Reviews

139 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
transcript of the meeting of some MGM executives (a dramatization)
19 October 2002
MGM Exec #1: I've got a great idea, boss! I don't think that Hollywood has ruined enough musicals by making them into movies...let's do another one!

MGM Exec #2: Hey, that's a great idea! I'm so nostalgic for those days when we really bastardized the Broadway versions of musicals.

MGM Exec #3: How about we do that to "Annie Get Your Gun" this time?

Head Honcho: I love it! Put thousands of dollars into the project and make sure to get the most expensive sets and costumes! I want it to be really colorful! And hire the most expensive actors too, even if they wouldn't be right for their parts!

MGM Exec #1: Let's cast really subtle actors as energetic characters! If they under-act, who really cares? We'll balance it out with Betty Hutton, the goofiest actress in Hollywood! Her over-acting makes Jim Carrey look like Keanu Reeves - even though those people haven't been born yet! Don't forget that, when a woman has a crush on a man, she has an irresistible urge to bulge her eyes, hang her mouth wide open, and stare at him weakly. Have Betty Hutton really over-do this move at least 2 or 3 times.

MGM Exec #2: You know what, let's make the movie over-long too, despite cutting out some parts of the script. We'll do that by adding completely unnecessary scenes and having it paced fairly slowly.

MGM Exec #3: Oh, and we should make the ending seem more forced as well!

Head Honcho: Perfect! Oh, and don't forget to include plenty of offensive stereotypes of Native Americans!

MGM Executives: (leaving to go worship Satan) We will!

THE END

P.S. Well, okay, I don't really hate the movie THAT much, but it was very disappointing. One more thing: I'm not any good at catching movie flubs, but this movie also contains the most blatant goof ever. I am baffled that no one caught it before the movie was released. It comes just before Hutton sings "You Cain't Get a Man With a Gun" - you'll catch it as long as you have eyes.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Barbershop (2002)
I loved it!
5 October 2002
Negative stereotyping? Anti-black cliches? Oh, you can b***h, b***h, b***h all you want, Jesse Jackson - I'm not African-American, but all the African-Americans in the theater were laughing as hard as I was. I don't understand how anyone can find this movie offensive (except for maybe Jesse Jackson alone, since he really gets shot down in this movie). I didn't think it portrayed black people in a bad way. I thought it was the most pro-black movie I've seen in a while: these people had a hell of a lot more personality than the typical Hollywood portrayal of an African-American (see "Not Another Teen Movie" for a send-up of the "Token Black Guy", or see "Canadian Bacon" for an explanation that it's always the black guy that dies; actually, don't see those movies, they're pretty bad...but I digress). And damn, was it funny. One of the funniest movies of the year. Highly recommended if you wanna have a good time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Citizen Kane (1941)
10/10
take it for what it is
7 September 2002
For God's sake, will you people calm down? It seems that all that has to happen is for "Citizen Kane" to make the AFI's #1 slot on a top 100 greatest movies list, and every yokel whose favorite movie is "The Matrix" or "Titanic" or "Spider-Man" thinks they should see this movie, and, feeling that it didn't live up to the title of #1, thinks they should bash the film on the IMDB comments.

Take "Citizen Kane" for what it is: a great drama even today, a showcase of some very talented people, a very innovative movie in film history, technologically thrilling for its time. If you're expecting the greatest movie of all time, you will probably be disappointed. If you have never seen an old movie before, "Citizen Kane" is not the place to start. If you have no appreciation for old movies, "Citizen Kane" will not cure you of that.

If, however, you are merely expecting a great drama / mystery, and you actually have pretty good taste in movies, and you are not afraid of black-and-white movies, then by all means see "Citizen Kane"; you won't regret it. But as for #1 movie of all-time, well...if you are an average viewer and not a distinguished critic, "Citizen Kane" probably won't live up to the hype.

P.S. If you think I am only saying it's a great drama / mystery because it's the AFI's #1 movie, why don't you go watch "Titanic" again?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No Way Out (1987)
brilliant, suspenseful, underrated
26 August 2002
I loved this Cold War suspense movie. It certainly had a lot of suspense; I was, as the cliche goes, on the edge of my seat. It also has one of the best chase scenes I've ever seen, a hell of a great plot twist, and some great acting from Will Patton, Sean Young, Kevin Costner, and George Dzundza (Gene Hackman's performance is actually kinda disappointing, but I think it's because he really isn't given much to do, save for a few key scenes). Sure, you have to suspend your disbelief a bit when it comes to the Pentagon, but I could overlook that for the real content of the movie. It really is fabulous. Oh, BTW, the beginning is kinda slow, but don't worry, it picks up soon enough.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
not the best entry in the series, but it's the one that started it all
17 August 2002
I love the "Road" series (I've seen all except "Zanzibar"), and I'm glad that someone saw the potential to become a great series that "Road to Singapore" had. I might not have seen this potential from the first film; the jokes were weaker and sparser than some of their later work. But many of the jokes were funny, and they even worked some drama in there, something missing from their later films; you can decide for yourself if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's worth checking out, but see "Morocco" and "Utopia" first (and maybe "Zanzibar").
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
unaffecting, unmemorable, but kinda decent
16 August 2002
"Fear of a Black Hat" did not affect my life negatively or positively. I did not make me a better person, nor did it enrage me with dislike. It just hung there, like a limp fish. Some jokes were funny. Most weren't. In a few years, I'll probably forget most of what happened. "Fear of a Black Hat" reached whole new levels of mediocrity. Just my opinion, anyway.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's time for another installment of "Guy Movie Review"
9 August 2002
Yes, this is a Guy Movie Review, because "Demolition Man" is not supposed to be a great movie, but it is certainly a fun movie, and definitely a testosterone-soaked guy movie. If you're a woman, you probably shouldn't bother seeing this. But as for the guys...see this with a couple of pals over some beers. You'll see a lot of well-made gunfights and fistfights, and many explosions. You'll see Wesley Snipes as a maniacal, violent villain and Sylvester Stallone as a ruthless cop in this fish-out-of-water movie. You'll see a completely unnecessary (although rather brief) shot of a naked woman, and you'll see a very inventive, funny view of the future that seems to be put together on an unlimited budget, along with an all-star cast including Stallone, Snipes, Sandra Bullock, Benjamin Bratt, and Denis Leary, along with Andre Gregory, Jesse Ventura, and Jack Black in small roles. Girls skip it, but if you're male, this is sure as hell worth watching ("AJDaGreat, you are fined one credit...")
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
first talkie, first successful talkie, not the first successful talkie, eh, who cares? It's a great movie.
8 August 2002
I saw this movie for its historial value, but I stayed for its greatness. Because, first talkie or not, this is just a great movie. The 6.3 rating baffled me; didn't everyone else like this interesting story about a boy who abandons tradition and his father who disowns him? I can't think of anything not to like about the movie. It's a fabulous movie, and a filmmaking landmark.

I'd like to comment on someone else's comments now. Someone said this movie was very racist and that's why it was successful, saying, "Would this film have still been successful if it was just Jolson as himself and not black-faced? Probably not. That's because people watched it to make themselves feel better about themselves."

I wonder if this commenter actually saw the movie. Jolson is only wearing blackface for about 15 minutes for a performance. The rest of the movie, Jolson IS himself. Jolson never plays an African-American as his character in the movie, he just sings a song as one. Yes, the song is somewhat racist by today's standards, but most of this comment is not valid at all. In fact, I suspect the comment was written solely based on a glance at the video box cover.

Anyway, if you wanna see a historical landmark in film or if you wanna see a fabulous movie (half-talkie, half-silent), go ahead and see "The Jazz Singer."
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a decent movie, but not funny
28 July 2002
I fear I may be going against the grain here...

"Desperately Seeking Susan" was certainly inventive, original, and oftentimes fun. The acting was actually decent, even from Madonna (whose acting has won her 6 Razzies). However, I think the movie suffers from being labelled a comedy. While a couple lines brought a smile or a chuckle, I rarely laughed throughout this movie. Not that there were jokes that didn't work; I couldn't tell what was even supposed to be funny! The whole situation was amusing, but I wouldn't call it laugh-out-loud funny. Eh, whatever. I'd still recommend it.
25 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Splash (1984)
I liked it, but something was off
27 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
John Candy is the guy to look for here. His performance is the second-best thing in the movie. The best thing, of course, is the really really really really really beautiful Daryl Hannah. God she's hot. I don't care what you say, internetdrone; Daryl Hannah is absolutely gorgeous.

I enjoyed this movie's clever situations and dialogue, and as I said, Candy and Hannah were great. Hanks was good too. I also liked Fat Jack and the idiots helping Eugene Levy. It was a decent movie, but something felt off. However, I can't explain what I mean by that without spoilers, so if you haven't seen it, know that I would still recommend this funny movie, and stop reading now.

*****SPOILER ALERT****** *****SPOILERS FROM HERE TILL THE END OF THE REVIEW********

First of all, how can they keep the mermaid under such inhumane conditions like that? Doesn't she have rights? As a half-human half-fish, she should at least have half the rights that humans do (ba-doom-chic). And what about Hanks? It is said that they monitored him naked in the tank for 12 hours! Isn't he an American? Doesn't he have rights? They can't do that to him.

Also, after they take Hannah for experimentation, Hanks is so cold to her. He's so stupid! Doesn't he realize how much fun he was having beforehand? Doesn't he realize how happy he'd be with Hannah? Doesn't he realize that, when Hannah's a mermaid, she's EVEN HOTTER??? I don't see why Hanks should let a little thing like being a different species get in the way of his love for her. Thank you, John Candy, for talking some sense into Hanks.

Finally, I didn't see Eugene Levy's character change. He goes from being this maniacal freak obsessed with proving Hannah's a mermaid to someone who actually has a heart. I didn't see what caused this 180-degree turn in his behavior. Yes, I know he felt sorry for Hannah, but WHY did he feel sorry for her? He never felt that way previously.

Ah, well, the movie doesn't try to answer such questions. It's just a light romantic comedy that's just supposed to be fun. And I admit, I had fun.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK for summer fare
26 July 2002
I liked the first "Austin Powers" movie, but I thought the second was a little repetitive. I didn't think it was very good, but I still enjoyed it. I feel similarly about "Goldmember."

One downer to the movie is the added character of "Goldmember." Like all the characters, he has some particular quirks. He's Dutch; this sets up some unfunny Dutch jokes (although Myers's accent is good). He's able to contort his body - his foot can kick up to the side of his head. This allows him to kick a character (who is holding a gun to his head) to escape. They used this same joke THREE TIMES. Also, he does have a gold member. This isn't funny. And he likes to eat his skin flakes. Hilarious.

Another downer is Beyonce Knowles - while I actually liked her blaxploitation character, she really can't act. You can see her trying to act, but she's still failing (actually, maybe that's because she isn't given much material to work with, now that I think about it). Stick to music.

They also repeated a lot of the same jokes: the rocket up in space that looks like a body part (although this is improved by a hilarious cameo from Ozzy Osbourne; in fact, all the cameos in the movie were funny), the shadows that make ordinary activity look dirty, etc. Many other jokes just weren't funny, like Austin's fight with Mini-me, or Fat Bastard's describing his flatulence.

The movie also tries to work some emotion into it with Michael Caine as Austin's father who neglects him, and a very sappy ending - come on, we want humor, not attempted sentimentality! (Michael Caine is a very good actor, however, and here he's rather funny)

The movie does have some good sequences, though. My favorite was the fun-with-subtitles scene. I also liked the "Silence of the Lambs" parody - even though I haven't seen "Silence of the Lambs", I'm pretty sure it was a parody.

All-in-all, you should pretty much know what to expect from the first two Austin Powers movies. This one is probably the worst, but there are still some memorable, funny scenes. And come on, it's a summer sequel. Everyone needs some brainless comedy now and then.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sour Grapes (1998)
fair
23 July 2002
Yes, this movie has a Seinfeld-ish tone, but it's also much darker. It's about terminal cancer and castration and sickly twisted views of family life. Is it funny? Occasionally, but it's also often cringe-inducing. Also, the acting is very poor. Only see this if you have a dark sense of humor...and it would help if you think a guy performing oral sex on himself if humorous.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a bad movie
20 July 2002
Pros: Attractive female leads. Some good jokes ("No one ever believes the kid").

Cons: Terrible acting. Goofy story with tons of CGI. Plenty of cliches. Scenes where you want to shout at the characters for the stupid decisions they're making. Predictable. Completely devoid of suspense.

Result: Brainless summer entertainment. Sure, it's a bad movie. But at least it doesn't to pretend to have great subtexts. It's supposed to just be a fun summer movie. I didn't hate this movie, but I wish I'd seen something else. You might like it if you know what to expect (a bad movie).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jerry Maguire (1996)
A feel-good romantic comedy that's actually good
15 July 2002
You can make a feel-good comedy completely devoid of reason, intelligence, and good performances, or you can make a movie like this one. I liked this movie because Tom Cruise and Cuba Gooding, Jr. played such likable, energetic characters, and because Renee Zellweger was not the stereotypical romantic comedy woman where she is required to behave irrationally and hate her leading man for a good stretch of the last ten minutes of the film until he does something sweet that makes her like him again. The film doesn't have that kind of tone to it - it's more realistic, it deals SERIOUSLY with the emotions of the characters while staying COMEDIC.

Oh, and the two kids were so cute!

Highly recommended.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
much, much less than the sum of its parts
14 July 2002
It's so hard to give this film a bad review, and that's not just because I'm countering so many good reviews here. After all, there are many good things about this movie. The technicolor is beautiful, as is Natalie Wood; the costumes (by Edith Head) are fabulously exquisite; the score (by Henry Mancini) is magnificent; the bar fight, fencing, and pie fight choreography is not to be missed; it's perfectly clean, harmless fun, as many have pointed out; and, it features a great director and great actors. I am a fan of Tony Curtis's work, Peter Falk's work, Vivian Vance's work, and especially Blake Edwards's and Jack Lemmon's work. They have all done better than this movie.

As I said, the style is great - but the substance leaves a lot to be desired. All the characters are one-dimensional stereotypes: Curtis, the perfect prettyboy; Lemmon, the wacky villain who always gets it; Wood, the annoying feminist. There is absolutely nothing to them.

Also, the film makes a pathetic attempt at social commentary on feminism. Natalie Wood keeps preaching women's independence - yet she is hardly capable of doing ANYTHING without the help of The Great Leslie or sometimes even Professor Fate. She crosses the line from extreme feminism to manipulative insanity. And look at the other feminists in this movie - the writers seem to think that all feminists do is march around with signs saying, "We want jobs!" over and over. And over. And over. I'm all for equal rights for women, but all the feminists in this movie happen to be insufferably annoying.

I suppose I'm being too hard on the movie. After all, its tone is lighter; it doesn't TRY to get into character development or social commentary, it's just trying to be a harmless slapstick comedy. However, the movie even fails at that! You know all those Warner Bros. cartoon shorts? You know how amusing they are for the six or seven minutes they last? This movie is like a WB cartoon short, stretched out to TWO AND A HALF HOURS. Actually, I'm giving the movie TOO much credit - Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner do this same schtick much better. I have nothing against slapstick (I like silent comedies, Harpo Marx, the Pink Panther movies...) or overacting (I like Jim Carrey, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, and "The Producers"), but this film just isn't funny.

Wow. Now I actually feel ashamed for insulting this film. I think it's because the film is so innocently harmless. Well, if you know what to expect, you could still try this movie, and maybe you'll agree with most of the other commenters. I hope at least you like it more that I did.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't understand its appeal.
3 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This movie lacks all energy whatsoever. Rarely do the characters raise their voices above a certain decibel level, making all the dialogue so insipid. Everyone just takes their time doing everything in this movie with very little emotion.

Rose and Julian have been subtly flirting throughout the first part of the movie. Then, at one point, Rose undercooks the turkey. When Hurt alerts the potential turkey-eaters (including Julian) about the undercooked turkey, Rose is embarassed. Keeping her voice soft, she accuses Hurt of doing this because he doesn't want Julian to fall in love with her. Then she runs off crying - well, actually, strolls.

Does anyone out there think that real people act like that? If you do, perhaps you should get your brain examined.

Geena Davis won an Oscar for this movie? That's laughable. At first, Davis seems desperate, practically begging Hurt to call her. After we get past that stage (and we never really do, since she comes to Paris just to be with him after they haven't seen each other for a while later in the movie), she blabs on about nothing. I have no clue why Hurt falls in love with her (Oh my God! What a spoiler! Horror of horrors!), and the two have absolutely no chemistry. Then, after they fall in love, Davis gets excessively angry at random times for no apparent reason. Is she supposed to be kooky? No, I think she's just going through PMS.

I would not recommend this movie to anyone but insomniacs. And maybe budding screenwriters, who want to learn how people DON'T behave.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
awesome!
22 June 2002
While this movie is not Gilliam's best, I found it very entertaining. As others have pointed out, this movie tries to be so many things - funny, touching, sad, fantastic, zany, etc. What I found amusing is that some people used this fact as a good thing, and other said it was a bad thing. Well, yes, this movie is uneven, and the tone of the movie shifts frequently, so if you don't like that kind of movie, don't see this one.

Excellent performances from Ruehl and Bridges. Williams is good in his role, but that's just because the role seems to be made for Robin Williams. I really enjoyed this movie, and I would highly recommend it.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
John Hughes's masterpiece
22 June 2002
John Hughes, master of teen films, hit a home run with Ferris Bueller. The purpose of a teen flick is to make teenagers glad to be one and to make adults reflect back on those years of their lives fondly. This movie does just that and more. Ferris Bueller is an amazing man in an awesome movie. The journey he goes on is spectacular and hilarious. Everyone should see this fabulous movie, with great performances by all Broderick and all the supporting characters (especially Jeffrey Jones).

P.S. Also check out Charlie Sheen in one of his earliest roles.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
not as bad as its reputation
22 June 2002
This movie is not as bad as all that. Come on, people. I've seen worse. Some with higher IMDB ratings. Sure, this movie sucks. But try to put it in perspective: this movie is actually a masterpiece considering its budget and the story behind it (for more on this, consult the trivia section on the left-hand column). Yes, Joel and the bots were a source of amusement for me, but I think I could've gotten through it without them. Yeah, it's pretty bad, but you shouldn't take it so seriously.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
very funny
22 June 2002
Bob Hope is a very underappreciated performer. Of course, he was better as a comedian than as a movie actor, but that's just because he resigned himself to making lightweight comedies like this one. This comedy is very funny; yes, it's pretty lightweight, but what did you expect?

I like all the "Road to" pictures, but this is the best that I've seen. Of course, you won't get any great plots or intricate character development with them, but they are highly entertaining. Likewise, "Road to Morocco" is a very funny movie, if not a bit uneven. See this movie for some good laughs.

P.S. This movie is definitely harmless, despite the comment written by someone who seems to think it's homophobic. I'm wondering if he watched the same movie that I did.
16 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Big Trouble (2002)
10/10
awesome!
14 April 2002
A big ensemble cast and fast pacing give this movie plenty of interlocking scenes - therefore, if you don't like one character, there's another character with a different story coming right along, so be patient. However, I liked every nutty character, with their intertwined plots fitting so nicely.

I have read the book on which the movie is based, and, while they didn't completely stay true to the story, I think their changes didn't hurt the integrity of the zany plotline. I was even glad that they cut out one scene of the book, which was not funny and gave a disturbingly dark side to the otherwise idiotically laughable character Snake (besides, they couldn't have kept the scene in a PG-13 rated movie anyway).

How can you not like this movie? Some of the scenes in here are brilliant, and it's very fast-paced, so you're never bored. The acting is pretty much good, except for the two teenagers, whose translation from book to movie was the only disappointing part. Here they are played as completely apathetic, but in the book Matt Arnold actually has emotions. But all in all, a good show!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
pure crap
28 March 2002
This is just another run-of-the-mill summer movie idiotic thriller. Ideal audience: those with IQ's below 50. The acting is horrible and the plot is the worst piece of nonsense I have ever seen. A few of the scenes are blatantly just excuses for the unattractive female star, whose name I won't even try to spell, to wear skimpy clothing. The plot, or lack thereof: two parents make a girl's life miserable for no reason in particular and no one believes her. This unbelievable plot is tied together by a series of boring scenes that are supposed to be actually suspenseful. If you want a no-brainer guilty pleasure, there are many better guilty pleasures I can recommend to you. You should pick a more intellectually stimulating activity, such as shoving ferrets inside your nostrils.

P.S. The title of this movie has a double meaning - not only is it a glass house, but the parents are also named Glass, so it is the Glass house. What clever writing! If only every Hollywood production had such wit!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
something is off about this movie
28 March 2002
Before I talk about my opinions of this movie, I'd just like to say that I do understand WHY this movie is popular - it's just quirky enough. And if you are one of those people who likes this kind of movie (and you know who you are), then this movie is still recommended to you.

Now, I just felt that there was something off about this movie. It might be due to any or all of these things:

1) The end of the movie is revealed within the first five minutes. Therefore, it should be no spoiler to say that SHE DIES.

2) The frenzied editing, direction, and just plain atmosphere of this movie are so ostentatious that it continues to remind us that we are just watching a movie. We can't escape into the movie because it looks and feels nothing like real life. With a more realistic movie, it's easier for us to surrender to the movie and let the characters and plot take us where they may.

3) The story around which the movie is centered is unoriginal and clichéic. The real plot isn't much without it's style and music. Yes, the music is fantastic, and yes, this is a nice-looking movie, but the movie should be about its plot rather than about its style.

I don't know. I just couldn't get this movie. It was too eccentric and arrogant for me. Oh well.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
why do I comment?
28 March 2002
So I decided to check something on the "Naked Gun" page. And then there it was. This strange force. Drawing me towards the link that allowed me to add my own comment. I tried to resist. After all, I loved the rapid-fire jokes, hilarious one-liners, and deadpan acting no more than anyone else. I had absolutely nothing new to say about "The Naked Gun." But this force was drawing me forward. I felt myself being sucked in. Finally, I surrendered in reckless abandonment and decided, oh, fine, I'd write a superfluous comment that, once again, recommends this movie, even though I had nothing new to say about it. As if I had some kind of obligation to comment about movies I liked a lot. If I don't have anything new to say, then I have no obligation! Or do I? Anyway, this movie is very very funny and highly recommended. (shudder)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Memento (2000)
10/10
question about the movie
24 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I have already commented about this movie - brilliant and artistic - but I have a question about it. This review contains MAJOR SPOILERS. I repeat, MAJOR SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE.

If you have any ideas about this question, please write me a private message. On viewing the movie the second time, I noticed that Natalie at one point noticed an empty spot on Leonard's chest and asked what it was for. Leonard said something like, "I guess for when I've done it." Then later, towards the very end, I noticed the "I did it" tattoo on his chest, around that same spot, in a brief shot with his wife.

I assumed it meant that Leonard had already killed the man who raped his wife (as Teddy had told him), but I checked the trivia section and the person who posted the trivia seemed to think that "I did it" referred to Leonard killing his wife. It's not that big of a plot point, but I'm just wondering, and very curious.

Any ideas? If so, send me a message.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed