Reviews

27 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
King Kong (2005)
8/10
very good but way too long
15 December 2005
This version of king kong is probably by far the best that has ever been made from a technical and artistical standpoint. Everything about it is good, except for the length of the damned thing.

This is probably the most entertaining movie I have ever seen, I've never seen an audience of normal moviegoers be so wowed and affected by a film in my life (myself included), and the fact of the matter is, when king kong isn't plodding along and extending every possible scene, it's riveting and absolutely amazing in every way.

Kong the character is completely believable, his facial expressions and every other move he makes just reinforce that more. All the CGI is seamless, even the ailerons on the airplanes move the way they're supposed to. The fight with the T-rex will be a benchmark for a very very long time, I'd vote it the best fight scene ever.

Acting is at par or better, with adrien brody and naomi watts delivering good roles, jack black is good in his self-absorbed persona but be it the character or his rendition of it... something could be improved.

And then to the only bad part of the movie. IT'S TOO LONG!!!! they could easily have cut a half hour off of it by shortening those poignant and heartfelt scenes between kong and ann. Every single one was perfectly timed to go past the point of "awwww that's nice" and all the way thru the realm of "ok this is getting old but its still bearable" and ending just at the moment when you start thinking "COME ON ALREADY!" good timing, yes... but after the 15th time you really get annoyed by it.

This is a film you have to see, and one you should probably own, especially if the director's cut is SHORTER.

All in all it's excellent, just take preparation H for afterwards.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
this is as bad as it gets
28 June 2005
I could not believe how bad this film was, I should have looked at the rating here first to make sure I didn't watch it. But I did, oh my poor eyes.

This film is so uninteresting I still didn't know what the main character's name was at the end, I just didn't care! So let's start by saying that the characters are all ludicrous, the fact that everyone's acting makes them even worse doesn't help at all... Tara reid's transformation from museum geek to gun-slinging lara croft teamed with a paranormal investigating indiana jones (slater) is just too much.

The story is idiotic and borrows from many sources, including tomb raider (unabashedly so) so there is nothing original about it. The plot is full of holes, barney the dinosaur and the teletubbies have a better plot than this!!! I must admit that it was interesting enough to keep me awake at 3 am, but I just kept wishing that it would end, and when it did end... I wished I had gone to sleep, it's probably the stupidest worst ending I've seen in a while, I won't tell you about it so in case you see it I didn't spoil it for you, but trust me... it's not worth waiting for.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the best war movie/series ever made
27 May 2005
Without a question the finest war documentary/movie/miniseries ever made, I'll even go as far as saying that it's one of the best motion pictures of all time. Too bad TV movies and series don't get Oscars because this thing would sweep them all aside, it should be #1 on the IMDb list.

One can only speak in superlatives about this, near perfect acting, amazing storyline, superb character development and amazing adherence to reality. Everything about it is so real in fact that it has effectively set a bar which every single other war movie ever made is under, except perhaps tora tora tora. either future war movies have to be as good as this or risk looking bad. It doesn't even stoop to patriotic or heroic clichés, it sticks to the truth of what happened and nothing more.

This is an absolute must-see for everyone.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Earthsea (2004–2005)
5/10
OK on it's own
24 May 2005
Let's get one thing straight right away, I haven't read the books! so those who have may not agree with me.

When I first picked this thing up I read the back cover and it talked about comparing it to the lord of the rings and harry potter, well they shouldn't have, when I first started watching this I kept looking for strange unfamiliar and mythical animals but none were apparent, it also starts out very slowly but then again it's almost 3 hours long so it can take it's time (which it does). After about 2 hours I realized that this is by no means in the same league as harry potter or the lord of the rings because it has no budget, at least nothing up to the likes of a Hollywood movie. But unlike other movies I've seen, that squander their budget on low quality CGI that makes the whole thing unwatchable and laughable, this movie instead focused it's budget on creating sets and costumes that are nicely done and detailed, and in those few scenes where they actually do have CGI, it's at least passingly decent.

The story isn't too compelling but enough so to maybe keep your attention for all 3 hours of it, but many ends are left open that leave you pondering later... uh why was that again?. I want to stress again, I haven't read the book, I hear this movie butchers them, but as a film unto it's own it still delivers an OK story.

Acting is around par for most involved, expect as much as you normally would from a made-for-TV movie.

All in all a decent movie to kill a lot of extra time with, even though there are a lot of other better alternatives out there.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Windtalkers (2002)
5/10
mediocre attempt at a war movie
17 May 2005
This film might have been considered something good if it had come out in the early 80s along side chuck norris movies like invasion USA and the Iron Eagle series, because that is about where this thing ranks.

All modern war movies such as the thin red line, saving private ryan and Band of Brothers all very accurately portray the true horror that is war, and deliver not only in the graphic sense but also in the physical sense by adhering strictly to reality, everything about the battle sequences is fake, the blood looks fake, the opening sequence is laughable, each grenade and artillery shell explodes like a molotov cocktail (real ones don't), the artillery guns are firing black powder to make clouds of pretty smoke for the cameras (real ones don't) and the guns are noticeably hydraulically powered for their recoil after firing. Instead of a war movie it looks more like something out of robocop. the trivia line showing on the main page says that for this movie that they brought in genuine WWII radios to make it more real... well I wish they had put that much effort into making the battle scenes look better. Oh yeah... and the airplanes dropping bombs from that altitude would probably have blown themselves to pieces along with the japs. All reality is sacrificed to make great big balls of fire.

All technical mistakes aside, the story isn't very strong and strangely enough the best parts of it are when the soldiers aren't fighting. I felt a little caught up in the drama near the end when they're fighting in the town, but that was about it.

The acting is OK by those involved, nick cage is less annoying than he has been in other recent efforts (and he seems to have this magnetic bullet repellent suit) and everyone else falls either on or under par. I actually did connect with the main navajo character. The script could have been better.

All in all not a really bad movie, but it did have the potential to be a 7.5 out of 10 instead of a 5.9 out of 10 had they made a concerted effort to bring quality and reality to life. A good movie to watch on a boring Sunday afternoon or a rainy day, but it sure as hell ain't no classic.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the best TV miniseries ever made
15 May 2005
Not only is this by far the best film adaptation of Columbus and his life, it is very probably the best TV miniseries ever made. Nothing I have ever seen surpasses the setting and acting given out in this series, this is so good that it should be shown at schools religiously in order to teach them about columbus' voyage (even if current wisdom no longer reads that columbus discovered America).

I have watched this series at least 5 times and it never ceases to enthrall me. The first time I watched it I must have been about 8 and ever since then when I think of columbus I think of Gabriel Byrne, this one performance seen at an early age made me a fan for life of his work.

ALL acting is superb, wardrobe is out of this world. There isn't a single thing I could criticize in it.

I echo the other comments... if this ever comes out on DVD I'm buying a copy in case I ever have kids!
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
garbage
14 May 2005
This poor excuse for an abortion should never have been made.

While the first Starship Troopers MOVIE is an undying cult classic, this second installment is more like a 30 minute long cheap B-class TV series episode that runs for an extra hour. I wasn't even able to watch the whole thing! It takes place in an indoor set, with no outside scenes worth mentioning, no big battles and no good action or acting. I mean... at least alien 3 has a dark ambient to it and the acting is top notch, even if it wasn't very good. You can tell this thing doesn't even have a budget worth speaking of, much less any other endearing factors. At least most truly awful movies don't take themselves seriously! Nothing of the original film survives here, not even the clichés and bad parts, if there's anything you didn't like about STS 1... even that isn't here, it's all some stupid psych drama that fails to excite, scare or entertain you. Avoid this festering hunk of B-movie like you would a case of gonorrhea or herpes... it really IS that bad.

Phil tippet should stick to making visual effects shots instead of directing movies with (ironically) horrible visual effects.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
pathetic
19 April 2005
I can't rate this film any lower than 5 because it actually is well done, well acted, edited... you name it, it's a very good quality film, but all that doesn't actually add up to making it good.

The one thing I don't think this movie is, is funny. It's more like a pathetic parade of stereotypical nerds, geeks and losers who you can only feel sorry for and hope that everything will work out for them in the end despite all their trials. You can't really care about them either because they're so pathetic, either that or you relate to them because at one point you considered yourself to be the same way.

Some people think this is funny, and some don't care because it's so pathetic. I guess it's worth watching just to find out if you'll like it or not because it's hard to tell up front, give it a try, but if you don't like it and think you wasted money then sure as hell don't say I didn't warn you!
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solaris (2002)
8/10
A true thriller
22 March 2005
Although I picked this movie out of the sci-fi section of Hollywood Video, the only thing that relates it to the genre is the setting, this movie is a true thriller, I had ignored it before as being a probable sci-fi shoot em up or lame 2001 attempt, but I was very mistaken. And I must say this is a well executed and even creepy movie. It's not meant to scare you, it's not meant to wow you, it just makes you forget about everything else around you and concentrate on the central question, I would say it succeeds quite well at what it's meant to do.

I loved the acting of everyone involved, and everything else is believable about the film, no fancy shots, no impossible technologies, it focuses only on the plot, and looking into anything else to find flaws involves departing the whole purpose of the film. There is a definite 2001 feel to this one, the music is somewhat evocative and just the general weirdness of the film is there too. The end gets sort of predictable once you're nearly done, but if you don't pay attention you might not understand it right away (I did but from what I read, many ppl didn't) There are many things that make this something completely new, completely out of the ordinary, it makes you ponder existence and human emotions, it captivates you. Definitely worth watching when you don't know what you're in the mood for.

This review is purposefully vague because this is something you need to watch to really understand and experience, the less you know about it, the better
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
painfully predictable LITTLE kids movie
20 February 2005
This movie is just wrong in so many ways for so many people that grew up loving garfield comics. You would have thought that there would have been some effort into making this movie equally appealing to both adults who grew up on the comic strips and little kids... didn't happen. Let me make this straight, Garfield doesn't appeal to young kids, he appeals to the generation that grew up on him! And even thought the comics have always been as G-rated as this movie is, I think the animated series holds much more value than this live-action junker.

The universe of garfield has been completely transformed into something that is even more of a kids movie than most of Disney's latest efforts. Garfield the movie is a completely predictable and benign flick that will have anyone over the age of 10 groaning when they realize what is going to come next.

Bill murray delivers a good voice for the fat cat and he's funny on occasion, but everyone else in the cast is basically either a lame sideshow or a character that is so over the top that you can't stand looking at them for more than a few minutes. Oh and one more thing: Odie is supposed to be the dumbest being in the entire universe, and here he is smart.

Even every plot twist and camera zoom-out can be predicted.

On the good side, Garfield is believable and he moves pretty realistically, but against a real backdrop he loses any sympathy we should have for him.

In the end, this is movie is about on the same level as rugrats the movie, superbabies and the muppets. The only reason for renting this thing is to keep your kids quiet, you may stand to watch it with them once, but otherwise I recommend you not put yourself thru it willingly
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Core (2003)
decent entertainment
25 January 2005
Normally I shy away from FX-laden preposterously-plotted movies, and I did do just that with this stinker for a long time, however one day I rented it because I couldn't find anything else I wanted to see and I wanted some sort of sci-fi movie to keep my mind off stuff... And I must say that, despite the absolutely unbelievable plot and effects (just like Armageddon), this movie still manages a fun ride (just like Armageddon) if you can leave your mind out of the viewing process. I watched this movie at 3 am and managed without much trouble to stay awake for the duration of the show, that at least says something for it. The plot is forgettable, so are the characters, but it's a fun ride. Rent it, don't buy it because it's not worth that much.

Something else to add, the concept behind the ship is a ripoff of a failed TV series whose name I can no longer remember, I saw the pilot episode once upon a long time ago, the show never made it past the pilot, and followed the jules verne approach more than this movie, but the energy drill was basically the same thing, even down to the testing scene where it makes a hole in a rock, only in the TV series they blew away most of a small hill.

The Bottom Line: Worth your time if you have nothing better to do whatsoever, there are much worse time-killer movies out there, this one will use up time, not waste it completely.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
can you say, downward spiral?
22 January 2005
I heard the rumors... this movie is good... this movie is fun...

well it's not that good and it's not all that fun either. Granted, you'll see your explosions, and your gunfights, and cute girls and handsome guys... but that just doesn't cut it here. Somehow robert rodriguez said... let's repeat the formula of guns and babes and explosions from desperado and throw in some extra plot twists... well I don't know what pipe he was hitting when he wrote this but the story is a convoluted plot that tries to go every which way and instead of you thinking "wow what a great plot twist" you just go "what the hell". Add this to some pretty bad camera work, lame supporting actors and horribly unbelievable gunfights and goriness, and you have a movie that really doesn't cut it.

I'll have to admit that some actors did very well. Antonio Banderas does a great job as the mariachi, ruben blades acts OK, but he should have gotten another part. Johnny depp is good as usual but his already polished and familiar psychotic/compulsive character doesn't work that well for some reason.

Overall this movie does nothing whatsoever for the story of el mariachi except pull out a sad ending to the hopeful last scenes of desperado.

Watch this if you have nothing better to do, if there's anything else to watch, get that instead and save yourself the loss of time 4/10
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hero (2002)
7/10
visually stunning piece of art
19 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie, contrary to many Hollywood movies, focuses as much on the visual style as it does on the story behind the beauty, perhaps even too much so.

I was completely impressed and blown away by the changes of color, the amazing backdrops (unlike some current Hollywood movies where everything is left to CGI) and the sets used, the acting of everyone involved is excellent and the action sequences are very well played out with a lot of detail given to minor things in those scenes even when they're likely to pass unseen.

It's irresistible to compare this movie to crouching tiger, hidden dragon, but the fact is that they're pretty much in different genres, crouching tiger is a pure action fantasy that follows a linear plot. Hero resides more in the realm of artistic and independent films, using a less conventional or linear script mixed in with visual cues and metaphors. While I do love the movie and would give it a 7.5 or 8 out of 10, the plot itself plays against it as much as it helps it, I found myself falling asleep while I lay in bed watching it, probably because the movie revisits the same place and story over and over again with different twists to change the tempo. I believe that the plot would have made a better book than it did a film, but then again, and I can't seem to stop mentioning it, the use of such stunning color contrasts and backdrops would be lost to a reader. For the record, I have fallen asleep to other great but slow moving films in the past.

This movie is a must watch, just don't rent or buy it expecting an action movie because that's not what it's about.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
fun, but mostly not believable
17 January 2005
After having heard tons of comments about this movie, and few good ones at that, I finally saw this movie after having watched Van Helsing a few days before and I'll say this at least, this film is definitely better. The acting is good, and the characters are decently developed. The special effects are well done and it comes off as a generally fun movie.

The downside is that the movie has so many things in it that are completely unbelievable that, even tho the movie IS fun, you can't help but feel amused by how stupid some of the scenes are, this is a fun movie to rent if you're into getting together with friends and making fun of poorly made movies.

I could go on into a long tirade but brevity might be the better part of reviewing here. This movie might be worth a viewing once as the plot isn't completely predictable, but you sure as hell shouldn't buy it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Van Helsing (2004)
3/10
bland, predictable, bad acting... get the picture?
16 January 2005
This is one of the more forgettable movies I have seen in a while... The movie is fun... I'll give it that, but so many things are overdone that the whole effort comes across as being way over the top. And the normally talented Kate Beckinsale's Romanian accent is scarcely believable. Most of the characters in fact are either cliché or pulled off very badly, especially Dracula, he looks so much like professor snape from harry potter that I expected him to pull out a wand at any moment. If you want a real Dracula look at gary oldman's incredible performance and the makeup job they did on him, THAT's a scary Dracula. Special effects are OK, adherance to reality isn't. There aren't many movies that make me shake my head in disbelief, but this is one of them.

The splicing of almost all the major horror characters of the days of old is also something worth mentioning, the only one missing is the mummy, and fortunately they didn't put him in there. I guess they didn't have the creativity to come up with a decent plot so instead they just cut and paste a bunch of done-to-death characters together in the hope of coming up with something "new".

All in all a pitiful attempt at a monster movie that will soon be forgotten. The best way to watch this thing is get it for free somewhere with free rental, and then watch it at a frat house with generous amounts of beer in between.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Underworld (2003)
7/10
good movie, sticks to the point
27 November 2004
An excellent action flick, this movie gets right to the point and stays there all the way thru, there is no cheesy love story, in fact my "gripe" about the movie is that there never is any real feel between the two characters who are supposed to be "in love". Any thread of emotion is lost in the non-stop action.

This movie wouldn't win any awards, but it's fast paced, it's entertaining and it has a very pretty woman in tight fitting vinyl, you can't ask for much more in an action movie. All the effects are top notch with very few unbelievable scenes, and most of them are quite in keeping with the laws of physics (except a few trip-ups) which is quite pleasing.

Perfect for a boring evening when there is nothing else to do, or when you get that vinyl craving.

7.5 out of 10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
stolen moments, eye candy and no chemistry... oh my
19 September 2004
I was trying to deny the voices of criticism as I was watching this movie... and I must now say that I'm one of them. This movie isn't blatantly bad, it just leaves you feeling somewhat incomplete and unsatisfied

First the good:

I must say that this is about as good as special effects can get these days, you really can't tell what's fake and what's not, but that's mostly because of the "fuzziness" of the shots, everything seems to blend and I'm sure that Conran did this to get rid of those fake looking contours that come from using a green screen, that works for sure, and the truth is that the sepia tone during the first 10 minutes of the film is very lovely, however it sure doesn't work for an action film. This movie keeps you entertained to some extent, that is, when you can look at it from an angle where you can't see the moldy spots on an otherwise shiny apple.

The acting on behalf of the two protagonists is good although that doesn't extend to anyone else in the cast.

Then the bad: Oh where to start...

The script, while straightforward enough, is generic and lacks a good continuity to it, I felt like I was watching a bunch of gigantic cutscenes from a video game (read on below for another reason for this), with the part meant to hold it together: the gameplay itself, missing. And the "fuzziness" factor makes it feel even more like it, I found myself thinking, when can I press the escape button to start playing. In the end it jumps from place to place without much of an intermission anywhere and it feels like you're missing something. I know it's this guy's first script, but he better do better next time.

The characters have little if any development, and there is no chemistry between them, there are a few times where they seem like they might have something going, but it ends abruptly and almost none of the emotions expressed by anyone appear genuine, this is the script's fault, not the actor's.

Physics and reality take a back seat to this movie, and most of the combat scenes are completely ludicrous, they're still fun... they're just fake.

And then to the clichés and steals, this movie borrows very heavily on scenes and ideas from other movies, some are blatant, some are not. To name a few examples: indiana jones, star wars, the matrix, the island of dr moreau, as well as a few other obscure pictures and Japanese anime (Laputa). If you watch this movie you can pick them out on your own and if you know enough about movies you can tell that about half this thing borrows elements from other movies, maybe that's why I didn't find it very original and the thing I liked the least about it. Grafting good parts and ideas from other movies together doesn't make a fun and original film, it makes one that feels like it's made up of parts and ideas from other movies! (this is what I was talking about above, the movie feeling like a bunch of cutscenes). There are a few moments that really do shine, including the very last one, but you'll be hard pressed to find them!

In my opinion, this movie isn't worth spending the ticket money on, wait till it's out on video and rent something else to switch to just in case. Many people will love this film, but most will probably pick up on the fragmentary and unoriginal nature at some level and come out feeling as I did.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
a fun ride, Predator 3, not alien 5
14 August 2004
I must say that I'd been hoping for someone to make this movie for a long time. And I'm satisfied with the way it turned out. I wasn't expecting it to be a culminating document to the predator and alien series, and it isn't.

Overall this movie delivers in a fun action packed ride that lacks the lurking-in-the shadows, never-seen-in-broad-daylight that characterized both alien and both the predator movies, and I'm glad it didn't either, I wanted to see aliens and predators beating each other up and that's what I got. This is the part of the movie I wanted to see and it's the only part that is enjoyable.

The script could have been much more convincing on behalf of the humans, that two young archaeologists could just up and read writing "in egyptian, aztec and cambodian" is simply idiotic, not to mention that none of the glyphs are egyptian, the archeaologist is just too smart to be believable. This just among many rough details. The humans are basically just a side-dish that allow us to understand what is going on. I'd rather have heard a couple of mumbled grunts and occasional words from the predators because the acting on behalf of almost all humans concerned is below average except maybe lance henricksen, and the protagonist is a laugh, with her overly-zealous over-acted and cliché behaviour.

CG and other special effects are top notch and the result is completely believable. Makeup is also very nice on the predator's behalf.

Essentially, this movie is Predator 3, not Alien 5. It does a good job of introducing facets to the predator race's character that was lacking from both previous movies, and fans of the previous predator movies and universe (myself included) will very likely enjoy this movie. The influence of the alien series is felt mostly in the dark, claustrophobic environment and nothing of any real importance is introduced about them.

Worth seeing, and I sure hope they come out with an R-rated alternative on DVD sometime soon, I'll be buying it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
entertaining, fun and gripping
5 November 2003
This film is definately worth seeing, just for the rollercoaster ride it gives you. granted that the end is somewhat... strange... I liked it because it's not some happily ever after disney junk. it's not as good as the first matrix, but then I doubt it was ever intended to be that way, finally one installment that takes place mostly in the real world!

After seeing reloaded I remember coming on here and hearing all the same comments about "what were they thinking???". That movie had long unending fights and went on interminably to finally add some spice with the whole architect thing. All you sceptics thought it sucked until most of you started blabbing your mouths off about "matrix within the matrix"... you made up that stuff yourselves and I don't know who started it, but you all bit and started fighting that line when it was clear that that wasn't so from the first time I saw the movie.

I was gripped during the entire movie (save the end) and came out with a tense neck from the action. My girlfriend (who doesn't like action and war movies) liked this installment, and she hasn't seen the 1st one all the way thru and hasn't seen reloaded either. I'd dare say that this movie might have gotten much MUCH better critique than it's getting here if it had been a movie unto it's own, or if all 3 had been in the same tone, maybe like The Lord of the Rings although it comes off more like star wars. On it's own it's a good movie with amazing and 100% believeable SFX, in the context of the other 2, it's a departure and that I believe made all the matrix fans mad, but the wachowskis hit the nail on the head with a fitting if somewhat annoying ending.

don't pay attention to the naysayers, this movie is worth watching and spending the 8 bucks to see it in a theater. I think that time will give it the credit it deserves in the matrix universe 7/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
barely watchable
11 August 2003
This is a terrible movie that should be in the bottom 10, at least it has some budget to make it worthwhile, but it's still very very bad: terrible acting on behalf of nearly everyone, stupid plot, you name it

it's even hard to watch with the help of mystery science theater's wise cracks (that version will make you laugh though)

in short, this is pure agony in it's original form
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hours (2002)
very well done and acted... but...
26 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*possibly very minor spoilers*

I believe that this is one of the best acted movies of 2002, the roles are well thought out and most actors deliver their best, the story also communicates by very well thru camera shots and music

the story played by nicole kidman is mostly straightforward and easy to follow, the story played by julianne moore feels plastic and fake (it gets it point across in this way and wouldn´t have if left to the actor herself, what annoying music) and the story by streep is for the most part useless until you get to the end and it makes sense.

BUT! but as I said in the description...

the movie left me feeling depressed and somewhat lost, it feels as if it leaves a bunch of things unexplained (even though it doesn´t), I´d have to watch this movie again to really get to the core of it and leave out the things that I tried to follow through to the end but never went anywhere significant.

A very good movie, but none the less a good movie that I didn´t enjoy all that much and that many people may not like. it´s a tragedy that tries to keep you from thinking it is one until the end, which just gets you down even more. I enjoyed dancer in the dark much much more than this, that movie at least lifts your spirit in between, this thing just tries to keep you confused and depressed in between until the tragic end.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
this think stinks
4 February 2003
this stinking festering piece of manure should never have been made in such a hurry... they announced that Lord of the Rings was on the way and it´s obvious someone said "let´s do D&D before LOTR comes out and beat them"... but it just plain sucks, the acting sucks... they thought... "let´s stick jeremy irons in there to have at least one good actor" and he overacts so much it seems he´s trying to make up for all the bad acting from the other actors. I was laughing my ass off thru half the movie watching what stupid or corny thing they did next. THE CARTOON SERIES IS BETTER!!!!!

I´m surprised I watched this movie thru to the end. don´t get me wrong... there ARE worse ways to waste the duration of this piece of junk, if you have no other choice in movies you might want to watch this over say... I was a teenage T-rex, but that´s about it.

stay clear of it unless you either have nothing else better to do or rent, or you like D&D so much you think you´re a dwarf or something.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
incredibly well done and fun
2 February 2003
I have to admit, although the first film was good... it made me yawn more than once, it was almost 100% faithful to the book with minor twists that made it more watchable.

the second BOOK I´ve never been too much of a fan of because of the adventures of frodo and sam are for the most part boring and uneventful. the second MOVIE had to make due with showing that they were still alive whilst still cutting to the battle sequences that make more fun. this would have been extrememly boring had it not been for the character of gollum which is the only part that makes these scenes bareable, the characters of frodo and sam seem washed out in comparison.

all in all this film entertained me completely, treebeard and gollum are so impressively well done that I almost couldn´t tell they were fake, some scenes look a bit fake, especially the flyovers of helm´s deep before the

battle, but all in all it´s a small price to pay.

the only real thing I didn´t like about the film was how it jumped all over the place, but then I don´t think I would have been able to stay awake with the narrative sticking to the book´s original layout so this was a small price to pay, a masterwork, can´t wait to see #3
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signs (2002)
4/10
could have been good but crashed in the end
23 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*possible minor spoilers*

this movie starts out ok... builds up tension until it´s halfway done... and then it crashes and burns later. the alien crop signs are nothing but bull to bring alien movie geeks into the movie theather, the use and treatment of these signs is simplistic at best, no real meaning is attached to them. in the end it switches to other signs completely

the movie is full of cliches altho it does have some good moments, the end result of it all tho is to produce a film that doesn´t make you think about things, it just sort of tries to rudely and forcefully stick ideas into your head about everything being predestined, this director can´t seem to leave things a bit up in the air, he has to make everything extremely apparent for all the dumb moviegoers who can´t figure out the idea behind the title, same thing happened at the end of unbreakable and 6th sense, only these movies were a lot better!!! and he´s not going to get it because of all the good comments this movie got.

the fact that aliens can´t even open doors is stupid, the aliens themselves look brutal and dumb, and they´re naked!!! not the kind of thing you´d expect to be capable of space travel and again... how can they be alergic to water??? at least war of the worlds came up with a better idea!!!

this thing just tried to put too many things into one turning from a possible ET good alien scenario into a sort of close encounters of the 3rd kind undecided scenario and then into an independance day movie only now the aliens are pansies who can´t break down a door and run around naked with nothing but poisonous spines to enslave the local population, ludicrous!! I guess it was all about addressing xenophobia and religion and destiny and so on and so fort..... ugh

I always wanted to see a movie like this about ppl who are nothing in the great sceme of things during an alien invasion or the group of ensigns in star trek who always seem to get killed. now that I´ve seen it I never want to see it again, at least I can thank shymalan for showing us how bad these movies can be.

oh and don´t forget the crop signs have absolutely no significant role in giving the movie it´s name.

All this said, the movie had the potential to be very good, it does keep you on the edge of your seat for about 3/4s of the movie and delivers a couple of good scares, the ending is what really spoils this film, it just takes the worst possible story tangent and flops into cliche and moral.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Disciples (1999 TV Movie)
boy this sucks
19 February 2002
what a bad movie, from the cheesy lines to the ludicrous action sequences with blurred shots to make it seem real to the unbearably bad actors, this movie gets right down to being almost too bad to watch, not even the attractive men and women make it worth watching, and how does ice T make a movie THIS bad?

not worth watching even if you like laughing at bad B movies, there are better ways to waste your time.

in one word... UGH
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed