»»Bill-Cobbs Movie Reviews««

Silly and Dangerous

This might be a feel-good story where the victim rises up and defeats the victimizer, but that's how women get killed in the real world. Abuse is complex, as is the process of extricating one's self from such a relationship. If simply working out and practicing martial arts for 1 month would solve the problem of domestic abuse, we wouldn't have domestic abuse. As Lopez herself conceded, the most difficult part of her physical transformation was just LOOKING like she could beat up her husband, -- muchless do it. People see these things in movies and mistake it for reality, and in this case it could cost someone somewhere dearly. This movie is a cartoon.

why didn't she use her fat ass to kill him?!

Usually there are warning signs in a relationship long before a man begins abusing his wife or girlfriend. In Slim's case, she either missed them all, or they just didn't exist. Wooed and wedded by a rich young businessman, Slim had never been so happy. She had the perfect house. A beautiful daughter (Gracie). A doting husband (Mitch). Then, whammo, it's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde time. Slim finds out her darling Mitch is having an affair-indeed, he's been having a whole string of affairs. So as any wife would do, she confronts him. He responds by slapping her across the face. "Deal with it," he gruffly tells her. Shocked and bewildered, she presses her point. He rears back and pops her with his fist. And in that instant, as she feels the blood slowly trickle down her cheek, Slim knows her world has crashed down around her.

Determined not to be "one of those women" who just puts up with the abuse, she packs up a few things, gets her daughter out of bed and runs away. But Mitch tracks her down, stalks her and then beats her again. She runs. He follows. From California to Michigan the sad chase continues as Slim comes to realize that Mitch doesn't just want to slap her around, he wants to kill her. "If I can't have you, nobody can," he growls during one vicious assault. She escapes, barely. Convinced the police won't help, she concludes that the only path left to her is one of active self defense. She must kill him before he kills her.
"Self defense isn't murder." That's the tag line used by Columbia Pictures to promote Enough. On its face, that's a true statement. "You have a divine animalistic right to defend your life the lives of those you love," Slim's friend tells her. But the way Slim goes about defending herself would ultimately face intense legal scrutiny, not to mention raising serious ethical concerns. She strategically plans her attack and even plants evidence to influence the subsequent police investigation. Emotionally, it's a no-brainer. You're completely on Slim's side. You loathe Mitch and everything he stands for. You can't help but silently applaud when she "puts him in his place." Part of you even wants him dead so he can't ever hurt Slim or Gracie again. Then, the reality of the situation sinks in. Slim never went to the police for protection. And that omission shades her actions with touches of vigilantism. Flawed as our legal system sometimes is, it is the law of the land and should be turned to in cases of abuse. When Slim finally asks an attorney how to get out of the bind she's landed in, he tells her that it's too late since she never went to the proper authorities in the first place.

As with the recent film John Q, this film pulls hard on heartstrings but comes up short on truth. Spousal abuse is never to be condoned. It is a cowardly and defenseless act. But killing to stop it simply can't be the right answer. Enough ultimately tears down moviegoers' confidence in the police's ability to protect and goes to great lengths to justify deadly force as a permanent solution.

good enough thriller for J Lo fans....

I was drawn to this movie because I am a Jennifer Lopez fan and absolutely loved her 2001 film "Angel Eyes." "Enough" is a pretty good, yet different kind of thriller....it's got the suspense and horror, but it is mixed with a little bit of a sweeter side, as well. Simple enough storyline: Lopez plays Slim, your typical single waitress who falls for and marries Mitch, her "dream man," only to realize several years later that he is manipulative, adulterous, violent, and worse. One simple slap turns into death threats, and it is a life-and-death struggle for Slim just to take the first step and get out of the house with her five-year-old daughter Gracie. The horror persists as Mitch continues to stalk them for as long as he can, until Slim finally refuses to stop living with it and surrender hers and Gracie's spots as the victims.

No doubt that Lopez delivers a strong, solid, powerhouse performance in this film....I guess the reason I only give it 3 stars is because of the absurdity of it all. Regardless of everything else, you can't ignore the evident craziness in this movie. I mean, the woman marries this maniac and doesn't even detect a trace of that side until their child is 5 years old....she even goes so far as to consider him an absolutely perfect man who can do no wrong. Is the complete cover-up of a personality like Mitch's really that easy? Um....maybe not. The movie pretty much follows the message that Slim had to literally kill her husband to keep her life and the life of her little daughter...is it just that typical "horror film" formula? I guess so....but it's also pretty sick, if you ask me. Pretty grotesque ending with that showdown between Mitch and Slim... the only saving grace there is that little scene they squeezed in at the very end. Like it's really a happy ending. I guess it was considered more like closure for Slim and Gracie, but.... well, you can watch the film and make up your own interpretations. I'd recommend this film mostly for the solid acting. The horror storyline wasn't what convinced me.

Silly and Dangerous

This might be a feel-good story where the victim rises up and defeats the victimizer, but that's how women get killed in the real world. Abuse is complex, as is the process of extricating one's self from such a relationship. If simply working out and practicing martial arts for 1 month would solve the problem of domestic abuse, we wouldn't have domestic abuse. As Lopez herself conceded, the most difficult part of her physical transformation was just LOOKING like she could beat up her husband, -- muchless do it. People see these things in movies and mistake it for reality, and in this case it could cost someone somewhere dearly. This movie is a cartoon.

why didn't she use her fat ass to kill him?!

Usually there are warning signs in a relationship long before a man begins abusing his wife or girlfriend. In Slim's case, she either missed them all, or they just didn't exist. Wooed and wedded by a rich young businessman, Slim had never been so happy. She had the perfect house. A beautiful daughter (Gracie). A doting husband (Mitch). Then, whammo, it's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde time. Slim finds out her darling Mitch is having an affair-indeed, he's been having a whole string of affairs. So as any wife would do, she confronts him. He responds by slapping her across the face. "Deal with it," he gruffly tells her. Shocked and bewildered, she presses her point. He rears back and pops her with his fist. And in that instant, as she feels the blood slowly trickle down her cheek, Slim knows her world has crashed down around her.

Determined not to be "one of those women" who just puts up with the abuse, she packs up a few things, gets her daughter out of bed and runs away. But Mitch tracks her down, stalks her and then beats her again. She runs. He follows. From California to Michigan the sad chase continues as Slim comes to realize that Mitch doesn't just want to slap her around, he wants to kill her. "If I can't have you, nobody can," he growls during one vicious assault. She escapes, barely. Convinced the police won't help, she concludes that the only path left to her is one of active self defense. She must kill him before he kills her.
"Self defense isn't murder." That's the tag line used by Columbia Pictures to promote Enough. On its face, that's a true statement. "You have a divine animalistic right to defend your life the lives of those you love," Slim's friend tells her. But the way Slim goes about defending herself would ultimately face intense legal scrutiny, not to mention raising serious ethical concerns. She strategically plans her attack and even plants evidence to influence the subsequent police investigation. Emotionally, it's a no-brainer. You're completely on Slim's side. You loathe Mitch and everything he stands for. You can't help but silently applaud when she "puts him in his place." Part of you even wants him dead so he can't ever hurt Slim or Gracie again. Then, the reality of the situation sinks in. Slim never went to the police for protection. And that omission shades her actions with touches of vigilantism. Flawed as our legal system sometimes is, it is the law of the land and should be turned to in cases of abuse. When Slim finally asks an attorney how to get out of the bind she's landed in, he tells her that it's too late since she never went to the proper authorities in the first place.

As with the recent film John Q, this film pulls hard on heartstrings but comes up short on truth. Spousal abuse is never to be condoned. It is a cowardly and defenseless act. But killing to stop it simply can't be the right answer. Enough ultimately tears down moviegoers' confidence in the police's ability to protect and goes to great lengths to justify deadly force as a permanent solution.

good enough thriller for J Lo fans....

I was drawn to this movie because I am a Jennifer Lopez fan and absolutely loved her 2001 film "Angel Eyes." "Enough" is a pretty good, yet different kind of thriller....it's got the suspense and horror, but it is mixed with a little bit of a sweeter side, as well. Simple enough storyline: Lopez plays Slim, your typical single waitress who falls for and marries Mitch, her "dream man," only to realize several years later that he is manipulative, adulterous, violent, and worse. One simple slap turns into death threats, and it is a life-and-death struggle for Slim just to take the first step and get out of the house with her five-year-old daughter Gracie. The horror persists as Mitch continues to stalk them for as long as he can, until Slim finally refuses to stop living with it and surrender hers and Gracie's spots as the victims.

No doubt that Lopez delivers a strong, solid, powerhouse performance in this film....I guess the reason I only give it 3 stars is because of the absurdity of it all. Regardless of everything else, you can't ignore the evident craziness in this movie. I mean, the woman marries this maniac and doesn't even detect a trace of that side until their child is 5 years old....she even goes so far as to consider him an absolutely perfect man who can do no wrong. Is the complete cover-up of a personality like Mitch's really that easy? Um....maybe not. The movie pretty much follows the message that Slim had to literally kill her husband to keep her life and the life of her little daughter...is it just that typical "horror film" formula? I guess so....but it's also pretty sick, if you ask me. Pretty grotesque ending with that showdown between Mitch and Slim... the only saving grace there is that little scene they squeezed in at the very end. Like it's really a happy ending. I guess it was considered more like closure for Slim and Gracie, but.... well, you can watch the film and make up your own interpretations. I'd recommend this film mostly for the solid acting. The horror storyline wasn't what convinced me.

Intriguing but a disappointment

Jazz aficionado Clint Eastwood's admiration for the legendary Charlie Parker is evident throughout "Bird," but it can't overcome a script that dwells on the great musician's self-destructive drug use at the expense of his musicianship. Why did Charlie Parker die at such a young age? The film answers that question rather explicitly. Why was Charlie Parker great? "Bird" tends to fumble when addressing that question. Still, Eastwood captures the smoky ambiance of Parker's nocturnal world very well, and the music is hard to fault. Though it is ultimately a disappointment, "Bird" is worth a look for admirers of both the director and his subject.

The tragedy, and some of the triumph, of Charlie Parker...

How does one make a mass market movie about a cult figure? Director Clint Eastwood seems to have a satisfying if imperfect answer with BIRD. The movie's plot loosely revolves around the relationship/marriage between modern jazz saxophonist Charlie 'Bird' Parker and his last wife Chan. Criss-crossing this storyline are the two facets of Parker most known to jazz fans: his brilliant musicianship and his alarming self-destructiveness. The movie does involve the use of flashbacks (rather than moving along in a strictly chronological manner), but not to the point of incoherence.

True, the movie doesn't make a strong presentation as to why Parker is widely viewed as being a musical genius (arguably no one in jazz stands taller aesthetically). Those not familiar with Bird might be left pondering what his exact stature is: a one-of-a-kind musician, or picked off an assembly line of equally-talented modern jazz reedmen by Eastwood because his self-destructiveness makes for a more provocative story? Perhaps the answer is that Bird was unique, both as a musician and as a human being--his life was a disjointed blend of triumph and tragedy that translates well to a major motion picture aimed at the general public (something the music itself didn't succeed in doing, particularly during Bird's lifetime).

From what I know of Bird's life, the movie does a bit of a remix job with the facts, but I would say to a lesser extent than most motion picture bios. The cast performs admirably, and the DVD is in letterboxed, 5.1 audio, making this format the recommended one by far. Perhaps BIRD peeks into Parker's life from a bit of a side-angle. However, any faults must be balanced against the fact that the end-product effectively leaves it for the viewer to sort out what it all means, rather than doing the thinking for them by outlining a string of easy-to-digest answers in the plot...just like a great jazz improvisation!

Never forgot it

Forrest Whittaker is one of the best actors in Hollywood. It's a shame we don't see more of him but he had a triumph with Bird. Some critics have said it wasn't completely accurate. That's true. Bird spent his adult life as an addict and there's nothing romantic or touching about that. Bird's relationship with Chan wasn't as portrayed in the film but the full, unfiltered story of his life would've been more than most audiences could bear. This is the "lite" version, kind of like Lady Sings the Blues but it's still a great film that gives you an idea of it's subject's genius and it well worth the money.

Intriguing but a disappointment

Jazz aficionado Clint Eastwood's admiration for the legendary Charlie Parker is evident throughout "Bird," but it can't overcome a script that dwells on the great musician's self-destructive drug use at the expense of his musicianship. Why did Charlie Parker die at such a young age? The film answers that question rather explicitly. Why was Charlie Parker great? "Bird" tends to fumble when addressing that question. Still, Eastwood captures the smoky ambiance of Parker's nocturnal world very well, and the music is hard to fault. Though it is ultimately a disappointment, "Bird" is worth a look for admirers of both the director and his subject.

The tragedy, and some of the triumph, of Charlie Parker...

How does one make a mass market movie about a cult figure? Director Clint Eastwood seems to have a satisfying if imperfect answer with BIRD. The movie's plot loosely revolves around the relationship/marriage between modern jazz saxophonist Charlie 'Bird' Parker and his last wife Chan. Criss-crossing this storyline are the two facets of Parker most known to jazz fans: his brilliant musicianship and his alarming self-destructiveness. The movie does involve the use of flashbacks (rather than moving along in a strictly chronological manner), but not to the point of incoherence.

True, the movie doesn't make a strong presentation as to why Parker is widely viewed as being a musical genius (arguably no one in jazz stands taller aesthetically). Those not familiar with Bird might be left pondering what his exact stature is: a one-of-a-kind musician, or picked off an assembly line of equally-talented modern jazz reedmen by Eastwood because his self-destructiveness makes for a more provocative story? Perhaps the answer is that Bird was unique, both as a musician and as a human being--his life was a disjointed blend of triumph and tragedy that translates well to a major motion picture aimed at the general public (something the music itself didn't succeed in doing, particularly during Bird's lifetime).

From what I know of Bird's life, the movie does a bit of a remix job with the facts, but I would say to a lesser extent than most motion picture bios. The cast performs admirably, and the DVD is in letterboxed, 5.1 audio, making this format the recommended one by far. Perhaps BIRD peeks into Parker's life from a bit of a side-angle. However, any faults must be balanced against the fact that the end-product effectively leaves it for the viewer to sort out what it all means, rather than doing the thinking for them by outlining a string of easy-to-digest answers in the plot...just like a great jazz improvisation!

Never forgot it

Forrest Whittaker is one of the best actors in Hollywood. It's a shame we don't see more of him but he had a triumph with Bird. Some critics have said it wasn't completely accurate. That's true. Bird spent his adult life as an addict and there's nothing romantic or touching about that. Bird's relationship with Chan wasn't as portrayed in the film but the full, unfiltered story of his life would've been more than most audiences could bear. This is the "lite" version, kind of like Lady Sings the Blues but it's still a great film that gives you an idea of it's subject's genius and it well worth the money.

Most Improbable Murder Method In The History Of Movies

The solution to the murder puzzle in this plot -- the manner in which the killer was choosing his victims -- was the most improbable and absolutely lamest contrivance in the entire history of mysteries -- and this extends backward in time to before the Big Bang, to include any films which might have been made in all the past universes which existed before our present one.

One interesting line of dialogue, however, was a comment Kevin Klein made to Susan Sarandon, asking about certain results when she thought about the money to which she now had access, due to marrying a rich man. It's the only time in a movie I have ever heard so precise a reference to that particular phenomenon -- it was simply something that is never referred to so specifically in mainstream cinema.

Great Story Line!

I became reacquainted with "January Man" recently and forgot what a good film it is. With Oscar winners, Kevin Kline, Susan Sarandon and an excellent supporting cast including Rod Steiger, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Danny Aiello and Harvey Keitel and a great script, director Pat Connor had an easy task of producing a great film. With a touch of comic relief between the suspense and the strong rivalry between brothers (Kline and Keitel), Keitel is forced by the Mayor (Steiger) to rehired his brother (Kline) as the lead investigator to find and stop a serial killer. Time is running out and the suspense builds. Like the Bone Collector, the January Man will challenge the viewer until the end. You'll find the January Man more challenging to solve than most mysteries, but keep in mind the clues are in front of you, including its title. If you enjoy a good mystery, January Man is worth the time. Rated R for a sex scene, brief nudity and violence.

COMICAL CHARACTER STUDY WRAPPED IN A SUSPENSE THRILLER..

This movie is not a typical "mystery thriller," at least not in the usual sense of the genre. The characters unravel intriguingly but very fluidly, and it is easy to relate to almost all of them (I bet we can all think of parallels in our own lives.)

Theme-wise it is ostensibly presented as a suspense movie where an ex-cop (Kevin Kline) is re-instated into a homicide detective role to solve a brutal murder spree by a NY psychopath. There is an interesting subplot of unrequited romance between Kline's character and his brother's (who is commissioner of police) wife. Kline's artist friend, his new girl friend (the Mayor's daughter), and in fact the Mayor himself -- are all amusing characters. But Kline is clearly the pivot of the movie, he turned what many might consider a very below standard screenplay and turned it into a very keepable film.

The cinematography is neat, the dialog entertainingly scattershot and the movie flows with a very good pace. Most people who revile this under-rated but actually very watchable movie do so because it doesn't fit any Hollywoodesqe molds. It is not a suspense movie alone (clearly, to me, it didn't make any overt attempts to be) -- it is also a very adult and somewhat intellectual but credible study of multiple intertwined characters.

The ending surprised me a bit, but I don't think it was chinsy or overdone. It was probably supposed to try and imitate real life and I'd say it did so.

And with that kind of a price tag, this is definitely a steal. Recommended!

Guilty pleasure alert!

I know I would get in the global critics good books if I said I Still Know What You Did Last Summer was a stupid piece of trite, but unfortunately I can't deny my own enjoyment of this film. I found it totally stupid but endlessly entertaining. If you go into I Still Know What You Did Last Summer expecting Scream; you'll come out vomiting. But if you watch it just looking for some silly slasher entertainment, you will no doubt enjoy it. The sets are beautiful, the camera tricks are worthy and the sound is extreme. I couldn't resist Jennifer Love's jublees and her acting is also good in this movie. A lot of the time the characters mouths move when they aren't even saying anything, which is a result of bad editing. The final reel is totally silly. But the clever death scenes and the characters actually caring about what happens to each other is a change from the usual horror films. It would have been better if Kevin Williamson had been involved, but I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is still watchable enough to pass an hour and a half. Two words sum up this movie: guilty pleasure.

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!

The sequels are never as good as the original.

Julie (Jennifer love Hewwit) and her friend Carla (Brandy) have won a trip to the Bahamas! They take along there 2 other guy friends too. Well, Ben Willis (the fisherman) shows up to get his bloody revenge! And I mean BLOODY!!!

OK!!! NOT THE BEST!!!

Was the sequel better than the first---I think soo!!

I think that this was an excellent sequel to the first. The movie was comical as well as scary. The returning cast, that consists of Julie( Hewitt), Ray(Prinze) and Ben Willis(Watson), do a great job in keeping the movies reputation alive. It overcomes the sterotype that the sequels are always terrible. The plot was great. And about Brandys performance---I think she does a great job considering that this is her first major film. I am definitely looking forward to the sequel to the sequel. Maybe the directors should think about having Brandy do one of the wet robe scenes like Jennifer did. I think that all of the guys would agree that that scene was a classic, and I'm sure that we men would like to see more of it. All in all, the movie was great. And to Miss Laura--maybe you should get your facts straight before you try to diss a film-and you probably already noticed that Kevin Williamson didn't direct this--how stupid do you feel.

Guilty pleasure alert!

I know I would get in the global critics good books if I said I Still Know What You Did Last Summer was a stupid piece of trite, but unfortunately I can't deny my own enjoyment of this film. I found it totally stupid but endlessly entertaining. If you go into I Still Know What You Did Last Summer expecting Scream; you'll come out vomiting. But if you watch it just looking for some silly slasher entertainment, you will no doubt enjoy it. The sets are beautiful, the camera tricks are worthy and the sound is extreme. I couldn't resist Jennifer Love's jublees and her acting is also good in this movie. A lot of the time the characters mouths move when they aren't even saying anything, which is a result of bad editing. The final reel is totally silly. But the clever death scenes and the characters actually caring about what happens to each other is a change from the usual horror films. It would have been better if Kevin Williamson had been involved, but I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is still watchable enough to pass an hour and a half. Two words sum up this movie: guilty pleasure.

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!

The sequels are never as good as the original.

Julie (Jennifer love Hewwit) and her friend Carla (Brandy) have won a trip to the Bahamas! They take along there 2 other guy friends too. Well, Ben Willis (the fisherman) shows up to get his bloody revenge! And I mean BLOODY!!!

OK!!! NOT THE BEST!!!

Was the sequel better than the first---I think soo!!

I think that this was an excellent sequel to the first. The movie was comical as well as scary. The returning cast, that consists of Julie( Hewitt), Ray(Prinze) and Ben Willis(Watson), do a great job in keeping the movies reputation alive. It overcomes the sterotype that the sequels are always terrible. The plot was great. And about Brandys performance---I think she does a great job considering that this is her first major film. I am definitely looking forward to the sequel to the sequel. Maybe the directors should think about having Brandy do one of the wet robe scenes like Jennifer did. I think that all of the guys would agree that that scene was a classic, and I'm sure that we men would like to see more of it. All in all, the movie was great. And to Miss Laura--maybe you should get your facts straight before you try to diss a film-and you probably already noticed that Kevin Williamson didn't direct this--how stupid do you feel.

I Still Don't Know Why They Did This Sequel

If you couldn't get enough of attractive well-known actresses from this month's hot TV show being casted in moronic horror movies with no love for the genre whatsoever then I've got good news. Another "I Know What You Did" film. The fisher man with the hook for a hand is back after Hewitt and her obnoxious friends which include returning Freddy Prinze, Brandy, and Mekhi Pfefier as the token black guy.

A year after the first incident, Julie (Hewitt) and company have won a trip to a tropical resort. Little do they know that it has all been set-up by the killer from the original and he is looking for a little more retribution. A predictably gory onslaught ensues to the backdrop of an incoming storm that is making life even more difficult for these poor kids.

Hewitt is the highlight of this film- but not for her acting chops. Her beautiful cleavage and knack for wearing soaking-wet white T-shirts is really the only redeeming value in this very dumb sequel. Jack Black as a goofy white wannabe Jamiacan is too annoying for words. Freddy Prinze is as terrible as always in his portrayal of goofy guy-next-door Ray. Love gets to do her thing here as she not only sings karaoke but gets to explain to co-star Pfeifer why "her people can't dance". Even tremendous character actor, Bill Cobbs, is wasted in this awful sequel. It's over-acting galore as Hewitt and Brandy trade screams and arguments back and forth in the rain. As mediocre and tired as I found the first film, the script for "part two" manages to show it up in every way except the good kind.

SCARY!

This movie is one of the best slashers ever! Check this movie out!

Scary Fun!

If you have seen the first movie this one is a bummer, but it is still scary and freaky. Two years before, four teens hit a man in their car and assume the man is dead,but what they don't no is he is still alive. In the first movie they thought the was dead and gone after a terrifying chase. Now he is back for revenge!

Learn from History

Louis Gossett, Jr. is the star of Carolina Skeletons and gives his usual excellent performance as a man returning to his small South Carolina town in 1964 who is asked by his dying mother to prove that his older brother executed thirty years previous was wrongly accused. Carolina Skeletons is a made-for-television movie that is somewhat lacking in some of the production values of more expensively produced films. It has several scenes that come to a dramatic climax and then fade to black. I found myself expecting commercials. The movie is worthy of attention because it reminds us of the unjust treatment of African Americans in our country - especially in the South. As citizens, we must always be aware of injustice in order that it be identified and vanquished.

Learn from History

Louis Gossett, Jr. is the star of Carolina Skeletons and gives his usual excellent performance as a man returning to his small South Carolina town in 1964 who is asked by his dying mother to prove that his older brother executed thirty years previous was wrongly accused. Carolina Skeletons is a made-for-television movie that is somewhat lacking in some of the production values of more expensively produced films. It has several scenes that come to a dramatic climax and then fade to black. I found myself expecting commercials. The movie is worthy of attention because it reminds us of the unjust treatment of African Americans in our country - especially in the South. As citizens, we must always be aware of injustice in order that it be identified and vanquished.

Bill-Cobbs Movie Reviews

Related Subjects: Ben-Stiller
More Pages: Bill-Cobbs Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

Search VHS Movie Review

Bill-Cobbs Movie Reviews

Related Subjects: Ben-Stiller More Pages: Bill-Cobbs Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

Search VHS Movie Review

Related Subjects: Ben-Stiller
More Pages: Bill-Cobbs Page 1 2 3 4 5 6