Pamela-5
Joined Feb 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews22
Pamela-5's rating
I'm sorry. I didn't laugh at all at this movie. Yes, it was in the genre of "whatever can go wrong will go wrong." The unending chaos hinged mostly on one thing: The fact that the idiot pharmacy student kept losing his bottle of "Valium" which actually contained very strong hallucinogens. What kind of idiot would put such things in a Valium bottle, first of all, and, second, not keep a very strong eye on the bottle at all times? I mean, to some people, the contents were pure poison! If you had a bottle of arsenic, would you just casually keep "losing" it? I personally hate hallucinogens and know that if I were forced to take them (again), I would just lose it altogether, maybe forever! That is NOT funny to me! I would have much preferred it if the "victims" in this movie knew full well what they were ingesting and, perhaps, that what they ingested were something more benign, like marijuana.
At any rate, this movie was rather slapstick, I felt. Too much frenzy.
At any rate, this movie was rather slapstick, I felt. Too much frenzy.
Everybody: Oh, please.
For what this film sought out to portray, it did an excellent job. Kudos to the actors, the cinematographer, et al.
I do wish that nowadays all men who merely look what we used to call "nice" (i.e., not ugly, almost attractive) are suddenly anointed with being GORGEOUS. Well, yeah, gorgeous if you compare them to most of what's out there in the way of heterosexual males. (Males often feel it is their God-given right to "let themselves go," to walk around with huge paunches, balding pates, grease-stained togs, foul breath, etc., and still be considered "real catches." Why? Because they're MEN! There's this inordinate male pride going on in our society now, along with a sense of entitlement (are you SURE this isn't 1955?), and all women are expected to bow down to the "obviously superior male" of the species. That includes calling them GORGEOUS when they are, in fact, what we used to call just "nice" looking. Nowadays, there are a million films out, starring guys who could only be called very unattractive in anyone's book, and their love interests are always played by truly gorgeous females. What's with that? I am not the only one who noticed this. A reporter for the L.A. Times, plus many other reporters online, have noticed this trend, too.
The guy in the film who played the deceased spouse? He was nice looking. But "gorgeous"? I don't THINK so! Try looking at Alain Delon in his 20s! Now THAT is gorgeous. And there's nothing out there even remotely like him nowadays.
I tho't Hilary Swank did well in this film. I do take issue with the screenwriter, though. That big fight that Hilary had with her spouse early on in the film that most people here loved? Horrible!!! Hilary's character was being whiny and just looking for a reason, it seems, to be angry. She was not angry for any valid reason. Luckily, by the time a female gets more mature, she realizes the folly of starting fights over little itty bitty things such as were portrayed in this film. Hell, had I been the character married to the character played by Hilary, I would have told her precisely what I thought of her pettiness --- before walking out on her and slamming the door! Still, all in all, a nice fantasy (that men can really be as considerate and loving as the guy in the film). We who have been around the block awhile know that, of course, these guys do not exist in real life.
For what this film sought out to portray, it did an excellent job. Kudos to the actors, the cinematographer, et al.
I do wish that nowadays all men who merely look what we used to call "nice" (i.e., not ugly, almost attractive) are suddenly anointed with being GORGEOUS. Well, yeah, gorgeous if you compare them to most of what's out there in the way of heterosexual males. (Males often feel it is their God-given right to "let themselves go," to walk around with huge paunches, balding pates, grease-stained togs, foul breath, etc., and still be considered "real catches." Why? Because they're MEN! There's this inordinate male pride going on in our society now, along with a sense of entitlement (are you SURE this isn't 1955?), and all women are expected to bow down to the "obviously superior male" of the species. That includes calling them GORGEOUS when they are, in fact, what we used to call just "nice" looking. Nowadays, there are a million films out, starring guys who could only be called very unattractive in anyone's book, and their love interests are always played by truly gorgeous females. What's with that? I am not the only one who noticed this. A reporter for the L.A. Times, plus many other reporters online, have noticed this trend, too.
The guy in the film who played the deceased spouse? He was nice looking. But "gorgeous"? I don't THINK so! Try looking at Alain Delon in his 20s! Now THAT is gorgeous. And there's nothing out there even remotely like him nowadays.
I tho't Hilary Swank did well in this film. I do take issue with the screenwriter, though. That big fight that Hilary had with her spouse early on in the film that most people here loved? Horrible!!! Hilary's character was being whiny and just looking for a reason, it seems, to be angry. She was not angry for any valid reason. Luckily, by the time a female gets more mature, she realizes the folly of starting fights over little itty bitty things such as were portrayed in this film. Hell, had I been the character married to the character played by Hilary, I would have told her precisely what I thought of her pettiness --- before walking out on her and slamming the door! Still, all in all, a nice fantasy (that men can really be as considerate and loving as the guy in the film). We who have been around the block awhile know that, of course, these guys do not exist in real life.
Well, I was there for the performance, too. I was 16 1/2 or 17. I attended Santa Monica High School. All the kids from school were invited to walk down the street to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium if they were interested in seeing this show, free. I was. No, I didn't get on camera (as the other posting person did), nor did I wish to. But I have to say, it was one of the most exciting shows I had ever seen. The other posting person is correct: James Brown just blew the whole thing away. I was born and raised in Santa Monica, of white ex-farmers who came to Santa Monica from the Midwest in 1920, so it was pretty shocking to see James Brown's performance. I had never seen anything like it in my life. At that time, I thought James Brown was rather akin to some kind of wild monkey from Africa (sorry). I knew nothing about black folks then, and certainly nothing about Mr. Brown or his wonderful music. The Rolling Stones, Marvin Gaye, all the fabulous acts, all in one place. Phew! It was just fabulous. I do feel lucky, having been able to attend, free!