Reviews written by registered user
TIALI

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

Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
58 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

14 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
tremendously disappointing, 18 December 2007
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There are only a few ways you can mess up a plot with only one survivor of a mass-epidemic, and this movie manages ruin this simple plot. First, how does the last man on earth spend his day? In this story he drives around chasing deer, or some animals, for some reason that's never clear. If it's for food, his hunting skills are pretty poor. Next we need to learn how he copes with being alone. In this, we have the benefit of having Sam, his dog, accompany him. It's not wrong to say that each scene with Sam works, and that when she's gone, the movie falls apart. When we learn that there's an enemy that wants to kill the last man, we suddenly learn that the enemy is so vastly superior in hunting and fighting skills that we wonder how the last man survived for as long as he did. It's here that the whole movie reveals the truth that there really isn't any story that makes sense. We learn that there may be survivors in the north because the virus can't survive the cold, but instead of confirming this news with a simple experiment, the last man and scientist, ignores it. Then we find that the area around his home is booby-trapped for a final confrontation, and again, we have to wonder how his superior enemy never stumbled upon the gigantic spot lights lining the street. Or even how the last man on earth managed to run multiple generators within his home without dying from carbon monoxide poisoning. The problem is that it takes so long to get us to a point where we discover that there really isn't any story that it's hard to admit that I wasted my time. But that's what really happened. The last man on earth wasn't very entertaining company.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
really the end?, 27 May 2007
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Jumping into this third act is kind of confusing for someone who hasn't seen the second part in the last month, but you get up to speed pretty fast. I like much of the added plot, with Davy Jones's locker, the new pirates, and especially, the multiple Jack Sparrow's. Don't be confused by the somewhat confusing intersecting plots; as far as I can tell, everything makes sense eventually. The only real problem I had with the story is with the final sea battle where many, many people are killed on screen. I remember that the second movie had lots of death at the end, but it didn't seem as real with the giant tentacles as it does in this finale. And for a movie that's supposed to have a romance at its core, the resulting union between Elizabeth and Will is a little sad because of the subsequent curse. Overall, I enjoyed this more than the second film, and as a trilogy, this is a very satisfying way to kill a weekend watching TV.

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
sad. sad. miserably bad., 2 May 2007
1/10

Oh man, this is just miserable. It's spiritless and clumsy. It's like Basic Instinct minus the sex and violence. There's lots of huffing and puffing and people spitting out their lines as if they're trying to convince themselves that something interesting is going on; but nothing is going on. This is painful to watch, not even boring. Just sad like a dead animal on the road. You want to help it, but you know it's too late. Everyone looked uncomfortable, except for Hartnett who doesn't have the experience to realize the script sucked. The actors even smoke uncomfortably as if at any moment some enviro-terrorists might storm the sound stage with water pistols filled with kerosene and squirt them in the face. There was only one interesting scene when Bucky (Hartnett) goes tho the rich guy's house: it's a great five minutes on a truly worthless film. Avoid this mess, please.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
what a bunch of babies ("G" version of what I'd like to say), 13 April 2007
7/10

I give is a good rating for the informational value, but man, this makes me mad. my outrage comes from the use of the word "censorship." these filmmakers claim that the mpaa censors their movies because filmmakers want PG-13 or R ratings so they can make more money, and the mpaa is denying them the ability to get rich. but no filmmaker claims that they are forced to make movies a certain way or is denied the ability to put their vision on film: they only complain that an NC-17 rating will keep them from making more money. I don't always agree with the ratings applied to films, but I support the system, even as secretive as it is. These people want oversight so they can complain more effectively. If they really want to be effective, all these directors and producers should boycott the mpaa completely and then when there are no rated films released and theaters are forced to show the same movies over and over and lose money, they will finally accept unrated films. But it's all about money. nobody is denying anybody their right to make whatever film they want. But when you want to distribute your film and get people to pay you for your product, you need to follow the rules. same as when you bake some cookies: you take them to work and nobody cares what's in them, but try to sell them at the grocery store and now you need to put the ingredients on the label and list the calories. it's the same thing. shut up and play by the rules. seriously. if you really cared, you would start your own system and avoid the mpaa...do it and stop crying. I think their hearts are in the right place, but man, now that we have people downloading movies and dvds being released sooner, the rating should matter less. it doesn't matter artistically, only monetarily. and stop digging through people's garbage because you think you have a right to know who is rating your movie, that really made me angry, you stalkers.

Eragon (2006)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
like death from a thousand tiny cuts, 24 March 2007
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

must suffer through it...keep saying, it's only a movie... What preteen manipulation factory turned out this garbage? you need to be ten years old to be immune to its clichéd dialogue and structure. ERAGON: "but how will I defeat him?" DRAGON: "not you. we will succeed together." ERAGON: "how will I do this?" DRAGON: "we will do this together." ERAGON: "me?" DRAGON: "us. together. how many times do I have to say it. together. are you some kind of idiot? t-o-g-e-t-h-e-r." I understand the rule of screen writing where you're supposed to have emotional peaks, but this was insane. every scene had two lines of dialogue then there would swell up some important music, creating a thunder clap of emotional release. ERAGON: "how did the dragon choose me?" PRINCESS: "dragons choose with their heart." Dun-dun-dun. DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN. Duuunnn Duuuunnnnn. (that's the music). I got to the point where I was trying to decide if this movie could have been about anything, a tennis player, a mountain biker, a witch, a Jedi, a poker player, and yes it could have been about anything. our hero is at an emotionally sensitive age and discovers a new power or skill. our hero is also aware of an outside force or enemy who wants the power or skill. our hero has an internal struggle between using the skill and keeping it secret. if he uses the skill, the enemy may try to take it away or destroy the hero; if he hides the skill, he may be able to develop it, but he could miss an opportunity to use it for gain. now our external characters come in to influence the hero's decision, in this case, a pretty girl and an old man. So far, this movie sounds just like Star Wars. I couldn't tolerate the formula. but like I said, I kept telling myself it's only a movie. But then the end came and I realized that there would be a sequel: aaaaahhhhhh! now I have to tell myself, it's only two movies!

19 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
"don't be so dark", 5 November 2006
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The is the ultimate Millennium episode: Jose Chung (from one of the best X Files episodes, appears as an author who writes about "Selfosophy" (a movement with many similarities to another Hollywood celebrity movement whose members include Tom Cruise and John Travolta). Charles Nelson Reilly plays Chung, a writer who claims his story-spinning powers rival the profiling skills of Frank Black. And this episode contains several of Chung's (and others) dramatized theories, which are hilarious, including one with a blonde Lance Henriksen. Even David Duchovny appears on posters in the Selfosophy offices. This is a really funny episode which mocks many subjects and I had almost forgotten about. Most of the Millennium episodes are very dark with a seriousness that bordered on self-parody. Well, this is the episode where the show lets off steam and plays it for laughs.

Saw III (2006)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
keeps you occupied enough to not notice its flaws, 29 October 2006
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

there's enough going on to keep you entertained. the biggest problem is that much of the story seems to be back-story for the 2 previous films. I would have been confused if I thought about previous victims or Shawnee Smith's involvement in the murders, but as I said, the strength of the film is how it keeps you interested in what's happening to the characters now. since we have a terminally ill Jigsaw, we get to see how he's dealing with his illness; we also have the tests given to the latest victim(s). and as with any good puzzler like these, we shouldn't be able to guess how all the victims are related until the final piece is revealed. and this is why this movie succeeds. we have four characters to follow through their ordeals, we get several mini tortures to enjoy, and we are filled in on details from the previous films. under any level of analysis, these stories are silly, this recent film had me wondering whether Jigsaw buys tape recorders in bulk as he uses about 7 in this movie. I'm not sure if the Saw franchise has anything left to tell us, but it's fairly obvious that Jigsaw will be back again since he's been given a mini-reprieve from his terminal illness.

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
My favorite movie (okay, tied with Sleuth), 20 September 2006
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I first saw this, I think I was taking a college course on Thomas Hardy because all I remember was reading The Return of the Native and thinking, "mygod, this is the same story, but years later." At one point in the Hardy book, a beautiful woman is disappointed that her husband, who was supposed to take her away to an exciting life in Paris, develops an illness while struggling to become a teacher. So she takes a lover. In The Browning Version, we see the result of a beautiful woman who hitches her future on a man who could give her an exciting life, but develops an illness and his prospects evaporate, so she becomes bitter and takes lovers. Something about these stories strike me as having the most tragic plot imaginable. Shakespeare and Oedipus have tragedy, but not tragedy that most people could ever face. But the story of two people with totally antipodal expectations of each other marrying and making each other miserable is so common that it affects me each time I watch it. There is something about good literature that affects humans deeply and to have those same emotions translate equally on the stage or screen is rare. This isn't really a good review, but I've never seen an essay where someone compares the two. Maybe you will read this and get the inspiration.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
the dumbest story ever told, 20 May 2006
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So I asked my friends if they knew how many DNA samples it takes to discover the parents of a child and they each answered, 3. You need a mother, father and child so you can sample the DNA to see if they are related. So if this is true, why does the Da Vinci Code tell us that they can sample the DNA of a mother (Mary Magdeline) and a daughter (Sophie) to tell us if Sophie is the daughter of Jesus Christ? Who has a sample of Jesus's DNA? Now, this bothered me through much of the movie, since the whole plot relied on each secret group either protecting or trying to destroy the holy grail, meaning the daughter of Mary Magdeline and Jesus. Sure, Mary could have had a kid, lots of kids, but no one can prove who the father was. So the protection of Mary's body is pointless. Hence, the entire story is pointless. I don't understand anything that happened. I don't understand why a man who has been shot walks around a museum leaving clues at several locations then removes all his clothes before he dies; it seems like he could have made it to the hospital in that time. And why does the dying curator leave a secret message to a Harvard professor pointing to the Mona Lisa, but makes a point of including the name of the artist in the clue? Wouldn't the professor know who painted the Mona Lisa? Is the clue meant for the dumb reader/movie-goer who doesn't know who painted the Mona Lisa? This is an incredibly dumb story based on bad science/logic meant for dumb people who failed that subject in grade school.

"Action" (1999)
v.f.f., 27 February 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I would say in the same sentence that Jay Mohr is what was wrong with this show, and then say he was perfect for it. He was too young, too sleazy, but exactly the right age and sleaze for Peter Dragon. The reality of Hollywood is that fat men run it, but who wants to watch fat men? Jay had a baby face and an acid tongue which was hilarious and repulsive simultaneously. I remember clearly that I would turn on the TV thinking, "I hate this guy, but I love this guy." Now on DVD, this show should find followers from the same crowd that worship Arrested Development, The Job and Family Guy. This is very funny show that lasted the perfect number of episodes (if you count the full 13 and not when it got canceled). The final episode sums up everything the show was about: ex-child-star and temporarily ex-prostitute Wendy, trades her body to buy back a script. When Peter wonders why she wants to leave Hollywood after this, he says, "you just had to sleep with two fat guys, what's wrong with that?" Wendy tells him she has to leave because that's the kind of thing he would say. In the "making of" on the DVD, it's revealed that Illeana Douglas ("Wendy") didn't like playing a whore, so the final episode gives her character back her self-respect; ultimately, the show was about a town full of whores and one prostitute. Very funny, and right on target.


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]