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]
21 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
A sacrilegious Christmas special?, 3 January 2004

Firstly, let me acknowledge that perhaps I am being a bit too extreme when I toss out the word `sacrilegious' as it relates to this special. As a moderately religious person myself, I am certainly not an individual who usually goes around passing judgement on these kind of things. But I do raise this question: how on earth can a society living in the stone age celebrate a holiday that honors the birth of Christ?

I suppose we could let this slide (after all, this is not the first Christmas-themed Flintstones special), but there was one particular scene in this special that really took me aback: The Flintstones pose for a Christmas family photograph, which is taken and then shown with the following writing below it: `Flintstones Christmas BC'. If there was ever an opportunity to use the words `blasphemy' and `oxymoron' in the same sentence, that's it.

That aside, this is a pretty bland, by-the-book half-hour of Christmas television viewing. As with most modern Flintstones specials, it doesn't hold a candle to the sheer delightfulness of the original television series. There are better Flintstones Christmas specials than this one.

"MADtv" (1995)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
absolute dreck, 30 December 2003

This has to be, quite easily, the most unfunny and offensive TV show I have ever seen. The comedy is explicit filth, and relies on gross-out gags more than anything else. Watch any given episode, and you're likely to hear as many of the mock gross-out or offended groans from the student audience as you are to hear laughs.

However, I'm not getting on my high horse to put down this show. It is possible to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and still get laughs. I have seen comedies that appeal to the lowest common dominator and still be funny. This, however, is not one of them. Just because you do something completely offensive, or gross, or trashy, it's not funny. Mad TV has not figured this out. And how this trash is still on the air is beyond me.

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
best of the reality shows, 27 July 2003

I just saw this for the first time, and I think I might be hooked. I, for the most part, absolutely hate the mess of reality television that is being shoveled down our throats these days, but this is different. "The Restaurant" isn't about people trying to win a million dollars, people sleeping with complete strangers, or people trying to marry off their parents. This is reality TV that is actually "real". Just about everyone has worked, at some point in their lives, in a restaurant or something else involving public service. Just about everyone has had to deal with the everyday hassles of rude customers, bossy managers, and fellow employees who don't do their part. That is real, as opposed to the degenerative wackiness that takes place in other reality programming, which 99.9999% of the population has not experienced, nor will ever experience. Everybody's flipped a burger, but not everybody has had America cast a vote deciding their spouse.

And that's what makes "The Restaurant" special. Add to that the fact that is a highly engrossing and entertaining program, and you've got something here. When I first heard that a new reality show was going to focus on the daily operations of a restaurant, I thought NBC must be insane. But this show succeeds, and if reality television has to stick around, this is the form it should be in.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
mixed emotions, 18 July 2003

As one of the biggest fans of the original "Bad Boys", I have been eagerly awaiting this movie for a very long time.

My expectations dropped somewhat in the days leading up to it's release, when I read early reviews of the movie, most of which described it as an overblown peice of movie making excess, concerned only with blowing things up and crammed with gore. So when I went into the theater on opening night, I did so with lowered expectations, and that might be a good thing. Because when I came out of it, I was left not feeling let down. And that rarely ever happens with me in the case of sequels to old favorites.

There's lots of great things here, but it's the presence of those great moments that make you realize that it could be so much more.

I have mixed emotions on this movie, mostly which result in comparisons relative to the classic original. But before I dive into cranking those thoughts out, I would like to officially state that this is, simply put, a good movie.

When they are allowed to get going, Lawrence and Smith are absolutely hysterical, recapturing the magical chemistry they had 8 years ago. Lawrence is particuarly hilarious, playing the beleaugered sidekick to Smith's non-stop carnage parade. The duo's egually beleaugered Captain, played by Joe Pantoliano, is also hysterical this time around, drawing more laughs in less camera time.

The movie is jam-packed with massive action sequences, as the producers cram as much as they can into the near 150 minute marathon. The action that is there is very impressive, but it is too much. Half of that time could be spent just eaves-dropping on conversations between Smith and Lawrence, and be far more entertaining. After all, it was the special dynamic of those two actors that made the original stand out above all other buddy-cop action-comedies. Big budget action is a dime a dozen at the multiplex these days, but the chemistry Smith and Lawrence have is truly special. Something that only comes along, oh, say once every 8 years.

But you almost get the feeling that the filmmakers felt pressure to deliver a box office smash (an $150 million price tag will do that to you), and took the easy way out. They filled the movie with the action sequences, the gun fights, the special effects, the explosions, and all that good stuff that lands you at #1 when the weekend's grosses are counted.

In reference to what many critics have been saying, this move is decidely more violent than the original, and almost seems to revel in it. Smith's carachter seems to take on a dark sinister tone in several combative sequences, as he effortlessly kills off bad guy after bad guy, in increasingly violent fashion without a trace of remorse. It's not pretty. And by the time the movie climaxes, with a near-war on forgein soil, the duo (Smith, especially) seem more like super-soldiers and unstoppable killing machines, than the average cops (well, maybe "super cops") we grew to love the first time around.

But on the whole, this flick is a great ride. And though some moments in the film truly deserve an explanation from director Micheal Bay (such as a scene in which two rats are seen fornicating -- is this Austin Powers or Bad Boys?), I had a fun time and left the theater smiling.

I hope there is a part 3, and if so, I hope it returns more to the tone of the first movie than this one. Sadly, that probably won't be the case. But that's why the first movie is a classic. It's so special because it rose to a level that most movies can't. Bad Boys 2 doesn't attain that level, but it's still a good time.

maybe the worst movie I have ever seen, 22 June 2003

I had the misfortune to come across this move while channel-surfing, and it brought back horrible, horrible memories.

I recall seeing this movie in the theater when it first came out, and asking myself multiple times "how in the world did you agree to see this movie?". In truth, I had actually gone with a friend who was big into the whole Mortal Kombat series. And just for being a nice friend, I was treated to a movie of unspeakable wretchedness. I absolutely hated that flick -- perhaps the longest hour and a half of my life. And that's when I was a teenager, still possibly vulnerable to movies like this.

Well, if I hated it then, you can imagine how much I hated it this time around. It's about 90 minutes of non-stop hackneyed fighting, complete with wooden acting, awful special-effects (which is pretty pitiful, given that action is about the only thing a movie like this is expected to deliver) a plot that might fly in a second-rate video game, and laughable dialouge.

This movie is so bad, it makes Saturday morning cartoons look like Academy Award-winning material. And that's about the only level in which you could even begin to derive any enjoyment out of this nonsense: if you were an 8 year-old boy watching TV at 8am on a Saturday morning.

good wholesome fun, 10 April 2003

Well, was this show cheesy? Yes. Were it's jokes often lame? Yes. But was it also enjoyable? Yes.

Full House was what it was, I don't know if I can't put it any other way. It was a good family-oriented show, something that kids and their parents could watch together. Full House was the kind of show you could (and still can) watch and feel good about the world -- for a half hour, anyways.

As an adult, I still don't mind catching this show every now and then for the aforementioned reasons. As a kid, I was a big fan of the show for 2-3 years, and then I probably outgrew it. But ultimately, I would have to admit that it was one of my favorite sitcoms of my youth. I'm glad there was that kind of show on for me to watch when I was younger, and, call me a softie, but I wish there still was sitcoms like this being made today.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
good film, but a letdown, 21 December 2002

The Two Towers is an enjoyable, and sometimes very good movie, but was a dissappointment to me in the wake of the sheer masterpiece that was The Fellowship Of The Ring.

Director Peter Jackson was able to fill the FOTR with a variety of well-developed characters, a sweeping cinematic landscape, a tense and intriguing storyline, and an overall depth that the book itself possessed. I am no expert on the books, but I do know that FOTR truly delivered the spirit of the book.

Now having said that, one could just take all the battles and action, and hordes of armies and violent characters that exist in the books, plunk them into a bunch of fighting sequences, and make great action movies. The FOTR went beyond that, and captured the true heart of the original book, which is why it was so good, and will go down as a cinematic classic, much in the same way the books will go down as litterary classics.

Being Peter Jackson more or less filmed the trilogy of Lord Of The Rings films back-to-back, I figured that the sheer brilliance put forth in FOTR would be present. That is not the case.

Instead, Jackson has delivered the aforementioned action movie. There's epic battle after epic battle, swordsman after swordsman, but little else. The centerpiece of the books and the first film -- the Hobbits -- are something of an afterthought in the TT, while swashbuckling swordsman Aragorn and bow and arrow marksmen Legolas take the spotlight. These are characters who are embody the standard action movie hero in every sense, but again, don't begin to scrape the depths of the book, which is so much more than what is on display here.

There's word that Jackson did a lot of re-shooting and editing to the TT in the last 12 months. Perhaps he felt the pressure to follow up to the mammoth success of FOTR, and decided to take the safe way out. But what he may have failed to realise is that what made FOTR so great and popular was it's depth beyond your standard action flick. In the wake of the downward spiral of the Star Wars films, which suffer from the same condition plauging the TT, movie fans were looking to latch on to a new fantasy epic, that could provide the great effects and all of that good stuff, but also deliver the goods in terms of story, charachter, and overall depth.

Complaints aside, this is still a fun movie. For starters, you know that you enjoyed a movie when it clocks in at 3 hours long, and you don't find yourself getting restless, whcih I did not. Additionally, The CGI is ultra-impressive, there are lots of incredible visuals (though not on par with the first film), and the action sequences are truly amazing. I just came out dissappointed because one year ago, I went into the theatre to see FOTR not knowing what to expect, and I was given a completley unexpected masterpiece. This time, I went into the TT expect to see another classic, and instead I was delivered a big-budget action flick. Fun movie? Yes. Great special effects? Yes. Another classic? No.

On a closing note, I think Roger Ebert's review of this movie hits the nail right on the head, and he is able to articulate many of the thoughts I have on this film very successfully.

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
a very enjoyable holiday special, 29 November 2002

Having seen this for the first time as a child, and subsequently grown up watching it several more times, A Muppet Family Christmas has become my favorite Christmas TV special.

There is a lot of charm and joy to be found in this 40-odd minute show. Muppet fans will truly appreciate this, if for no other reason than the mass gathering of literally every single Muppet Show, Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock character, and a cameo appearance by the late Jim Henson himself, surveying his creations as they celebrate the season. Even for those who aren't Muppet fans but suffer from Christmas fever, this should prove enjoyable, with many heart-warming sequences and several Christmas songs performed.

A Muppet Family Christmas contains it's share of the usual Muppet moments of charm and wit, but it succeeds most by simply being a feel-good holiday special. It is the perfect show for the season.

great for what it is, 19 October 2002

I think that this movie is as good as any movie that derives itself from a cartoon and action figures could be. And I mean that in a good way. You only need to see the two sequels to this movie to see how bad things can be. In the midst of a pretty terrible genre, I consider Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to rank with Masters Of The Universe as the greatest "action figure" movies of all time.

I saw this when I was a kid caught up in TMNT fever and I loved it, but I can still watch it to this day and enjoy it.

Considering that they had to work around a cartoon, the makers of this movie did an excellent job. Yes, there are some absurdities and ridiculous moments in this movie. But the filmmakers did a lot of great things. For starters, while still managing to keep this a children's movie, they really managed to mature the story and make it more of something that adults could also enjoy. The darker setting is a great atmosphere for the movie, and those who designed many of the sets for this film deserve great credit. Now, yes, I do realize I probably sound insane by calling this a "mature" film, but anyone who has seen the cartoon knows what I am talking about.

Bottom line, when you consider what there was to work with, the filmmakers did an excellent job. And when you stack TMNT up against the Power Rangers movies of the world, it's pretty damn good.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
What might have been, 10 July 2002

Based on the John Grisham novel, A Time To Kill is the story of the legal battle a black man who kills two white men that brutally raped and attempted to murder his young daughter. It's a fascinating, if touchy, set-up, that could have led to a great story.

Unfortunately, Director Joel Schumacher clearly does not have enough faith in the intelligence and thought capacity of the audience to figure out and interpret their own beliefs of this potentially complex film. Rather than walk the fine, narrowly defined line of right and wrong and black and white in this film, he decides to beat us over the head with who the good guys and bad buys are, turning what could have been a fascinating look at race relations and the justice system in America into a drama/action flick of good vs. evil, one that we ultimately know who will win.

It's still a good movie. You grow to care for the characters, and it is an intense film, that is at times griping. I would, however, be interested to see what a different vision of this story could result in.

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