Reviews written by registered user
Truman-10

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

Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
68 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Rehash or rerun, but not resurrection, 30 July 2000

Alien 4, on first viewing, is a lot of fun. Exciting and scary, with plenty of action and certainly the funniest of the series. But what ever you do, don't watch it again. On second viewing, it's a rehash of the first two movies in the series, struggling unsuccesfully through the coporate demands to establish a style of it's own. I'm sure Jean Pierre Jeunet could make a great Alien film of his own, with his own weird ideas, but he doesn't get a chance to here. He has to throw it the neccesary Hollywood cliches, guns and action scenes at regular intervals in an obvious bid by the producers to ‘be like Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986), but don't be like Alien 3 (1992)'. It's a shame that a series previously made up of such individual, creative films in which each took their own direction, has been diluted by such a movie.

At least Alien 3, which wasn't popular with the masses, tried something different and new. Ressurection suceeds as a collection of highlights from the series, and in giving us great new versions of Ripley and the alien - an alien-a-fied ripley and a Ripley-a-fied alien respectively. But that's all. And it's absolutely disgusting as well. Don't expect Alien 5 after the poor box-office performance of this one. A script, Alien: Revelation, was written, but it looks like the future of the series is with the upcoming Aliens versus Predator. Let's hope that lives up to it's billing.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
TV movie quality comicbook adaption, 30 July 2000

When even Sylvester Stallone says one of his movies sucks, how can anyone else defend it? Judge Dredd is one of the least original movies ever. It's virtually impossible to see anything in this movie you haven't seen somewhere else. Dredd, obviously, is from the infinetly superior 2000AD comic. The visuals are the typical futuristic metropolis seen in everything since ‘Blade Runner'. The plot is simply a cross between ‘Demolition Man' and ‘RoboCop'. The performanes are pure cardboard. The sad case of a unique British comic turned into a typical Hollywood action movie, avoid it at all costs. Dredd-ful.

Sly Stallone IS a boring, monotous actor, so playing a boring, monotonous character could be seen as good casting. But it's not going to be fun to watch.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Good action scenes, mediocre movie, 30 July 2000

Considering that the Lethal Weapon series has got better with every installment, reaching a peak with 1992's third installment, Lethal 4 is both a disapointment in some cases and not in others. For starters, it's simply not as good as the other entries. The action scenes may rank among the finest in the series (or indeed any series), but the rest of the movie feels, if not tired, then too comfortable. The family atmosphere both onset and off comes clear from the screen, overwhelming any sense of danger. There is endless friendly banter, joking and kidding around, and occasionally a bad guy pops up. But with an ever-growing roster of good guys, who always survive every movie, and no way near enough proper, nasty bad guys, there is little threat to our heroes. The essential status quo of an action movie is that the forces of good are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the forces of evil, but Lethal 4 presents the opposite. Riggs (sadly without his trademark haircut) and Rog, along with Rog's family, Leo Getz, Lorna Cole and the police guys, are this time joined by Butters (Chris Rock) and a huge Japanese family.

The bad guys....well, there are some Triad crimebosses, who we see little or nothing of, their lame henchmen, and Wa Sang Ku (Jet Li). And that's really about it. Perhaps really memorable bad guys have always been a problem with this series, but there should atleast be a lot of ‘em. Ironically, Jet Li is one of the most sinister and memorable villains of the series, but with such a weak crew of associates behind him, he's virtually on his own against all the good guys.

Of course, the whole series revolves around Riggs and Rog. Danny Glover, to his immense credit, has given a great performance in each film, and does so again here. And he doesn't look any older than in 1987. But Mel Gibson's Riggs has matured too much, and although it's a fine performance, it's too static, almost tired character who has finally calmed down and settled down. It works in that conceivably, the influence of Rog and family has matured Riggs and made him happier, but it's less fun to watch. Let's not forget who the Lethal Weapon is of the title - it seems the makers of Lethal Weapon 4 did.

Great characters far outweigh repetetive action, 30 July 2000

I have to say I'm a huge fan of the Lethal Weapon series and I've seen them all far too many times. In terms of action movie franchises, Lethal Weapon is second only to the Bond movies.

Like the Bond series, the Lethal series began with a serious, violent thriller and evolved into spectacular action blockbusters with plenty of humour. Unilke Bond, however, the Lethal series got better with every installment, reaching a peak with 1992's Lethal 3, before returning one last time for a not-quite-as-good final installment in 1998.

So, Lethal 2 is better than the original, not as good as Lethal 3 and about on par with Lethal 4. What does that mean in real terms? Well, it's very violent, intense action of the eighties rather than the more stunt-based, spectacular action of the nineties. It mainly consists of machine gun shoot-outs and bloody fist fights, like the original, but already begins to move away from the seriousness of Lethal 1 by creating more elaborate, unlikely deaths for the villains that are therefore less exploitative and less nasty. Unfortunely, there are almost no really memorable action scenes in Lethal 2 apart from Riggs' Raiders of the Lost Ark-style attempt to take control of a truck whilst in motion. The final shoot-out is so cliched and unimaginative it beggars belief almost. Isn't the ‘rule' that the good guys have to fight the bad guys pyhsically at the climax? Not just shoot them? Riggs does get to kick ass, but it's bullets over fists here.

Still, very enjoyable stuff with great characters. And that's far more important than action anyway, isn't it?

Not really a good movie or a Bond movie, 30 July 2000

As always, the critics are saying TWINE is yet more of the old Bond we've always been given. That is hardly true. For a start, the last two Bond movies, GoldenEye (1995) and Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) have been very different in style - a high-tech thriller and an all-out action movie respectively - and secondly, TWINE is very different to both of them. It has the slightly dirty Eastern European look of GoldenEye, but is more interested in characters and sweeping emotional drama than, well, anything else. Everybody knows hiring director Michael Apted was a direct response to the almost non-stop action of Tomorrow... , but it's a knee-jerk reaction. Although he does manage to get first class performances out of Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle, he makes them too human, too easy to associate with, so we are left with a Bond movie without a proper villain. No-one is actually evil, just misguided. Perhaps all they need is a hug. And there is almost no physical threat to Bond, even Renard, who can feel no pain, offers little challenge or danger to 007. In fact, there is very little threat to Bond himself through out. Nobody is desperate to kill him, Renard has no hard feelings against him and Electra King almost loves him.

I find it hard to believe people are raving about the action scenes. They were awful. Michael Apted has never directed an action movie before and it's painfully obvious. The shoot-outs are okay, but everything else is lame. There is no flair or intensity, every sequence is uncomfortable and clumsy. The showdown with Renard at the climax is incredibly amatuer and weak - like something you'd see on a BBC TV series. Which is pretty appalling when you compare it to the awesome showdown with Darth Maul at the climax of The Phantom Menace (1999), of the same year, and the blistering action of Tomorrow Never Dies two years previously. As an action film, TWINE just doesn't cut it.

Pierce Brosnan gets more emotional, human and serious as Bond, which the critics seem to like, but let's not forget why the public didn't accept Timothy Dalton - because he was too emotional, human and serious. The 'this time it's personal' tag behind the film is an action movie cliche we've heard 4 million times before. And it's been personal in the last three 007 flicks - in Licence to Kill (1989), Bond's friend was fed to a shark. In GoldenEye, another of his friends turned against him. In Tomorrow Never Dies, his old girlfriend turned against him. And now in TWINE, Bond feels guilty for unintentionally aiding an assasination. Brosnan plays an emotionally repressed secret agent exceptionally well in certain scenes, but is this what people wnat to see from James Bond? The more screwed up in the head 007 becomes, the more uncertain and upset he gets, the less attractive as a character he becomes.

Many agree that Brosnan didn't quite become Bond until Tomorrow Never Dies, in which he was perfect. But he's altered his performance again, and now he's certainly going the Timothy Dalton way. Let's hope he knows what he's doing. I was, before the film, a big supporter of Brosnan, but now I'm not so sure. He still hasn't QUITE achieved the character as only Connery and Moore have before. I'm really hoping Adrian Paul (Highlander: Endgame) gets a shot at the role now.

As for the other characters, I can't believe Valentine Zukovsky is supposed to be the same character as in GoldenEye. In that movie he was a tough, greedy, dangerous crimeboss. Now he's simply a wise-cracking comicrelief bumbling fool who can't be taken seriously for a second. What a waste. Denise Richards has taken a lot of stick for her terrible performance as Dr. Christmas Jones, but there is little she could have done in such a dead-end role. But, yeah, she is terrible. Thankfully she's kept off-screen most of the time in her suspiciously Lara Croft-esque costume.

It's also a shame that while Bond managed a smile when seeing Zukovsky for the last time, he couldn't as he watched Q exit for the very last time. Desmond Llewelyn was perfect as always as the disgruntled gadget-giver. He will be sadly missed.

Bond movies ARE action adventures. Choosing a director blatantly uncomfortable and unfarmiliar with the genre is just a stupid move. Apted shoots the whole movie like a period piece, a costume drama, and forgets what TWINE is. In the end, it's entertaining, and it proberbaly better than GoldenEye, but it's not Bond-y enough for a Bond movie. It's a shame, but The World Is Not Enough is a number of steps in the wrong direction. Tomorrow Never Dies remains the only true 90's Bond movie. TWINE, like GoldenEye, just strays too far from the essential formula and pays the price. And a screeching abomination of a theme tune (no wonder they're called Garbage) doesn't help.

Worth seeing for a great performance from Marceau and an even better one from Carlyle, but whatever you do, see Tomorrow Never Dies first. It is not only one of the best 007 flicks, it's one of the best action movies ever, and far more deserving of your attention.

Extremely little-known fact: The idea of Renard being unable to feel pain is taken from the character Stamper in Tomorrow Never Dies. Stamper had the same afffiction in that movie, which is why, even when he is stabbed in the leg, he doesn't seem to notice. The line when the audience are told this was cut so they could use the idea in TWINE for Renard.

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Excellent comicbook adaption, 30 July 2000
10/10

The original Hulk movie brings the gamma-ridden powerhouse from the pages of Marvel Comics to the screen with -gasp! - intelligence. Rather than focussing on the epic action and destruction of the comicbook, which it hasn't the budget for anyway, the movie concentrates on creating believable characters and as realistic a plot as possible. It suceeds admirably, thanks to a superb central performance from Bill Bixby and some assured direction from Kenneth Johnson. And no comic fan can argue that Lou Ferrigno isn't the Incredible Hulk. He bursts from the four-color pages with absolute fury and destroys whatever he comes across.

The cast all perform well, with none of the over-the-top clowning you get in so many comicbook adaptions. It's got some great 70's locations and a wonderful theme tune as well. Of the six Hulk movies around, this remains the best, and with another intelligent superhero flick, X-Men (2000) demolishing the box-office, hopefully people will take a look at the last good Marvel film. Yeah, Blade was a Marvel character but Blade, in reality, is complete and utter shash.

Yay., 30 July 2000

Criticize this all you want, but most people enjoy it. It's overblwon and badly paced, but has great characters, visuals and provides a real spectacle. Awesome action as well - the lightsaber battle at the climax was better than anything in The Matrix.

Finall, a film that isn't afraid to ask, 'why does it feel so good?'.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Quality Marvel comic adaption, 26 July 2000

The original Hulk movie brings the gamma-ridden powerhouse from the pages of Marvel Comics to the screen with -gasp! - intelligence. Rather than focussing on the epic action and destruction of the comicbook, which it hasn't the budget for anyway,the movie concentrates on creating believable characters and as realistic a plot as possible. It suceeds admirably, thanks to a superb central performance from Bill Bixby and some assured direction from Kenneth Johnson. And no comic fan can argue that Lou Ferrigno isn't the Incredible Hulk. He bursts from the four-color pages with absolute fury and destroys whatever he comes across.

The cast all perform well, with none of the over-the-top clowning you get in so many comicbook adaptions. It's got some great 70's locations and a wonderful theme tune as well. Of the six Hulk movies around, this remains the best, and with another intelligent superhero flick, X-Men (2000) demolishing the box-office, hopefully people will take a look at the last good Marvel film. Yeah, Blade was a Marvel character but Blade, in reality, is complete and utter shash.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Quality Marvel comic adaption, 26 July 2000

The original Hulk movie brings the gamma-ridden powerhouse from the pages of Marvel Comics to the screen with -gasp! - intelligence. Rather than focussing on the epic action and destruction of the comicbook, which it hasn't the budget for anyway, the movie concentrates on creating believable characters and as realistic a plot as possible. It suceeds admirably, thanks to a superb central performance from Bill Bixby and some assured direction from Kenneth Johnson. And no comic fan can argue that Lou Ferrigno isn't the Incredible Hulk. He bursts from the four-color pages with absolute fury and destroys whatever he comes across.

The cast all perform well, with none of the over-the-top clowning you get in so many comicbook adaptions. It's got some great 70's locations and a wonderful theme tune as well. Of the six Hulk movies around, this remains the best, and with another intelligent superhero flick, X-Men (2000) demolishing the box-office, hopefully people will take a look at the last good Marvel film. Yeah, Blade was a Marvel character but Blade, in reality, is complete and utter shash.

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The greatest film ever made..., 4 February 2000

Yet another classic from Van Damme, truly one of the most gifted Austrian actors with a double-barrelled surname and the initials J-C. V-D. ever. He is backed up by a superb supporting cast of talented thespians who wring the audience through a whole array of emotions as they grunt, swear, wear stupid costumes and kick each other in the face repeatedly.


Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]