Reviews written by registered user
scottmar

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

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

Wild Seven (2006)
36 out of 130 people found the following review useful:
Like a mid 90s Tarantino knock off, 3 July 2006
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I caught this at the LA Filmfest, and was very disappointed. The movie I thought I was going to get would have had the whole movie focusing on the veteran actors plotting some intricate heist.

Instead they're only a small part of the movie. It's mostly about 20 somethings that spout off pretty pathetic excuses for "hip" Tarantino like dialogue.

There's virtually no story, and the end is pretty non existent.

I see in the IMDb info that the director is only 25. That would explain why this movie is so bad. He must have rented a bunch of Tarantino movies one weekend, and then written the script, all in that same weekend.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Wouldn't it be easier to use home movie footage?, 5 June 2005
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you just want to have a video to show at a visitation, wouldn't it just be easier to cut together some home movie footage than have an implant put in someone's head that records their whole life from their point of view? It would make more sense if these implants were put in by the government as a big brother kind of thing. In this context, doesn't make much sense.

Also, this is supposed to be set in the future, but yet Robin's flashbacks from his childhood are from the 1960s. So we're supposed to believe he had an implant put it in the 1950s?

Finally, why would Miro be with a guy like Robin unless he was rich?

Hostage (2005)
0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A thriller that almost worked, 21 March 2005
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The movie starts out in a way that's starting to become cliché. Just like in Narc and the Assault on Precinct 13 remake, you have an operation that goes terribly wrong, with our hero falling from grace.

Once we're into the small town Willis ends up in, we get the makings of a really good thriller. It's going along pretty good, but then loses it when the mob pulls up pretending to be the FBI. So all you have to do is pull up in a van with FBI spray painted on it, and you can take over the whole operation? And if they were planning on showing up and bum rushing the house, why involve Willis in it? Because Willis was supposed to buy them time? What about the time wasted in kidnapping his family and all that.

And then to have it end with Willis storming in to save the kids, and then the shootout in that old bar. It's like they felt they had to make Willis be more Die Hard.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Acting needed special effects, 13 March 2005
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The concept of this movie is good. And the special effects and look of the movie is very impressive. But the acting was really bad! This was by far Gwenth's worst performance. Her performance was so lifeless. She seemed totally bored having to work on green screen sets I guess. For that character you needed someone like Cate Blanchett doing her Kathernine Hepburn impression. That character needed a spitfire sass that was really lacking with Gwenth. Jude Law was alright, but this definitely was one of his weakest performances. And the dialogue going on and on about Dex was really grating. I guess he was the Jimmy Olson of this flick.

Why is Jude Law in every movie I've seen for the past 4 years? :)

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
It could have been a contender, 23 January 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was pretty good, but it has a big flaw in it. I haven't watched that much boxing, but I'm pretty sure the rules are different than pro wrestling. You can't sucker punch your opponent after the bell with their backs turn and not face a DQ or suspension. If they really wanted to paralysis Swank's character, why not just make it that she was pushing her self to get through the match. She was sticking in there when anyone else would have given up. After a late round, she walks to her corner, gets dizzy, and then falls on the chair. I wondered how this movie was going to end. Like Rocky 1 or Rocky 2? Instead it ended up with a Christoper Reeves type accident that I didn't see coming.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Pretty lame movie, 22 January 2005

I'm not sure why everyone is hyping this movie such as they are. It's funny, one of the reviews said it defined the generation of people in their teens and early 20s. Wasn't XXX supposed to do that? Actually if this movie applied to any age group, it would be late 20s, maybe early 30s.

The dialogue was terrible. Like fingernails against the chalkboard bad. Plus there wasn't much of a storyline.

It's funny, if an unknown writer tried to pitch this script, the reaction would be "Who cares. Why would anyone want to watch some slice of life movie about your home town?"

But because this guy is on some TV show, and conned Portman and Holm into doing this, we have Garden State.

The only good thing about this is that you get to watch that little hottie Natalie Portman. But your time would be better spent watching "Closer", where you get to see more of Portman (and I'm talking' skin here), you get better dialogue, and a movie that is a Mike Nichols film, not one that wants to be.

Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004) (V)
11 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Republican dirty tricksters, 1 January 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's funny that this documentary attacks Moore for using one sided propaganda, when this film does the exact same thing!

Basically this movie just attacks bits and pieces of Fahrenheight in a pretty weak way.

The brilliant Ann Coulter says of Bush staying in the classroom after hearing about 9/11 "What's he supposed to do, rip off his shirt like Superman and take the bullets". I guess it's stupid to think a Commander In Chief should act immediately to stop the attacks. What could Bush have done? Well, maybe order the planes to be shot down before flying into buildings?

The documentary would like to portray the 2000 election as a clear cut win for Bush, not mentioning any of the controversy, or discussing electoral votes vs. popular votes.

And then somehow they've come up with the conclusion that Moore thinks 9-11 is no big deal, with no evidence to support it.

They say Bush was only responsible for 8 months of 9-11, Clinton 8 years. No one is denying that the reason these terrorists hate us has to do with bad foreign policy from long before George W took office. But they fail to mention that Bush had the intelligence that the attacks were going to take place, and did nothing.

They try to link Iraq with the war on terror, which you can't do. In Moore's film he was wrong in trying to make Iraq seem like a harmless country that never had any kind of conflict with the US, and in this film they make Sadam to be more of a threat than he was. If the war in Iraq is all about liberating people from an evil dictator, why all the lies about weapons of mass destruction, and connections to Bin Laden that don't exist. If we're going to get rid of mad dictators, why stop at Iraq?

This film also wants us to believe that every soldier believes we should be over here. And that no civilians were accidentally killed. etc. etc. The truth obviously lies in the middle. There's soldiers who think we belong in Iraq, others who don't. There's good soldiers, and bad soldiers. The troops are doing a lot to help the civilians, and at times collateral damage happens and innocent civilians are accidentally killed.

They say that military recruiters are never like used car salesman going after people like portrayed in Fahrenheight. All I know is from personal experience when I was in high school I had recruiters calling me up at home to give me a hard sell.

Hopefully a non partisan documentary will come out going through both documentaries and show what is truth and what isn't using hard facts.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Kevin Smith's Blade, 8 December 2004

This movie felt like it was done by Kevin Smith. The attempts at comedy, and there was a lot of it, seemed to be a rip off of Kevin Smith comedies. You even had Ryan Reynolds (who was cloned in a lab from Jason Lee's DNA), spouting off Chasing Amy type dialogue.

And what's up the whole IPOD thing? Preparing for battle. Gun. Check. Sword. Check. New MP3s loaded into IPOD. Check. I'm not even joking. They loaded up an IPOD in preparing for battle!! That has got to be the cheasiest product placements ever!

The writing was pretty weak. The acting wasn't better.

Basically it's just Parker Posey, HHH, and a Dracula who just got done shopping at Hot Topic vs. Blade, and some rejects from John Carpenter's Vampires.

Jessica Biel looks good in a belly shirt. That's one good thing about the movie.

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Fair and balanced, 6 September 2004

I thought this was an interesting documentary. It sheds light on Fox News Republican leanings, which I didn't know about because I don't watch Fox News.

I never watched the Bill O'Reiley show, and after the clips they showed I wouldn't want to. He makes the late Morton Downey Jr. look like a calm, rationale, polite debater. The truest sign of what O'Reiley is all about is in the interview with the guy who lost his dad in 9/11. The guy is making an intelligent, rationale point about how bad U.S. foreign policy literally created the monster that is Osama Bin Laden, and that we're just going to go over there and kill innocent civilians. Instead of calmly debating him by using intelligent counterpoints, O'Reilley throws a tantrum like a little kid, treats the guy very rudely, and abruptly ends the interview so that security can haul the guy out. Obviously O'Reiley doesn't have the intelligence to debate people.

The irony of this documentary is that they're coming down on Fox for saying that they are fair and balanced, when no one that currently works at Fox News was interviewed to tell their side of the story.

Whoever goes to see this, they lose, 21 August 2004

The idea of two sci fi icons doing battle seems to be a sure thing,

but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

First of course is that it's not done in a dark, realistic style like the

original Alien and Predator.

Then there's the fact that the movie makes up it's own rules as to

how the aliens and predators operate. (Instant birth from the face

huggers).

Instead of setting the movie in the future, it's set this October,

which would be the future if we were living in the 80s.

The acting wasn't great. The lead actress is far from being Ripley.

The idea that a Predator would team up with a human is pretty

silly. Instead of giving her props, wouldn't the Predator kill her

since she's a formidable adversary?

The movie is quick, and sets up for a sequel (in a cheesy manner

likely thought up by a lame brain Fox exec).


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