Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 17:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
165 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
simplistic yet effective, 1 January 2011

I saw the preview so many times involuntarily that in the end i decided to see this movie. Romantic films are not my favourite genre, but there was something pure about this film. The Italian countryside is lovely and the main characters are convincing. yes, it is predictable and has no bearing on "real life" but that is precisely what these films are for; to suspend disbelief and just watch a film for pure enjoyment. For what it is worth I definitely recommend this. I can almost forgive Amanda Seyfried for Mamma Mia after watching this and Vanessa Redgrave is always going to be good even if the material she is given may not be completely up to scratch.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Long on Drama, short on action, 21 February 2006

The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many "name" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!

Abandon (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Predictable & Boring, 21 February 2006

This film was of interest to me mainly because of some of the supporting actors involved, especially Zooey Deschanel, Melanie Lynskey & Gabrielle Union. While they kept me from switching this off half way, it really is a tedious & ultimately bland & predictable psychological "thriller" It's another film where Katie Holmes shows her distinct lack of any real acting ability (a pre-cursor to Batman Begins perhaps?) While there is the occasional spark of originality, this film is too pretentious for it's own good. It's part Gossip, part Talented Mister Ripley, with a bit of Poison Ivy thrown in for good measure. Unless you are a MAJOR Katie Holmes fan don't watch this rubbish - there are many far superior thrillers out there to indulge in.

Bug Buster (1998)
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Cheap & Nasty, 26 July 2004

Although I assume this film is meant to be tongue in cheek, it is still one of the worst comedy/horror films of all time. While I was watching this all I could think of was how good Arachnophobia actually was. The acting in this film is really average, it was disappointing to see an actress such as Meredith Salenger, who showed such promise in her younger years, reduced to a supporting role as a bimbo. Katherine Heigl was very wooden in her role, but then again...she did not have much to work with. The special effects at the end are shocking, quite reminiscent of Godzilla 1985, but this was made late 90's (there have been many technological advances since then...)Doesn't even rate as a B movie in my book, probably best to stay away from this film at all costs.

7 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Overacted & Bland, 19 July 2004

I revisited this film recently, after having watched it numerous times as a child. I saw this film on T.V when I was about 7 years old & I remember how scary it was...definitely not the case now. The main problem with the film is the acting. Overacting must have been the "In" thing in the mid seventies. Marsha Mason & Susan Swift are the worst offenders, making their performances laughable at best. Anthony Hopkins was not particularly effective, but there are glimpses of the sinisterness of Hannibal Lecter in some scenes. Given this was directed by Robert Wise, it really should have been better. However, it is nothing more than a poor imitation of The Exorcist with terrible staging, unsympathetic characters and a thread-bare storyline. Clearly there are some films that should stay buried...

Jury Duty (1995)
4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Terrible, 17 May 2004

In my opinion, a film starring Pauly Shore is going to be bad, however, while some of his films are good/bad (Encino Man), this is not one of them. This is Shore at his most gratingly annoying, throw in a tired storyline & terrible jokes & you have jury duty. Nothing can save this film, it's bad from start to finish. I expected better from some of the cast - they must have really needed the money. The strange thing is the premise of the story could really work - if it had different actors, an appealing lead & a much better script. Unless you are a die hard Pauly Shore fan I suggest you stay away from this one. There are thousands of better films to watch.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Cheesy 80's Horror at it's Worst, 11 February 2004

This film seems to be saved from total video hell from one very inventive death scene. Pitt is a bad actor in this & still is a terrible actor now...The problem with this film is the acting, plot, setting, music etc.... Somewhere there was some potential for a campy/scary film , but unfortunately it seems to be more intune with an amateur gore hound & friends running amok with a second rate video camera.

There is nothing in this that has not been done better before. Only watch it if you either love one of the lead actors OR are an absolute sucker for cheesy horror films.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Average, 8 February 2004

Considering the cast, this film should have been great. However, there is only so much one can do with a flat script, dull characters & an average plot . There was a lot of opportunity to make this film work, but as a whole it just does not mesh. The two leads are incredibly likeable (as always), but the material is sub-standard. It's a really ordinary film, with some terrible cringe-worthy dialogue, especially near the end of the film. The premise is not too bad, but the way it is presented is really droll. A waste of talent, time & money.

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Pointless, 8 February 2004

This is a very average film. The acting is pedestrian at best, the characters are extremely one dimensional & the storyline is incredibly un-original. This film had no point other than to show the supremacy of the original film. Even by "made for cable" standards this film is totally unsatisfying. If you are a fan of the original - do not see this film - you will want those 90 minutes of your life back.

The In-Laws (2003/I)
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Painfully Bad, 1 February 2004

This is one of those films that is really painful to watch. There are plenty of times where it should have been funny - sometimes even hilarious, but all the jokes fall flat. There is nothing that's right with this film. The mixing of comedic genres just doesn't work. The comedic timing is way off. The direction is flat, the story is lame & it really serves no purpose but to rob unsuspecting viewers of 90 or so minutes of their precious time on this earth. Even if you are a BIG fan of some of the actors in this film, don't see this film unless you want to dislike them instantly from here on out. Avoid

Page 1 of 17:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]