Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 23:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
222 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Good, but lacking due to time issues, 3 April 2010

Great concept for a film, this really makes you think. What if you lost your memory of everything you've known since you were a baby? What if everyone did? This is a good movie, but it should have been developed more and spread out into 2 or even 3 parts. There is lots of room for further story and character development, but by the time that starts to happen, the story is over. The ending is also left open, and doesn't really resolve very much. I understand that the makers have to work within time and budget constraints, but with some more work this could have been a great 2-parter rather than just a good movie. The art is good, but not phenomenal for 1993.

Legacy (1998/I)
100% RDA of Hasselhoff, 27 August 2004

This movie isn't *that* bad. Sure Hasselhoff cheeses up every scene, heck all the dialogue for all the actors is cheesy, but otherwise it is just standard direct-to-video fare. Oh, and was Rod Steiger desperate for cash or what? It just shows that you need to treat your agent with respect, folks. Otherwise they will get back at you by putting you in stuff like this. Regulate your Hasselhoff intake to small doses and you should be OK. Still, approach this film with the caution warranted when someone tells you it "isn't *that* bad".

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Flawed but not broken, 14 August 2004

I can't believe the extreme views I've read in the commentaries of this film. It appears that people truly do love it or hate it. I'm not so extreme. This is the only Shyamalan movie (except for "The Buried Secret of...") that I have seen, so I can judge the film without comparing it to his other work. There were a few times during the movie where I said something was ridiculous, or wondered why Night decided to do something in a certain way. So this movie is hardly perfect in my book. But you know what? In the end, I liked it. It kept me entertained and interested in what would happen next. And the so-called "twist" is not that much of a twist. It is just a satisfying and logical ending to a Bruce Willis movie (something other directors seem to have a hard time doing). I rate this 7/10 - good, but not great, and not terrible.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
One of the worst TV shows I've had the misfortune to witness, 28 July 2004

Poor Andy Richter. He had a great gig on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Then he left and started doing films. He got his own TV series - "Any Richter Controls the Universe" - which was a pretty good show, and like all good TV shows, got cancelled. Now, he ends up with THIS. This is one of the most insipid little programs ever to hit the airwaves. It is all that is bad about cheesy sitcoms, and worse. However, unlike (for example) "Here's My Bush", this isn't a spoof. Nope, this is just raw badness served up to the masses. All I can say is, avoid this unless you like constant lame jokes accompanied by a laugh track. Even Andy knows this show sucks, but hey he has to pay the bills.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Entertaining in a MST3K sort of way, 20 July 2004

Good in concept, poor in execution, "The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan" was plagued by terrible acting, amateurish directing, and the easy comparison to "The Blair Witch Project" which did a similar type of promo on the Sci-Fi network. The 3-hour (!!) "mockumentary" was nothing more than a giant infomercial for Shyamalan's body of work and his new movie "The Village". The worst part of the film was the acting. The old woman who supposedly knew Night as a child came off like one of those old ladies you see in commercials trying to sell you life insurance. The real estate agent overacted so badly that I can't believe she wasn't recast. The believability factor of the script was also quite low. Why would the director talk to a pizza guy about M. Night Shyamalan? Why would anyone care if Johnny Depp was considered for the lead in "Signs"? If electrical equipment strangely stops working around Shyamalan, how does he work around all that equipment on a movie set? I could go on, but you get the idea. Perhaps if this movie was shorter and perhaps if the acting and script were better, this could have been a decent "horror" film along the lines of a "Twilight Zone" episode. As it turned out, it was about as scary as "Manos, the Hands of Fate".

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Bad, even for MTV, 13 June 2004

For the last few years, I had been trying to recall the name of this show. I asked everyone. Over the years I have annoyed complete strangers by trying to describe this stupid show and ask them if they knew the name of it. Most people think I am either delusional or making it up! At last, a certain website (about shows that jump the shark) answered by question! I can finally show everyone with this IMDB link that this show truly existed! Anyways, regarding the show - it was awful. Originally a "bumper" promo for MTV where one of the brothers is on the toilet, and then an "MTV" logo is shown floating, some genius at MTV decided it would be worthy of a half-hour show. It wasn't funny, it wasn't cool. It was made even worse by the horrible video segments. Unlike Beavis and Butthead's video segments, which were made better by their funny comments, the video segments in this show had no comments. It was unbelievably bad. If you are ever confronted by the opportunity to view this material... just make sure you aren't paying for it.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Not very good, 27 October 2003

Bottom line, this movie is not funny. The story is satisfactory enough, but I didn't laugh once during this film. There are plenty of gross-out gags just like in "Something About Mary" and "Kingpin", but in this film they seem just thrown in for no reason. And Heather Graham does a terrible acting job like she does in most movies. This isn't even a "so bad it's good", it is just boring. Avoid.

Better than expected, 17 May 2003

I didn't expect much going into this film, but being a fan of Bruce Campbell, I had to finally check it out. It is certainly not the 'masterpiece' that the "Cult of Bruce" touts it to be, but still I was impressed. This really is more than just a "kids-in-the-woods-slash-em-up"; if you pay attention you can see some clever writing. We see a budding Sam Raimi becoming a true artist at his craft. We see a young Bruce Campbell in his first big acting "gig". I was even impressed with the other never-heard-from-again actors. I expected hammy performances all around, but it wasn't that bad at all. Considering the pathetic budget and constraints they had to work with, this is a very watchable piece of work. A bit too much gore for my liking, but nevertheless I would recommend this to any fan of Raimi, Campbell, independent films, or the horror genre in general. 8/10 for fans, 6/10 for non-fans

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Dumbest ending ever., 4 March 2003

Ok, the beginning of this movie was pretty good. The middle part had potential, but was greatly lacking. The end was completely absurd. If you like your horror movies to come with laughs, then this is a good movie for you. If, however, you are seeking any plausibility, avoid this movie at all costs. Rating: 8 for the beginning, 6 for the middle, and 1 for the ending. Which averages out to a 5 for the whole film. Recommended only for fans of the first one.

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Smithee strikes again, 27 December 2002

Disowned by Richard C. Sarafian, this disaster stunk up Japanese theaters before coming to the States and going immediately to video, where it was not seen again until the Turner networks needed something other than infomercials to fill their 3am-6am time slots and found this tape at the bottom of their bin. The Smithee name is supposed to be used when the studio hacks the movie so badly that the director no longer wants his name attached to it. But I'm afraid that Sarafian can not blame the studio entirely on this one. The actors, mostly recent graduates of "Overacting 101", deliver one cornball line after another. The plot is convoluted. The special effects are unimpressive. The parts that aren't laughable are just plain boring. The script or the book must have been good - why else would Palance, Matheson, Boyle, or Heston agree to appear in this dud? But something went horribly wrong from the page to the screen. Summary: Avoid. Not even bad enough to be so-bad-it's-good.

Page 1 of 23:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]