Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
23 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Oscar-worthy documentary, 30 June 2013

I just attended a screening of this at the Nantucket Film Festival and had a chance to meet 3 of the students featured in the movie. It is by far the best film I've seen at this year's festival.

The film portrays many immigrant students but concentrates on several who are from Burma (Myanmar), the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Pakistan and Poland. The film gives a look at their academic, social, and family life switching back and forth between each. The film gives a great look at how immigrants struggle to fit in and some of the culture shock that can occur.

Given the subject matter being in the spotlight in US politics at this time, this film will shed light on the subject in more ways than the news media is able to. I predict this film will be a strong contender for the "Best Documentary" Academy Award.

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Incredible film, 11 January 2013

I saw a screening of this film near the director's hometown late last month and it is one of the best films I've seen this year. The director, Sam French gave an introduction and a Q&A afterwards. I'm watching it again now on the DVD I bought at the screening.

The director, his siblings and his mother have been family friends for almost 30 years which really makes this special for me. His mother was my art teacher in elementary school and attended my old church.

The film includes some excellent scenery and one of the few movies I know of that portrays Afghans in a positive light. I hope that the publicity from the nomination will encourage more people to see this film.

Star Trek (2009)
54 out of 117 people found the following review useful:
Not a prequel but a full blown reboot. Gene Roddenberry would be appalled!, 8 May 2009

If you are not a Star Trek fan you will probably think this is an excellent film. It has intense action sequences, great special effects and good acting.

If you are a Star Trek fan like I am, stay home.

This film contains massive amounts of retroactive continuity. Things in this film contradict cannon every previous Star Trek film and TV series.

Someone at Paramout should lose their jobs over this.

J.J. Abrams warned "purists" to stay home. He should have not used the term purist as that only applies to Trekkies that are complete geeks when it comes to the franchise.

He should have warned that most fans would be disappointed.

21 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
It is possible to believe in both evolution and intelligent design, 27 April 2008

I am a former agnostic and a former staunch believer in evolution.

I became a born again Christian several years ago and stopped believing in evolution soon after. I was raised in a liberal Christian home. At the time I believed in theistic evolution. The idea that evolution did occur but that God guided the process. I had a falling out in my teens and was an agnostic for years I almost even became an atheist. After reading some apologetics, I became a Christian again and became more conservative than I was before.

As a creationist, I really liked this film but was disappointed that it did not present more of the Intelligent Design theory that God guided the evolutionary process. This would make the film much more acceptable among its detractors The film is not intended primarily to promote intelligent design, but to show that those who believe in it in either form are ridiculed and blacklisted, only for promoting an alternative theory which is exactly what science is all about. What it did not say and what many people don't know is that much of what is taught in intelligent design is based on scientific evidence just like evolution is. The only major promotion of intelligent design the film shows is that DNA is so complex, the odds of it being created by chance are a figure with dozens of digits to one A CBS News poll conducted a few years ago showed that just over half of all Americans believe in creationism and that most of those who believe that evolution did occur believe that God guided the process. 8 out of 10 Americans believe in intelligent design according to the poll. This poll is still available on their website at the time of this review.

Also, the critics of the film call creationists closed minded. I wonder how many of the reviewers and raters of the film here actually saw the film. reviewing and rating without seeing the film is the epitome of closed mindedness especially when giving the film one out of ten stars to make the rating even lower.

It was open mindedness that led me to become a creationist. I looked at both sides of the issue and chose.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Worst of all Star Trek films *Spoiler alert*, 21 November 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am a moderate Star Trek fan. This is the only Star Trek that I hated based solely on one part of the film.

**Begin Spoiler**

Data is my most favorite character in any of the Star Trek series or films. The writer's decision and Brent Spiner's willingness to allow Data to be killed off was (in my opinion) the worst mistake ever made in the entire history of Star Trek production. I have given all the previous Star Trek Films super high ratings, I gave Nemesis 1 out of 10 stars. If Data didn't die in the movie I would have given it 10 out of 10 stars.

*End Spoiler*

I sincerely hope that the events of this film can be reversed in the next film in some way through time travel or Q doing something.

I was very disappointed that the filmmakers did this and would not be one bit if this was why the film did so badly at the box office. In fact, I would be surprised if it *weren't* the reason it did so bad.

Incredible! Good special effects and plot, 6 November 2003

I noticed some people claiming that the ending was disappointing. Maybe to them but The ending was somewhat unexpected but certainly not disappointing.

The special effects are incredible also and there are a few new 'bullet time' effects which are impressive. The live action mix with CGI is practically seamless.

This better be nominated for a Best visual effects Oscar® or I will be very surprised.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Best Secular Christmas film ever!!, 22 June 2003

This film was somewhat ahead of it's time but an excellent example of how the sacred Christmas holiday as been grievously secularized commercialized by so many people and by the media.

Christmas is to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not to get presents from family and friends.

Linus's speech about the "True meaning of Christmas" is a direct quote from the Bible and Charles Schultz refused to allow this scene to be cut from the script let alone the film.

In a day and age where non-Christians are celebrating and observing a Christian holiday, though not the most important Christian holiday, Christians need to inform the secular world about what Christmas really means.

Showing this film is an excellent way to do it.

Ishtar (1987)
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A great film with undeserved bad press. I want a DVD version!, 16 May 2003

I wonder how many of the people who voted on this movie actually saw it. If they did many of them would have liked it. Look at Weird al Yankovic's film UHF. It died in the box office but when released on dvd it was a top seller on for weeks. Ishtar was given a bad release date. If you sit down and watch it, you will realize that it is not nearly as bad and boring as what the media said (and still does say) about it. It lost much money but bigger losers have DVD releases. Hudson Hawk lost a lot. Cutthroat Island had a much bigger loss than Ishtar and yet it has a DVD version. Ishtar is so badly underrated.

When I heard this movie was a major failure, I wanted to see it to find out why. I am glad I saw it and I bought a copy very soon after.

Unfortuantely when a movie gets a bad reputation like this it is rare that it recovers.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
VERY impressive for its time, 13 April 2003

This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago.

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Absolutely Disgusting! But the TV show is O.K., 25 November 2002

I am a fan of the Jackass TV show. I went to see the movie only knowing that it would contain stunts not permitted on television. Some of the things on the TV show are bad, but much of it is fine.

This movie should have been NC-17. If it had got the rating it deserved, I would not have seen it.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the TV series, most of it at least. Some of the stunts in the film were pretty good, but almost all of them were quite bad.

It is possible that scenes may have been cut to avoid an NC-17 rating, but this film is a perfect example of why I think that the MPAA's 'monopoly' over movie ratings should end. I think that movies should get a second opinion over their content.

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]