Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Not bad...
22 July 2003
...but certainly not great either. Its worth renting on a cheap night, but I wouldn't recommend seeing it at regular price.

With all of these 'comic-book movies', there has to be a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. I mean, chances of someone being bit my a superspider turning into a spider-man themselves? Slim to none (chances, on the other hand, of them dying of a super-spider super-poison, on the other hand...not so slim...but that doesn't make for much of a movie for kids :)

However, LXG kinda takes it to the extreme. I mean, since when did the basic laws of physics no longer apply? (superman excepted, of course) A massive submarine that can...maneuver the canals of Venice?? Not only does this movie have cars in 1899...the cars are indestructible? Men in iron suits deflecting bullets? (this could fall under the 'suspension of disbelief headline, if there weren't so MANY things like this) Quartermain is a crack shot...even when he's not actually sighting down the barrel of his weapon? You get the hint...I could spend hours detailing the things in this movie that are physically impossible.

Anyway, it was good for Saturday matinee entertainment, but not exactly Oscar material. The plot was ...weak at best, and the explanation of the characters wasn't anywhere near adequate, but I did like the characters and thought the acting was good.

6/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An excellent idea.
13 May 2003
Now, the modern SNL cast is, well, not funny. Sorry, but I grew up with Eddie (Murphy), Dan (Ackroyd), John (Candy) and the boys, and these people are not even a pale comparison.

Now, I know I'm dating myself, but there it is. My kids would laugh. But after I read the premise to this story, I was interested in seeing it, despite who was in it. Why?

This story had the potential, with a different cast and storyline, to be Oscar material. While trying to be comedic, it touches on a very real problem with society in general. All of the young (predominantly white) kids out there that wanna think and act 'hype'. Tough is the way to be. Rappers like Eminem talk about violence, and the youngsters glorify it. But they miss the point that the things in these songs actually HAPPEN to these people. Where Eminem and others grew up, violence isn't cool. Everyone avoids it as much as they possibly can. But they can't get away from it. The ghetto is not cool. Its the pit of our society. The youngsters just don't get it.

I live in Canada. Its one of the most tolerant countries in the world. And in the past few years, this has swept through our country like a flood. 14-year-old girls in gangs, beating (and killing!) other girls. Metal detectors at schools. Serious drugs on streetcorners. And it is glorified by our media. Maybe if more kids got dumped in the real ghetto for a while, they would realize how good they have it, and how 'uncool' the life they are emulating really is.

Anyhow, enough of my rant. This movie is fluff, light comedic fare. And not that well done. But hey, could have been good. :)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Insider (1999)
9/10
The real tragedy...
28 April 2003
The real tragedy is that this movie changes nothing. This is a monumental film about a subject that affects our daily life...but is it really going to make a difference? Not a chance. The tobacco companies sit back and laugh. The much-delayed revelation that cigarettes are bad for you has turned into a huge boon for manufacturers. They have built whole advertising campaigns, aimed solely at the teenage market, built around the fact that cigarettes are 'bad', and therefore teenagers want it. Then they simply reinforce the fact that cigarettes are addictive, and virtually impossible to quit. With that message in your head, the impression that you are going to fail before you even start, it is small wonder that only a small percentage of those who 'quit' can stay away from these things.

The government, of course, plays along, even taking handouts in the form of 'lawsuits' which they make token efforts to dispute, then settle out of court for assurances of protection from further lawsuits..a.k.a. bribe money. The only truly responsible thing to do is ban cigarettes altogether, but you and I both know that will not happen. Why? Because cigarette sales contribute millions to our economy, and, more importantly, billions to all of the major political parties. So the government makes sure everyone knows cigarettes are 'bad', and noone does anything about it.

And THAT is the real tragedy.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pulp Fiction (1994)
2/10
Top #250? I must be out of the loop.
28 April 2003
I rated this show a 2. Why? To me, this show was a senseless glorification of drugs and violence. When seeing it in the theatre, my wife and I walked out and demanded our money back. I've never seen the full movie...I couldn't stand it. I've even rented it again, thinking I must have missed something...but turned it off 3/4 of the way through, thoroughly disgusted.

Why was this movie rated so highly? I think it is a sign of our times. Drugs are everywhere, and violence sells. Rather pathetic, but true. Says something about the decadence of our society. Are we at the end of another Roman Empire? Is it all downhill from here?
9 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Phone Booth (2002)
7/10
Not as good as they say, or as bad as it could have been.
26 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
From some of the first comments that were written here that I read on opening day, I thought this would be a masterful piece of cinematography in an unusual setting.

**** SPOILERS ****

Sadly, there were several things that were not exactly as advertised. The main character (Colin Farrell) is not evil. He's a sleazeball, sure, but no more than any other fast-talking salesman. By the end of the movie, he's been 'reduced' to that of a typical movie hero.

The protagonist is, however, much more evil than first shown. Of course, he's also superhuman (the angle of the laser shots that he takes varies throughout the show, meaning he is moving all over the scene, and he makes shots that are solely the realm of movie-land. Shooting out the Stu's ear? Umm...right.) Again, the angles shown in this movie are beyond belief. Even disregarding all other factors, how do you target (supposedly from the upper floors of an apartment building) the west ear of someone from the east side? Answer? Its not possible.

BUT, technicalities aside, this was an enjoyable movie. The characters are good, and the plot line is neither too slow, or too quick. Kiefer's voice was perfect for the slot that he is in.

Overall, 7/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Superb Acting.
17 February 2003
I totally agree with other user's reviews. This is a generic romantic comedy, which follows the formula to a T. The directing is nothing noteworthy (including the now-standard body-shots of Matthew to titilate the younger female audience - a very powerful buying crowd). Plot is again standard romantic comedy fare.

I also agree that what sets this movie apart is not the plot...it is the actor's interaction with each other. Having seen this gem, I would not hesitate to go to another movie with these two. They alternatively leave you grimacing in discomfort at the obvious ridiculity of the situation, to laughing so hard your sides hurt. Both actors are excellent with body gestures and 'non-verbal language' to show their feelings. You become totally absorbed with the two characters...I can't recall any of the other actors in the movie, thinking back on it.

Too bad they don't give Oscars for anything other than 'serious' acting.

Kate and Matthew, take a bow. This was a great performance, and lightened my day.
37 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
ST Nemesis - Let the hacking begin.
17 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I have always been a Star Trek fan, though I certainly would not qualify myself as a trekkie. The series' and the movies have provided a thoughtful window into a possible future, while dealing with real emotions and difficulties of a crew with a long-term commitment.

That being said, the latest installment provides nothing of any substance to back this statement up.

The plot has enough holes in it to drive a truck through.

-- SPOILER ALERT --

Lets start with the premise of the movie itself. A clone of Picard decides to destroy earth. Why? This is never actually explained..the clone basically has never met a human in its entire life, and wasn't even created by humans, but by Romulans.

The clone rises to become head of a joint Romulan/Remus' force. How? Again, no explanation. Both species dislike humans rather intensely. This point of the story is entirely glossed over...one minute, he's the lowest of slaves, the next he is Praetor.

So, the clone convinces one of the Romulan Senate to betray the rest. Why? Well, that isn't actually explained either. You'd think it was because she wanted to start a war, but in the latter part of the movie she actually works to prevent the war, so...? In addition, the new Praetor has no love of Romulans either, so that doesn't work.

Oh, getting back to the Praetor...how exactly did a commander of one ship (because apparently the Remus' only have the one ship, the Scimitar) convince an entire planet of a very warlike people in the Romulans to capitulate and declare him ruler? (The opening sequence with the Romulan senate is supposed to portray this, but is woefully lacking) Oh, and the Scimitar itself...how does a back-woods civilization with little or no real power suddenly build a ship that would rival an entire fleet of Star Cruisers (that is what they're called, right?) using technology that the Federation couldn't control?

And speaking of the opening sequence, if I may borrow a phrase from Joey of Friends...Could it BE more boring? The wedding sequence was one of the worst I've ever seen, from the 'camcorder' videography and soundtrack to the bad taste in apparel, to the death-drone speech by Picard, which puts the audience to sleep before the movie really begins.

The characters themselves have no continuity between the films...how is Worf back on the bridge? (he was himself a captain in the last movie) The characters barely talk to each other...there is none of the balance of personalities that made the other STNG movies more memorable than, say, Battlefield Earth. The overwhelming need to show, even for a glimpse, every single ST character from the past makes it less of a novelty and more of a joke. Admiral Janeway?? Wasn't Wesley Crusher not part of Starfleet any more? I was surprised Seven didn't show up on the bridge in a skintight suit. Even many of the cast seemed to have no place in the movie, such as Riker and Troi, (This part had too many inconsistencies to mention) or Jordie (who's part could have been played by a monkey with glaucoma and a tricorder)

Barring a few moments of action, the dull monotone continued throughout the movie. Several people just got up and left, and comments of 'Don't worry, it has to get better' were heard in the theatre. It does...for about the last 10 minutes.

With this in mind, there are a few bright spots in the film. The interaction of Brent Spiner with himself, as Data and B-4, is part of the ST I enjoy. The battle sequences of the two sides fencing with each other was enjoyable, even if so predictable it made me roll my eyes. Patrick Stewart did a good job struggling with the emotional turmoil of being presented with an alternate version of himself. The death of Data, and the adolescence of B-4 left an interesting glimpse into the possible future of Star Trek. The young Picard also did a good job, even if there was huge holes in his character development.

All being said, I hope this is not the last movie for this cast. To let the series just ...putter out... would be sad.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed