Reviews written by

Page 5 of 37: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
370 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Pretentious and boring, 6 June 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I couldn't get through it I was so bored. I know the guy stole from other films, yet overall it was a good cast - except for the lead. Banderas was absolutely awful. So miscast it was painful. Not for one second do I believe he has the capability to spout any of the dialog he was or do find a sock in a dryer let alone act as a P.I.. I got about 30 minutes into it before I was fast forwarding. Lots of color and overdone angles as if to say "ain't I really cool?" The little cute clips of wisdom Banderas was spewing were so pretentious I wanted to puke. I knew I'd see some idiot make a "Tarantino" reference in the other comments. Now anyone attempting to be "stylish" whether they succeed or not is like "Tarantino"; it's become a really annoying cliché (Tarantino isn't even Tarantino anymore).

I don't know how this movie ended and I don't care. I will officially avoid anything with Antonio Banderas in it and I"m embarrassed that the talent that was in this wasted their time. Did the director get some embarrassing pictures of everyone?

Cropsey (2009)
2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Someone actually claimed this was "chilling?", 3 June 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I read that review and of course the person has one review; this movie. I wonder what film that person happened to have worked on.

I actually saw this because Harry Knowles on Ain't it Cool made it seem like it was this super scary movie "but it's real!" It wasn't scary, nor chilling. Not in any sense (Knowles needs to retire). The directors spend too much time in front of the camera, which is annoying and too much time is spent on legends surrounding an old insane asylum then the thing just turns into a "here's the guy who did it" Dateline piece. There is absolutely no evidence shown why the guy was convicted and all we really know is he's kooky, judging by the rambling rants he sends the directors. I still don't know if he did it or not and I saw absolutely no reason to believe he did, outside of one guy who claims "he told me he did it" which was actually believable in my opinion but still not enough to base an entire movie on.

I was actually more angry that there was absolutely nothing "chilling" or "scary" about this. It was just another run-of-the-mill documentary that could have been better with more info and less padding (and much less of the directors on camera). One scene they go to an abandoned building and the female director keeps saying "I won't go in, I won't go in." They go in and the place is covered with graffiti. That's it. Some kids come out of the woods and then we go to the next scene. A waste of time.

On the plus side, the thing was edited superbly and professionally done. Unlike other documentaries, like say "Paradise Lost," I wouldn't watch this again.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One of the funniest cartoons ever, 23 March 2011

I still say disk 2 of Volume 2 of the Looney Tunes DVDs is pound-for-pound the funniest DVD you can own. It's all Road Runner-Coyote cartoons and this one is one of the best if not the best. Just laugh out loud funny. His expression as he falls of the cliff just cracks me up every time, especially when he thinks he's going to bounce on a trampoline.

The helmet with the wheel on top is just genius. It's so stupid, like somehow the best way for him to get down a wire to the road to catch the bird is by balancing on his head. But the quick ending the gag just cracks me up. The timing, the sound effects, everything is so perfectly done. Jones animates the Coyote so beautifully, his expressions are priceless and the way there are so many moving parts on his body, which most people probably don't even realize, is just classic art that sadly will never be repeated.

My only complaint is there are not more RR-C cartoons. This one is one of the greats.

Ca$h (2010)
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Good premise marred by bad acting and writing, 22 February 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS: Starts out really slow, I almost couldn't go on, then it got good. Unfortunately, the people playing the couple were just awful. Both awful actors. I see this is the guy playing Thor and I'm astonished, he was terrible.

Luckily, the bad guy came across the two most stupid people in history. The bad guy slips out every night to go buy meat but the couple just goes to sleep instead of trying to get away. After they're out committing robberies, they get into it.

The main problem is the couple was completely unlikeable. By the time they're hitting people in their robberies, I just wanted the bad guy to kill them. They were both miscast and did a terrible job - and then the conclusion was just too neat and tidy.

And of course, that many robberies and they get away with it? Not in a million years. Most if not all those stores would have video and a clear picture would have come out of at least one of those robberies and they would have been identified.

The thing is the premise to this movie was good and the Bean was good, it was just miscast and poorly written. Yes, I totally believe some gangster is going to talk a bank manager into doing something he doesn't want to do, a job he's probably had for years and years and knows all the ins and outs, yet this guy is talking him into some transaction like it's the first he's heard of it. Just ridiculous.

I just can't believe this lead guy is Thor. He was awful. No presence, terrible delivery - just miscast in every sense and as unlikeable as possible. I wanted to like the couple but they were terrible. And they get off scot free. We were supposed to be rooting for them?

With a better writer and better actors, this could have been really good.

Monsters (2010)
3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
And this is called "Monsters" why?, 4 February 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you've got a film called Monsters there better be Monsters. There might be three minutes total of monsters in this boring movie. It's really a road trip movie and that's all. "How do we get from point A to point B" is all it is. The monsters are not even secondary, they're more like a minor background thing.

And the thing is, the actors were competent. It wasn't like there were two bad actors in the lead. For low budget, it does not look bad. There's just no story. After a while you're just plain bored with the dialog. It's not interesting and since this is simply a "dialog movie" (not a "monster movie") you better be saying something interesting which these two are not.

The end where they watch two monsters mingle and stand there in awe was ridiculous. I was severely disappointed with this. The least they can do is change the title from "Monsters" to "Boring Dialog" because that's all this movie is.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Unwatchable, 4 February 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

How anyone could give this thing a bunch of stars and not be someone who worked on it is a mystery. It's got really bad acting, a director who is clearly clueless and even awful editing. I couldn't watch it, and ended up fast forwarding through it because it is literally unwatchable. The script is amateurish and clichéd, it had to be written over a weekend without any rewrites because it reminds of bad scripts you see submitted to cheesy screenplay competitions by amateur writers who think they're being cool.

What's worse is for some reason, 50 Cent is in this - who is arguable the worst rapper-turned-actor ever. EVER. He can't act. How he gets parts is a mystery. Even his die hard fans have to be cringing. There's a lot of bad actors in this but this guy is absolutely terrible.

The oddest thing of all is this comes across as a really low, low budget movie (it's like one of those bad movies cast off craigslist) yet they splurged on the soundtrack. It has a great soundtrack and it cost money for those songs. Why not spend that money on a competent director and editor?

12 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Ridiculously awful waste of time, 28 December 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Really, anyone who says "I want two hours of my life back" deserves the pain you suffered for sticking with this awful joke. I barely made it 40 minutes into it before I couldn't take it anymore.

It's essentially two guys with a video camera. Only these two guys are well known actors. It's supposed to be a stunt, yet it's not funny, interesting or entertaining in any sense. I actually see people saying "only two people could have pulled this off: Andy Kaufman and Joaquin Phoenix." Really? And what in the world makes anyone think Joaquin Phoenix is someone who could have pulled this off? Was there something he did previous to this that would give him that title? Because he certainly didn't pull this off.

In fact, the people who like this seem to repeat "you just didn't get it." No. I got it. It just didn't work. No one wants to watch a millionaire whine about show business and his life and be a jerk to everyone around him for two hours, whether it's real or not.

What baffles me is there are people who liked this and actually paid to see it. Amazing. You can get some people in the general public to see anything. Literally.

I can only hope Joaquin does retire now. I never want to see him in anything ever again. Ever.

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Supremely average and disappointing, 4 December 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am amazed at how popular this movie is. I was really let down. It's a bunch of straight-to-DVD actors outside the two leads in a poorly written bore-fest. Some of the dialog is literally cringe-worthy, it was amazingly awful. A complete waste of time for Jet Li, I don't know how he agreed to be in this and possibly Stallone's worst directed film (he is an underrated director). When you get to the fight scenes, the cuts are literally half a second and the camera is flinging all over, you have absolutely no idea what is going on. There were a few scenes of dialog I just started fast forwarding it was so bad. There's no character development and even the cinematography is pretty bad. I'm surprised Arnold allowed himself to be photographed like this. He looks 70.

I don't know, maybe 15 years ago with these actors and a far better writer might have yielded a better film but I've seen better straight-to-DVD movies with all these actors than this one. And why are they called "The Expendables?" It didn't appear anyone was actually expendable, nor did they end up dying so the title makes no sense on top.

Worst of all for me is Stallone. He's a mixture of bad plastic surgery and steroids (he has admitted to juicing for those of you who will claim a man in his mid-60s can be that bulked up naturally). He looks awful. He has not aged gracefully and clinging to his 80's persona and it's sad. But I guess it's working since this movie was a hit. Sadly.

15 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Can we put a moratorium on these types of films?, 25 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film was terrible. Just terrible. I watched about 20 minutes, fast forwarded through some and just gave up. Bad dialog, bad acting and a clichd, overdone premise done horribly here. Everyone who has survived the zombie plague apparently carries around video cameras and tapes stuff - never mind there are zombies all around trying to eat them, it's important they keep the video rolling. There is no actual "direction" in this film. It's just some guys who got a video camera and made a little video - literally. I've seen better videos on youtube by six year olds. I hate this movie with a passion and this whole "here's a guy documenting this horrific event with a video camera" thing that was last done well with Blair Witch. They need to stop making these movies. And what's worse about this movie is the zombie make up was well done. A terrible waste of good zombies. AVOID

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Paint drying would have been more entertaining, 22 September 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Every single shot in this boring waste of film is two, sometimes three times longer than it needs to be. Half the shots the actors are either half out of frame or not even in the shot - yet they're talking and you have no idea who they're talking to or even in some cases, what they're saying (there's some mumbling and low volume babbling going on here). Sometimes they're talking and you have no idea who's talking to who because apparently the director doesn't want you to know.

I'm not asking for short MTV styled edits. There's nothing wrong with long, drawn out, unedited scenes as long as something interesting is happening on the screen. I got half way through this before I couldn't take it anymore. There was nary an interesting sentence uttered by any character in this. One kid is rambling on about having sex with someone's sister. But the camera isn't on him. It's on two other kids at the table. We watched trying to figure out what the long diatribe was there for, who he was talking to and what the point of it was. Eventually in these shots, the camera slowly pans over to whomever is talking (if you're lucky) and you sit there scratching your head.

There are lots of good directors out there who never get the funds to put together their movie. How this guy did is a complete mystery because he has no business EVER writing or director a feature. EVER.

I assume there might have been a good story in there somewhere but I suspect since every shot was three times longer than it needed to be, this would have ended up being a 20 minute short and 20 minute shorts don't get DVD deals. And I like Larry Clark. I read a couple comments from folks comparing this to Bully or Kids. These people should never be allowed to voice an opinion on movies in a public forum ever again.

Page 5 of 37: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]