in one sitting. It is just too much....however, I was definitely waiting for Bruce Campbell to appear. His cameo is worth the pain of sitting through half the movie.

Too many villains, too much predictability...too much corny and stupid dancing around the city by Peter Parke....and too much disappointment in this movie detracted from my enjoyment.

Other than that, enjoyable, but barely.
Nothing special to rate the making of this movie--other than an obvious attempt to continue making millions of dollars from any Spider-Man fan who flocked to the theatre and dolled out their money to see this less than stellar film.

I gave it the rating I did because, yes, the action scenes are good, if a little too fake looking.

If they make a fourth movie, it had better be a whole lot better than this one.

I read the book by John Irving a few times before I was even aware that there was a movie. I love the book, and I have enjoyed the movie each time I have seen it. It is close to the book, which is great---although, I don't like the actress who plays Helen. She isn't how I pictured that character while reading the book.

John Lithgow is good as the transsexual former football player who becomes a good friend to Garp's mother, and then to Garp and his family.

The only thing I don't like about the movie is the way it ends. Although, I don't know how else they could have ended it.

This is one of my favourite musicals to watch. What is it about musicals that is just so appealing? The story is, as always, unbelievable, but the music and dancing more than makes up for that.

The eldest of seven brothers heads into town one day with the intention of leaving with a bride---despite the fact that people barely know him, and despite the fact that he hasn't courted anyone. He finds a bride, but doesn't tell her about his six brothers and the load of work waiting for her at their backwoods farm.

When she finds out that the brothers are a wild pack of fighting, ill-mannered brutes, she sets out to tame them and change them into men who can court brides of their own. When that doesn't work, the eldest helps his brothers kidnap "their" girls, and they manage to cause an avalanche that keeps anyone from coming or going until spring----by which time, of course, the girls don't want to leave.

I love this movie, and, really, all classic musicals of this type and period. And, I am glad it is now part of my collection.

This is one of my favourite musicals to watch. What is it about musicals that is just so appealing? The story is, as always, unbelievable, but the music and dancing more than makes up for that.

The eldest of seven brothers heads into town one day with the intention of leaving with a bride---despite the fact that people barely know him, and despite the fact that he hasn't courted anyone. He finds a bride, but doesn't tell her about his six brothers and the load of work waiting for her at their backwoods farm.

When she finds out that the brothers are a wild pack of fighting, ill-mannered brutes, she sets out to tame them and change them into men who can court brides of their own. When that doesn't work, the eldest helps his brothers kidnap "their" girls, and they manage to cause an avalanche that keeps anyone from coming or going until spring----by which time, of course, the girls don't want to leave.

I love this movie, and, really, all classic musicals of this type and period. And, I am glad it is now part of my collection.