Reviews written by registered user
|63 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I am astounded that this film got such high ratings. Special effects alone don't make a good film. There is nothing original or clever or intelligent or uplifting about this waste of time. I wanted to scream; it was sooooo boring. OMG, 90 minutes of Sandra Bullock acting like an ass. Where are the Great Wallendas when you need them? The plot is preposterous and laughable. The story is boring and totally unbelievable. Go see Phone Booth for a good picture with a single setting. This film is a joke, or should I say that the reviews are a joke. Don't waste your money on this one. A film needs more than special effects to be a good experience. I was sooooo bored!!!! I wanted a crocodile to show up at the end and devour her.
Not very bright screenplay. Pathetic in places. I think it was really a plot to get people to buy tickets to a dinosaur film. I was rooting for the dinosaurs. However, the pea-brain sized dinosaurs were smart. They had high SAT scores. This was a sad disappointment. Thankfully, I did NOT see it in 3D. They wanted another $4.50 to see it in 3D. Also, you could not discern the robots from the dinosaurs in combat thanks to the terrible cinematography. You can't see who's winning the fight. It is schmaltz to the 10th degree. Save your money. See it on TV in ten years. Oh, and one more thing. You need sub-titles to understand the Australian. gidday.
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. I love to review a film this good and this unappreciated. The mood is very similar to Sleepy Hollow. It's dark and woodsy and beautiful in a scary way. Children are missing and witches are suspected. The film is smart enough to poke fun at itself, but serious enough to scare the hell out of you. The witches are ugly, powerful, intelligent, merciless, and dark. The film is a gem in its cinematography, casting, cast, acting, and story. I was expecting less and got a lot more for my money. Don't believe any negative reviews. Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star in this film that's definitely NOT for children. Expect very violent battle scenes between the witches and the two bounty hunters, Hansel and Gretel.
Not since Jaws have I left a movie theatre and brought fear with me. It is a palpable fear brought on by the film's credibility. The Iranian Islamist extremist characters are all monsters and very intelligent and very scary. At times, I was reminded of Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now when he writes in his memoirs, "Drop the bomb; exterminate them all." This film really depicts the futility of trying to bargain with mad men. They are depicted as killer apes in human form; madness permeates the country from top to bottom. This is not religion in any way, shape or form; it is madness. Every scene is directed with such a deft touch by Affleck, and it is definitely one of the best films I've seen this year. Memorable is a word I would use to characterize it. Don't miss it.
Obama's America in 2016 translates into perceptible reality all the insanity in Washington that is coming out of the White House. Why does the deficit grow and no one seems to care, as if they want it to keep rising so we crash as a civilization. It's all here. I looked at fellow movie-goers in the theater and mouths were wide open and chins dropped. You could hear a pin drop. No one said a word throughout the entire documentary. This is not propaganda like Michael Moore's films, but fact-checked and documented, many times with excerpts from Obama's own writings. It's real and explains his life from his birth in Hawaii to his step father, his father, his grandfather, his communist mentoring, his family in Kenya, his dreams from his father as told to him by his mother, and it all comes into focus. Who is this guy who spent very few years in congress and gets elected to the most powerful position on earth by faith alone. Everyone who voted for him didn't know him or didn't want to look for the truths. It reminded me so much of pre WWII documentaries on the improbable rise to power by Hitler, his lies and his double-speak. Why did people vote for him? It's terrifying to see the same process happening again. Everyone must see this. I was nauseous when I left the theatre an hour ago, and I still am. This film shows how a second Obama term will affect your lives in a big way, your way of life, your freedoms that we all take for granted, and the future world, which may be made-up of multiple conflicts, raging inflation, and a palpable lowering of the standard of living for all Americans, rich and poor alike. Will Israel cease to exist? This is serious stuff and everyone has to see it, especially people who voted for Obama. Now I know why all the insanity is happening. Terrifying.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Contains spoilers: This film, Hanna, was god-awful. I was angry when I left the theatre after ruining my afternoon watching a film with such a stupid, faulty plot. There are just too many mistakes and holes. Hanna is a 16 year old ANOREXIC-LOOKING supposed genetic super human. Right away you know the casting is all wrong. She looks so weak. Sometimes she kills commandos immediately, and then other times she fights with skin-head caricatures for hours it seems. Silly stuff. To view this film's comments, use the "hated it" filter. I think the film's cast and backers shamelessly used IMDb.com for their selfish, untrue, and dishonest promotion of the film. No one with half a brain would recommend this film. There are plot holes which should anger you. Also, we are never told why she has to die or why the skinny little girl is a threat to US security. Why does she look longingly, lesbian-like into her new friend's eyes as they are lying in bed together? What happens to that girl and her family? We are not told. What did her foster-father ever do to deserve such treatment from her at the end? He then sacrifices his life for her! She has knowledge of everything in the world, but acts like one of the Beverly Hillbillies when it comes to turning on a light or using electric appliances, but then she just walks into a computer/coffee café and goes online. This is one of the dumbest films of all time. I was just so angry to have wasted my time and money on this film that was rated so highly on IMDb. Why does this film deserve a 7.7 rating? 7.7 Oh, please. Something is really, really wrong with the ratings system if this can happen.
Only 1 in 12 thought this was a good film. 1 in 4 thought this was an awful film. I am one of those who couldn't believe my senses. It was that dumb and that bad and that unsatisfying. Awful. I kept waiting for something intelligent to happen. It never did, and then suddenly it just ended, just as suddenly as it began. I felt cheated out of my money and my time. The film does nothing, says nothing, proves nothing, and goes nowhere. In two years, this will be a dollar-store special. Once upon a time, a vacuum cleaner from space cleans up Los Angeles. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for cleaning up Los Angeles. Thank you for wasting my time. Thank you for making me write ten lines for this preposterous web site that requires ten lines for a critique. Whatever happened to verbose and concise. Verbose is bad. Concise is good. Why ten lines when you can say it all in five. So there it is.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I went to see Dear John just to see if they caught the emotion involved with this sort of thing. Mine occurred in 1969, and it is still sometimes painfully disturbing to me. The film caught the intense youthful attraction, the relationship that can develop in a short period of time before deployment, the love that resists separation, but only for so long, the intense feeling of loyalty for comrades that you've trained with and fought with, the addition of the 9/11 country-at-war component into his decision to reenlist, and the painful solitary existence suffered by a youthful female waiting and living only by letters and consequently driving her to another relationship, despite her love for her soldier. "Frailty, thy name be woman." (Shakespeare) As to many of the comments, I can say to the negative ones, I saw the film and disagree. The film was right-on. I don't care ever about comparing a book to a movie. You can't compare apples and oranges. One should judge a film for its making and its cast and acting. The book is the book, and the film is the film. I'll give you an example of the reverse, a bad book made into a classic film. The Graduate is a classic film that broke many Hollywood moulds and was superb as a film. As a book, however, it was cheesy and redundant and, in my opinion, poorly written. So, one should judge a film solely on its merits, not on a comparison to a book. It is not a legitimate judgment, nor does it make for a legitimate review. The only time I would include a book in a review is if the filmmaker leaves out a detail in the film that is included in the book, and it is a necessary component to understand the meaning of the film or the outcome of the film. For example, the ending of 2001 A Space Odyssey, was completely unintelligible to the ordinary viewer if one had not read the book. That was a major flaw that affected one's ability to understand and enjoy the film. This is an example of when the book can be introduced into a film's review. Dear John was a perfectly clear and understandable film. There's one more thing. Some of the male lead's (Channing Tatum's) detractors said in lengthy reviews that his acting was abysmal. I thought he was accurate in his portrayal of a young soldier living with the thought of imminent combat or deployment to a lonely and difficult assignment anywhere in the world. Also, his father stole the joy of life from him, and not intentionally. He, as an actor, portrayed that perfectly. I have never seen nor heard of him before, and I've never seen his prior work, but he was right-on for the character he played. Why do reviewers waste their time comparing films to the book? It is not a legitimate component of a review other than what I mentioned. Please don't waste your time and mine with comments like, "The book was much better." Who cares?! Dear John is a very good film.
I gave it a rating of one for "awful." I had to try very hard to focus as it was so boring. The most interesting part of my afternoon at the movies was at the end of this film, one "Goats" patron was heard demanding his money back from theatre management. The patron felt that the film was a total rip-off and stated, "That was a total rip-off. I want my money back!" The film's attempt at humor was sophomoric and in the realm of the absurd, but it was too stupid to make it there. What was the underlying meaning? None. Was it an anti-military film? If it was, then it was a disaster. Not meaningful, not fun, not even silly. Jeff Bridges must feel embarrassed because he did just that, embarrass himself. Kevin Spacy, one of my favorite actors, was awful. He looked terrible, puffy, out of shape, squinty eyes, like he was hung over. I felt bad for him. It was his first terrible acting performance. I waited for something to happen. Nothing does. Nothing happens. This is a film for those who go to a terrible restaurant and have a terrible meal with terrible service, and then go out and tell everyone how great it was.
I started reading the reviews for "Up." Strangely, every review refers to Pixar. "What can I say about Pixar? Amazing?? Perfect??" "Pixar launches their funniest film out of their tank to date." "Possibly the best Pixar film to date." "Pixar hits it out of the park, again" "UP, Pixar's latest animated feature, is just delightful." "Pixar do it again! Up soars to new heights!" "Pixar produces another Oscar Winner." "If Pixar - as a studio - has any weakness, it's that they have no idea how to make a bad film." "Pixar soars again." Pixar is God. Pixar for president. Long live Pixar! What's going on here? It really struck me as odd that so many consecutive reviews referred to Pixar. I would think that legitimate reviewers would refer to the film first, then to the plot, then to characters, and sometimes to the director if he/she is famous. I have grave reservations as to comments posted regarding this film. Has Pixar hired a team of professional writers to bombard IMDb.com with positive comments with rave reviews? As my usual practice is to skip the first two pages of reviews on IMDb, I am aware that this practice of insider reviews does happen. i.e. terrible film gets rave reviews in the first two pages, then followed by all terrible reviews and ratings. In the past, it was only the first two or three comments that were posted by insiders, and then it progressed to a page or two, but this may bring it all to new heights. As with the voting, there can be cheats, and IMDb.com has got to look at this again and see if I am correct in my assumptions of cheating in the comments. It is a terrible disservice to the honest members of the web site. If the comments are accurate, then why did 6.1% give this film a rating of 1 to 5? Where are the negative comments? And 38% of viewers rated it from 6 to 9? 7,837 voters gave "Up" a perfect score of 10, and a total of 6,170 scored it below that number. So, it's almost an 8 to 6 as to perfect film versus good film / terrible film. Where are those comments? All I read in the first several pages was Pixar, Pixar, Pixar. One just has to read the first page of comments to see what I mean. What's going on?
|Page 1 of 7:||      |