Reviews written by
F_Jenkins

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

287 out of 310 people found the following review useful:
Excellent, 11 November 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've said it before, I'll say it again: The IMDB has been the source for many good and many bad movies for me. I've rented films and avoided films based on comments I've read here. Being that I don't watch a lot of TV and don't have HBO, I never saw Band of Brothers when it was actually on TV. In fact, I only stumbled into its page here in the data base by accident, but was interested in its high rating. It's the highest rating I've ever seen in this forum and because of it, I read some of the reviews. There was nary a bad one, so as a fan of Saving Private Ryan, I decided to buy the DVDs.

What an excellent purchase that ended up being. I really love this production. Excellent casting and direction. The writing is crisp and original. This is one of the best productions on WWII ever made. Well worth whatever you can pay, I highly recommend buying the DVDs.

Whoever's idea it was to start each episode with the original members of the troop is pure genius. Each episode ends with a paragraph or two of the story's significance to the war effort or the lives of its participants. I was even originally annoyed by David Schwimmer's appearance in this (why have a guy who is well known enough to get half a million an episode for a sitcom mixed with a bunch of relative unknowns?) but as it turns out, he was well cast in the role. And the show is done in widescreen, which is really great. The extras are excellent too.

Speilberg and Hanks should be commended for such a fine production. This is a perfect example of the greatness of DVDs.

113 out of 145 people found the following review useful:
Jürgen Prochnow, what happened?, 23 January 2004

Holy smokes, was this movie bad or what? I mean, the absolute worst direction I can remember in a film. We see people running through a forest, quick shots of a zombie's face by a tree, more shots of people running, a shot of a video game, a shadow of someone running and then a shot of another zombie by a tree. What the heck is going on?

The last zombie movie I saw that was this bad was "The Dead Hate the Living" which was, surprise, written by the same guy, Dave Parker, who has absolutely no business writing films. Just a terrible, terrible writer. I mean, with great lines like "let's face it, we're dealing with zombies here," you'd think the producers would have caught on.

And like Parker's last effort, we get references to other zombie films, which when made by awful filmmakers, only makes the film more stupid. One idiot in the movie makes a reference to the Romero zombie trilogy, which has nothing to do with anything, except that apparently the zombies in this movie have seen the Romero films because the only way to kill them is just like the Romero zombies, a shot to the head. Kind of takes away the mystic of the film when you're making references to movies that your movie follows the rules from.

Of course, if George Romero ever saw this film, he'd laugh his butt off at how awful it is. And this stupid quick cuts to video games shots. Hey, I don't play video games so I don't know anything about the game this movie is based on, but you want your movie to play to a wide audience, not the select few who are familiar with the video game. It did nothing but remind the viewer they're watching an awful movie.

And sadly, Jurgen Prochnow, what happened to your career? This is the guy who is in one of the greatest war films of all time, Das Boot, now playing dumb roles in dumb movies not even worthy of straight-to-video fare. How sad (although the U-boat line did make me laugh).

Now will people stop giving Dave Parker work? The only movies this guy should be involved with are the ones at the video store he's the manager of.

The Amazing Bulk (2012) (V)
52 out of 59 people found the following review useful:
One of the worst piles of garbage ever listed in the IMDb, 15 April 2012
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You'd think it was a spoof of the Hulk but it's not. It's a terrible, and I mean, terrible "movie" about a "Hulk-like" creature done with CGI straight from 1992. I kid you not. This is CGI you do with freeware programs from download.com. The entire movie is shot in green screen with backgrounds created from a kindergarten class. The acting isn't even good enough to be in a porn. It's mind bogglingly awful. There's a scene where they're supposed to be running, but clearly running in place as the childish background's move, it's laughable, but not on purpose laughable. I think they thought they were doing some sort of comic book here, but it doesn't even give that impression. It gives the impression of some folks who thought they'd make their only little movie in some guy's garage that he bought a big green screen for and have their kid do the CGI, which probably took about a week total to do. There isn't one person involved who has anything that could be remotely called "acting skills." I like to try and find some sort of redeeming quality when I post a review here, but there is nothing here. This has no business being released on youtube, let alone on DVD or in any kind of festival.

I'm not kidding with the 1992 CGI. It's just terrible. And of course with terrible movies like this, you get "reviewers" who worked on the film passing it off as some amazing movie (he refers to it as "you won't want to go back to other movies after this one" - false - you will be begging to see a real movie after this one - any movie). Check out the comments in the forum too. I've said it a million times, people who worked on a film should not be allowed to comment or review it in the IMDb.

Stay away. Stay far away.

"10.5" (2004)
58 out of 74 people found the following review useful:
A zooming disaster, 4 May 2004
1/10

Why does the director of this film zoom in and zoom out every two seconds? It's bad enough that the script is just awful, I mean, straight-to-video awful and the acting is just as bad. I mean, embarrassingly bad. The actors had to have been cringing watching themselves in this film. But the director zooms in and zooms out constantly through the movie, I was getting motion sickness. Oddly, the film had great ratings so this guy will get more work, I just hope I never see any of it. I don't want to get sick again.

Cliched characters abound in this movie, it's a wonder no one in the production noticed this. My least favorite part of the whole film was the very beginning, where Seattle is having a huge quake and some biker is riding over falling rocks, jumping on cars, just being missed by all the falling debris. It was so stupid. Apparently, some executive said "you know, we've got to attract the young kids. Why not have some extreme biker in there riding through the quake. It would be cool."

I really wanted the Space Needle to fall on him. The zoom in, zoom out, zoom in again, zoom out again.

109 out of 185 people found the following review useful:
Awful. Just awful, 15 October 2007
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Yeah, Tarantino is talented. He was with Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, even From Dusk Till Dawn. But now he is apparently of the opinion that anything he writes is great and it's far from the truth.

This movie was so boring I couldn't finish it. I never saw Grindhouse so I never saw the short version, which had to be better because it had to have most of this terrible dialog missing. In this movie, we get four boring women talking. Over and over. Some of the most boring dialog ever put to film. One girl sounds exactly like Matt Damon, I was waiting for her to yell "well I got her numbah, how do you like those apples?" Finally, they are killed. An hour into the thing.

Then we meet the next batch of boring women and they're having variations of THE SAME BORING CONVERSATIONS THE FIRST GIRLS HAD. It's not even like a wannabe Tarantino conversation which you see a lot now. It was like a bad writer, writing long boring dialog that was entertaining as watching paint dry. I couldn't take it anymore and stopped at that point.

I admit, I thought Jackie Brown was boring and I hated Kill Bill but this film was a new level of boredom in the Tarantino universe. At least it was a bomb so the general public got that one right.

26 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
A classic show, 3 July 2001

I remember watching the reruns when I was a kid. Truly, a great show. Not just because of the sci-fi/western premise, but because Conrad and Martin were so great on the show. Of all the spy shows and movies to come out of the 60s, Conrad (James West) had to be the coolest. The great music and opening sequence are legendary. Whereas this is one of the greatest cast westerns of the 60s, its 1999 movie remake is probably one of the worst cast films of the 90s. I hope they release these episodes on DVD someday.

Scalene (2011)
35 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
Uh, are we supposed to know who "Zack Parker" is?, 28 July 2012
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love these awful low budget films where some unknown guy puts his name above the title. Bad acting, bad directing - everything that comes with these types of films, we have here. And of course the first two reviews - by "people" who write exactly the same and start their "review" with "I saw this at so-and-so festival" and of course name "Zack Parker" in the "review" including "his third film." Really? Are we not supposed to know this is Zack Parker writing these? This is what has become bad about the IMDb - the plethora of cheapo videos getting listing, then plundered with "glowing reviews" by people who made the cheapo video. This guy has the nerve to actually write "why was this not nominated for an Oscar" in the IMDb forum for this movie!!

There's no "strong performance" and certainly no "Hitchcock-trained eye" Just once I'd love to see these guys be honest. You'd be surprised how much more that would go over in a positive way than fake reviews praising your work.

Out for a Kill (2003) (V)
30 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
Out for a script rewrite, 26 August 2003

Whew. I only rented this because I saw some good comments in the IMDB and now I'm starting to lose my faith in people's opinions in this forum.

Yet another horrible Seagal movie, just plain awful, worthy of its straight-to-video status. In this one, maybe the worst casting of Seagal's career, he plays an archeologist and a professor. I laughed when they first referred to him as a professor in the film. And like all archeologists, he wears his Friday night leather when he digs in the hot sun, and of course, is a martial arts wizard.

There are so many holes in the plot, it's embarrassing. When he is "framed" at the beginning, there isn't a cop in the world who would actually believe he was smuggling drugs, but luckily, in this film, the two main cops are about as smart as third graders, who by the way, I believe was the grade of the people who wrote this script.

In each film, Seagal gets fatter and fatter and he STILL has that stupid mullet hair cut. Someone, please, tell Seagal to get rid of that hair style.

Luckily, now that anyone who can actually finance a movie has realized that Seagal can't act and can't make a good movie, the best he'll be doing are these straight-to-video crappy films. Safe to say, this is the last Seagal film I'll ever see.

27 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
A Classic, 14 September 2000

I love this film, I own a copy and I watch it at least once a year. It's hard to pick a "best work" from Sidney Lumet, Paul Newman or David Mamet, but this film ranks up there for all three. And really, when you say those three names on one film, that says it all, doesn't it?

Newman plays a down and out lawyer, a drunk ambulance chaser whose life changes when he turns down a pultry settlement offer to try a case that he can't possibly win. There are so many great scenes in this film, it's hard to pick a favorite. Possibly, the very end, the ringing phone Paul Newman ignores as he sips on some coffee, rather than whiskey, might be one of the all time greats. The scene sums up the movie so well. My other favorite is a long, single shot where Newman is on the phone trying to get another doctor to testify and Jack Warden paces the room. The camera is at the other end of the room, on the floor and the scene is about five or six minutes long, one continuous shot, beautifully done.

I read a book a couple years ago that covered blunders in film regarding court cases and apparently there were a couple in this one. But this is a film that is so great, so well done, I think Godzilla could have trampled part of Boston and Lumet could have made it believable. Although Cool Hand Luke is my favorite film of all time, The Verdict is my second favorite Newman film. See it if you can.

29 out of 37 people found the following review useful:
One of the best courtroom dramas ever, 3 December 2001

An excellent ballet of film direction and courtroom procedure, Anatomy is one of the best courtroom movies ever produced. With a great cast and three dimensional characters, highlighted by Jimmy Stewart and his usual "likeable everyman" character, the film moves briskly and intelligently, thanks to Premminger's fine direction.

Ben Gazzara plays an army soldier who shoots a man who raped his wife, then pleads insanity. Stewart is his lawyer and Lee Remick is great as the suggestive, somewhat slutty wife who leaves you questioning her motives throughout. Whether or not you agree with the final verdict (personally, I don't), you will agree that this is a great film, worth repeated viewings.


Page 1 of 37:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]