Reviews written by registered user
Yonhap S

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]
69 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

not bad, but first movie was better, 15 June 2001
5/10

Well, this movie is entertaining the first time. But I got tired watching its second viewing. I'm surprised no one here mentioned about Evie's distant past and if that were so, Imhotep should have recognized her a lot better in the first movie.

I like the first movie better because it had much better character development and interaction. This sequel is confident of its characters and proceeds as the plot tells them to (which isn't much to begin with). At 2 hours, the movie is too long for what is a no-brainer adventure film.

rating: 2.5 of 5 stars

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Really bad, 27 November 2000
2/10

This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not as bad as I imagined, but still terrible, 10 October 2000
3/10

This movie is not as bad as I imagined it would be, but it certainly was not great. Terl teaching a human far more than necessary is painful to watch. As is the sight of cavemen flying Harriers. Some of the effects look neat, although at times, it looks like some indoor set much like the other bad movie, Soldier, was made on. I also got tired of the fade scene (reminiscent of Star Wars) that moves to the next act.

The action isn't earth-shattering climactic but nevertheless I must admit it was somewhat exciting. Some scenes like the a la Matrix firefight look cool, but you can't help but accuse the movie of copying other movies.

The worst part is the humans chanting "piece of cake" like a mantra. Harry Knowles explained well at the fallacy of using that phrase in a setting such as this movie. I frequent a movie forum, and I can't believe people would call this a soon-to-be classic 100% good sci-fi film. Gahh! Perish the thought.

The verdict: 1.5 of 5 stars.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
very contrived and problematic movie..., 29 July 2000
5/10

Even though I'm not familiar with double jeopardy part of the US constitution, I kinda knew there's a hole with regards to killing someone in a West Coast state and killing the same person again in say New York or Lousiana. Everyone has seen the trailers, so it's no spoiler if I make this comment since it's also in the goofs section of this website. I also feel the trial of Libby, charged with murdering her husband, was contrived and very unconvincing. After having seen countless forensic shows, I think she could still have put up a better defense than as shown in the movie. Are those really her husband's blood? If what she did was stab her husband, where and how are the blood splatters developed? After all, mere motive alone is not enough to put a person in prison.

The verdict: 2.5 of 5 stars.

Beethoven (1992)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Awfully dumb villains, 29 June 2000
5/10

I guess people who own big dogs will especially like this movie. It's charming at a certain level and painful to watch in some areas. Especially Charles Grodin maintaining Beethoven's body sanitation and the drool he must endure.

The villains are the dumbest of the bunch. If they really want to test their gun, I hear you can legally acquire a cadaver for that purpose. If not, it's still very easy to measure whatever "killing power" the gun has.

The verdict: 2.5 of 5 stars.

Snake Eyes (1998)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Even more disappointing when it's no longer unique, 26 April 2000
5/10

With a very so so plot, the only thing left going for this movie is the long scene at the beginning where there's hardly a cut in the picture as Nicholas Cage's character moves from one area to another. That's it, after that, there's nothing left to hook the viewer. This gets even worse as I saw an episode of The X-Files. It's the episode where Mulder goes to the Bermuda Triangle. That episode was divided into several acts and each act is taken on a single take without cut. That was a very good episode. After watching that, this film just keeps going lower in my eyes.

The verdict: 2.5 of 5 stars.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A funny way to make a documentary, 18 April 2000
6/10

After watching The Blair Witch Project, I thought this one would at least be some blast. The movie is generally funny and the setup at the beginning was good. However, as we near the ending, the plot degenerates. I thought it would be better if Jenny got pregnant only after the wedding.

Overall, it was okay. Nothing to get excited too much, not a disappointment either.

The verdict: 3 of 5 stars.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not scary, but interesting, 16 April 2000
6/10

To get into this film, it's better that you understand what the filmmakers were aiming for. Fortunately, there's no one ramming down my throat hyping the movie. I've checked the Blair Witch website a little. It sure has lots of amazing details.

Anyway, onto the film itself. The first half hour of the movie is disorienting what with the shaky handheld cam shots. But this first half hour is essential to know the Blair Witch myth (wish I listened hard, heheh). Then the next hour is where the transformation of the kids from happy, to whining annoyance uttering the F word plenty of times, and ultimately fear.

I never got scared or made me think hard such as to lose sleep. What it is, is simply an interesting way of making a movie. That's it. The actors don't have much of a script to work with and so most of the scenes are ad libbed. And the story is constructed as a documentary. At the end, you feel that you want to know more, but since it's a "unfinished documentary" the end is naturally abrupt. This is one story best viewed on a TV screen IMO.

The verdict: 3 of 5 stars.

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Appropriate title, interesting setup, 13 April 2000
7/10

Forget the acting, the pace of the story, logic, and plotholes what makes this film interesting is the setup. The title Killing Time can go both ways: one that sounds like Time to Kill, or just wasting one's time away. Maria the Assassin is to kill a mob boss. The first place of her attack, the boss is not around and will be on the subway late afternoon. With nothing to do in the meantime, she's stays in the hotel to kill time.

The structure and setup of the plot is interesting. You will notice a translator tape being played and only later does it show its importance.

The verdict: 3.5 of 5 stars.

Lansky (1999) (TV)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
terribly executed biofilm, 10 April 2000
3/10

If done well, this would be a very interesting movie, but as it is, it's very marginal. The shift from his youth days, to his 30's and 1978 gets very confusing. There are times the issue of Meyer Lansky being Jewish is brought up in the film, but later it's simply forgotten. That's the scenes during his childhood and the 1978 scenes. Between that, nothing. All we see in the film is only about Lansky, but it would have been interesting to see what his friends and enemies think and mean about him. I'm losing faith in HBO movies.

The verdict: 1.5 of 5 stars.


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