Change Your Image
dylman91
Reviews
Underworld (2003)
You either love it or you don't
This is one of those movies where you really enjoy it or you don't. I didn't enjoy it.
I have always been a vampire movie fan, so I thought I would like this a lot. Was it just me, or did these "vampires" show no signs of being a vampire at all? What happened to the classic symptom of not having a reflection? At least the werewolfs looked and acted like werewolfs.
The acting was terrible. Kate Beckinsale seemed bored the whole time. Scott Speedman was incredibly bland. He didn't seem to mind becoming a werewolf at all. He just had a "WTF" look on his face the whole time. I can't point out a single person who had at least decent acting skills in the movie.
The special effects were the only thing that made this movie watchable to me. Without them, I would have downright hated this movie.
Like I said, you will either like this movie or you won't. If you really like vampire movies, however, you might be a little disappointed.
2/10.
Below (2002)
Below Average is more like it
I liked both The Abyss and U-571. My friends liked both movies too, and two of them suggested this movie. They said it had the same atmosphere as U-571 and the same intensity as The Abyss. I decided to watch it. For some reason, I didn't think it was very good. They were right about the atmosphere and some parts were pretty intense. But other than those two elements, I couldn't point out anything else I liked a lot. To me, it was very predictable. Like I said, there were thrilling parts, but there were very few, and they were all near the end. If they had added in more chills and spaced them together better, I probably would have liked Below a lot better.
3/10.
Stuart Little (1999)
If you like the book, you will probably not like this movie
I fell in love with this book when I first read it. I read it many more times afterwards. So when this movie came out, I was psyched. Unfortunately for me, this movie is nothing at all like the book. I tried to enjoy it, but I just couldn't because I loved the book so much. Practically the only thing it had in common was the beginning. Everything else was just way too different and bad. The only thing I enjoyed about this movie was Michael J. Fox. He did Stuart's voice exactly as I had imagined it. It's a good movie for kids, but when they get older, have them read the book. It's so much better than this movie.
2/10.
Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)
Skip it
.:::*MINOR SPOILERS*:::.
I usually like stupid comedies, but I hated this movie. All my friends loved it, but I just can't see why. The jokes were incredibly bland. Another Matrix parody? Come on. And the woman with the one breast. Sure, it was funny the first time...the first five million times you saw it on the trailer.
I barely even need to talk about the acting. I mean, there was barely any NEW acting. As you know, Steve Oedekerk just took an old kung fu movie and dubbed the voices. Steve, your Thumb movies were awesome and hilarious. Why did you stoop so low as to do something five year old kids do?
The only thing I liked about this movie was one joke in the very beginning when The Chosen One was rolling down a hill. A woman picked him up, said he was adorable, and sent him back on down the hill. I did laugh pretty hard at that joke, but that was the only time I did laugh at all.
My advice: just skip it. There are better things to do and better movies to watch.
2/10.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)
The worst movie I've ever seen
No, I haven't seen Gigli or You Got Served or From Justin To Kelly. But after seeing this movie, I don't think anything could be worse. I still can't believe people are calling this better than the first! The first was pretty good. This just flat out stunk. If my cousins weren't in the movie theater with me, I would have walked out.
Seriously, how lame can the writers be? Lara Croft tried to find Pandora's Box??!!!?? Usually, if a plot is thin, I will not care. But this was just unacceptable. I want to slap Steven E. de Souza and James V. Hart. And what was with Jolie's acting? She was good in the first, but she seemed bored in this movie. Of course, not as bored as I was.
Who knows. Maybe one day I'll see a worse movie. But at this moment, I can't think of anything being worse than this piece of crap.
1/10.
Baby Geniuses (1999)
It's all true...
Everything you have ever heard about this movie is true. It deserves to be on the Bottom 100. The acting sucks, the plot sucks, EVERYTHING sucks! It's one of those things where it's unexplainable. When you watch a movie, you want to feel satisfied. You want to have a good time. There are a million movies that will give you this feeling. Baby Geniuses, however, is NOT one of these movies. It will make you feel ripped off and you will want an hour and a half back on your life. To keep it short: DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE. You'll thank me. You will also thank the other one million people who told you not to watch it.
1/10.
Uncle Tom's Cabin (1987)
This is what a TV movie should be? I don't think so!
.:::*MINOR SPOILERS*:::.
We watched this movie in English class. It is one of my teacher's favorites. All I can say is that none of us students feel the same way.
I didn't think Uncle Tom's Cabin was a good movie at all. I understand what they were trying to do, and I think they executed it poorly. The acting at times was laughable. The story had potential, but it got off track too many times. I know it was a low-budget TV movie from 1987, but they could have at least used a blood capsule in some parts, instead of showing no blood at all. One example would be when one guy gets shot in the shoulder. Not a single drop of blood. The only part I remember with any blood was when Tom was being beaten, which was also the only part I thought was okay.
It seemed like it wanted to be a serious drama, but it mostly seemed like a soap opera to me, and I don't tend to take soap operas seriously. If it had acted more seriously, I might have liked it more.
I now want to read the novel by Harriet Breacher Stowe. A lot of times, movie adaptations aren't half as good as the book. I know the story has a lot of potential, and I am convinced it could work somehow.
But, unfortunately, this movie didn't work.
1/10.
The Shining (1980)
The first 2 1/2 hour movie to keep me entertained the whole way through
.:::*SOME SPOILERS*:::.
I like a lot of two and a half hour movies, but all the ones I saw had some boring/un-interesting parts. Maybe not a lot, but at least one or two. Then I saw The Shining.
In 1997, my friends and I read the book and then saw the TV movie. We all liked the book and the TV movie. Then, one of them saw this film and told us not to watch it because it disgraced the book. Well, I watched it anyway. I can't believe my friend didn't like. Sure, it wasn't all that true to the book, but it was great and entertaining, which is what most movies aim for.
The book scared the crap out of me. The TV movie was kind of scary, but not really. This movie is the scariest thing I've ever seen. Everything about it was terrifying: the blood in the elevator, the woman in the bathtub, and, most of all, the girls in the hallway. I can't tell you how much that scared me. I literally had to pause the movie to make my heart stop beating so fast. The thing was, I had read about how scary the girls were in this movie, but I didn't think they'd actually be this scary! I was proved wrong. So everything you read about the girls is true. And everything else, yes. They are horrifying.
Yet, in a way, it's mind-blowing. Stephen King's book really makes you think and it took my friends and I a long time to fully understand everything. Kubrick adapts that book into a screenplay and adds even more for the viewer to think about. If you haven't read the book and you go to see this movie, I couldn't imagine how much thinking that is. Something like that is extraordinary.
Jack Nicholson was perfect. There's no other word to describe it. When I saw the TV movie, I thought that actor was okay, but he wasn't how I imagined Jack Torrence when I read the book. Jack Nicholson not only gives his best performance in this film, but he also portrays Torrance like I had imagined him. Danny Lloyd was terrific in his big screen debut (and sadly, his last) and Shelley Duvall was....decent. Oh yes, Scatman Crothers was good as well. You know what, I'll just stop naming people. Everyone from Nicholson to the extras were great.
Overall, this is a movie you simply can't miss. Don't listen to anyone when they say that The Exorcist or Psycho or Rosemary's Baby are the scariest movies. They are all scary, but I can't imagine anything being any more terrifying than this masterpiece.
10/10.
The Prince & Me (2004)
Going back in time
We're going to go back in time to 1988. In this year, a movie starring Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall came out. It was called "Coming to America." It was a great comedy about a prince who came to America, found a girl, and fell in love. Sound similar?
Now, we come to 2001. A movie called "The Princess Diaries." It wasn't a terrible movie, but when watching it, I felt some deja vu. The story was about a girl who discovered she was a princess, learned to be like a princess, found a boy, fell in love.
Now, over the past couple years, a million movies with this synopsis have come out! "The Prince & Me" is the final straw. This is a complete ripoff of the classic Eddie Murphy film! Now, "The Princess Diaries" had some originality, which made it okay. What originality does this movie have? I'll tell you. There IS no originality! Lately, Hollywood has been ripping us off with cheap sequels and so-so remakes. I'm afraid the case of ripping off classic movies is soon to follow.
Here in Rhode Island, we have the Patriot East Providence theatre. This is where they put all the movies that have been out for months that everybody's seen. In my opinion, this movie should have gone straight to that theatre, since everyone has seen this before.
1/10. This movie just makes me another IMDB user who wishes there was a 0/10 rating.