Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
15 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
different series?, 5 February 2007

I'm pretty sure the commentator "siderite" did not watch the same series as I did. K-Grade is not silly, the Japanese w/subs made perfect sense, nobody was "frowning" their way out of trouble, I can't think of how it "borrowed" from other anime, it is nothing like the Ghost in the Shell series, (which I disliked), and there is no copying from that junk. I admit that the first few disks aren't explained for a while, but it all adds up in the end. When it's finished, if you get it, you'll be sitting there in awe and thankful that you experienced it. It is one of the best anime series you'll see, and I've seen too many to count since 1984. Don't listen to that other guy.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
underrated, 30 November 2003

@ 7.0, this film is not being recognized for it's true quality. Mr. Penn has done remarkable work here. He is one of the few real artists from our generation. This film is layered and meaningful. It is a must see for people who appreciate cinema.

4 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
over-rated, 2 August 2003

sorry but this film is not worth it's 8.0 rating. it is cute, with some giggles and gags, and the 4 actors are fine, but it never hangs together as a piece. the nobility of Roberts in relation to his crew etc. is simply drawn, and not of major impact. the consideration given to those who do not do glorious, but do merely necessary acts during war is notable, but again not particularly moving. actually it is hammed up. Otherwise, the ocean is filmed nicely, but there is not anything to give this movie gravity or great humor.

Cagney steals every scene he is in, and I wonder why "Pulver" is the name one hears so often? must be that there was some TV show or something later. All 4 actors have much more impressive work more worth viewing, as does Ford. this pic probably deserves more like a 6 or 6.5 weighted average. we give it a 5 for balance.

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
butchered version???, 13 August 2002

I watched this on TCM and there was something wrong. when Enrico thinks about his brother in voice over, (as if he is writing an autobiography,) instead of Marcello's voice, some idiot dubbed in a ridiculous American actor's voice. firstly, the dubbed voice is all wrong in's as if the actor were from Car54 or Dragnet, and secondly, the voice reads the lines in the third person, often with bad translation!!!

So you have Enrico remembering his brother, and relating his recollections to the audience in the first person, but you have a voice over going "Enrico says", and "Enrico thinks",'s a travesty.

This film is somewhat too sentimental, and slightly overwrought, but it has touching and truthful scenes as well. too bad that just when you become involved, some American butchery intrudes. 6/10.

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
people who really "get" Tolkien will not admire this film, 11 August 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


1st- whoever wrote and agreed to the musical score should be railroaded out of town. there is less sap in a pine tree. was this movie "Titanic"? It would have been better if Max Steiner was scoring, and some of you know my irony. God! I thought I saw Kate Winslet playing Sam and kissing Frodo in a boat headed toward Mordor!

This music sucked out any solid substance which this film might have built on, and substituted thick sugary emptiness.

2nd- Directors should stop forcing actors to be part of the set. When Liam Neeson said he would never act in a Hollywood movie again, he blamed Georgle Lucas for treating him like a prop. TFOTR is a disaster on par with Phantom Menace. Almost every scene in this movie is storyboarded like a cheap comicbook, without any of the redeeming values that can be found in good animation or adventure. Try Akira or Princess Mononoka (sp?) to guess what magic is supposed to be in fantasy. If you are a true fan of fantasy you appreciate characters that you learn to love, characters you connect with. These hobbits have less of a fellowship than NYC neighbors. Who are Sam, Pippen, etc? If you never read the book this movie doesn't tell you, and in the movie they are just dead space. Nor do you learn about or admire Aragorn, Legolas, (the elves are ALL wrong, except maybe Galadriel in her tiny scene), the dwarf, or even Frodo. Gandalf and Bilbo make a good early impression on the audience, and shine through at moments, but the other members of the party are nothing but one-dimensional bodies. Where is the ethereal, near Godhood of the Elves? Where the grudging likeability of the Dwarves, the nobility and dignity of the Humans? Aragorn looks and acts like a 80's hairband rockstar, and the boy-Elf is from N'Synch. Even the normally reliable Bean as Borimor is lost in the onslaught of Hollywood's pandering, restrictive manipulation. I bet if you like TFOTR you loved "Sixth Sense," it used the same "methods" of movie construction employed here. I could rant on and on about the cheesy closeups, or the "oh so pitiful" and confused looks on the suffering, put-upon faces everytime something happened..."now we're scared, now we're shocked, now we're running and swinging swords"....PUKE! Not one glimpse of real characters on a real mission to save all life from evil. Have you ever seem "Wages of Fear" from the '53? Even without characterization you need convincing action like in "Blackhawk Down" to make you feel a battleship bond.

3. I have to give credit to the design effects here. The opening scenes in Mordor and the Shire are very good, and the castles and volcanoes are frightening. There is little of the obvious computerness of the "Mummy", in comparison. I thought Sauron, the digital sets, the "dragon" firework, the wizard battle, and few other scenes were intense and on the mark. The wraiths were predictable wimps who stood around in a clump pointing swords at people, and most battle scenes were hatchet edit jobs like the haphazard junk we've seen in "Gladiator", but worse. The gestation of the Uruk-Hai was suitably horrific, but aftwards he was a mockery of himself as his scary face came huffing and puffing along..."look out! it's the 'Predator' coming!!! Run!"...How silly...but the love scene between Borimor and Aragorn afterwards is sillier. Basically there is no drama about war, adventure, or heroism here, just B-movie "radioactive-man" bad guys, (except Saruman) and "singing cowboy" good guys.

after 3 hours of more and more insults, then 40 minutes writing this, I'm tired. I could hammer this flick for days....but just let me say I really wanted to like this film, but it's not good. The system of making movies today is fundamentally flawed, which represents a sickness in our culture. If you can't or won't recognize that fact, you are part of the problem. I don't claim to know much about the world, or life, but I know this much; The spirit of Tolkien, which is the spirit of the universe, is not in this film, nor will it be in the others. No technically brilliant, 30 second clip, (even if it momentarily makes you exist in Middle Earth), can truly help you into another world in order to for you to understand more about your own. Tolkien was a great mythologist, humanist, and philosopher, and the wonder of living was in his words. That magic is not present here.(mostly) I'm sorry.

Traffic (2000)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
vapid, 16 June 2002

childish, simple-minded, uneducated, undramatic, non-revelatory, slow, undeveloped, non-edifying, blah, blah, blah. There are so many reasons that this is not a great film, I have no interest in writing them all down. I am just as lazy as Soderbergh.

The Limey is OK, (at best), but Out of Sight is as crappy as Traffik. Director is over-rated. Try Coppola in his prime and compare "greatness".

Del Toro the only value here.

4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
too bad for the manic beginning, 6 April 2002

I like Sturges, and I liked quite a bit about this film. But the first 20 minutes is too over the top and tedious. Shrill pandemonium grated on me. The satire and sharp writing did not kick in until I had almost stopped watching and turned it off. If you can hang in there past the first half hour, you'll get some good laughs, especially from the Mayor.

Memento (2000)
9 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
WAY overrated, 9 February 2002

If you are a studious fan of film and film history, this movie is nothing but a curio destined for a dusty shelf. Maybe the project started as a handful of good ideas, but the result will be as short lived as short term memory (assuming you have such).

It's nifty occasionally, but mostly vapid and pointless. With a style that wears as tedious as the suit the main character wears over and over, the story is mundane with acting stilted and amateurish.

This is 21st century Hollywood Hokum with no subtlety, amusement, suspense or real viewing satisfaction. Not only is it not the 10th best film ever, it is not the 1000th best.

13 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
if you liked this film you know nothing about film, 23 July 2001

so the cinematography was adequate, and the score has moments. otherwise, it is nonsense. paper thin characters with trite unconvincing dialogue. sappy romance with no real chemistry between overrated actors. forced, simpleminded morality within meandering go-nowhere plot. no real exposition of politics, or the failures and corruptions of government. no depth about reporting on historical movements, no real implication that '65 Indonesia is even historically or humanistically relevant. pathetically realized and melodramatic attempt to sympathize with the poor. childish 3rd grade level psyco-babble, with lame metaphor and motivation from dwarf Hunt. missing philosophy, missing emotion. almost nothing good to say about it.

Dreams (1990)
Brilliant as usual!, 21 May 2001

Observant, Insightful, Philosophical, Genius. I could nit-pick a few things, and have to admit some of his other films are more absolutely "perfect". (Ikiru for one).

Yet, this film hits all of the high notes, and leaves you seriously contemplating mankind, it's place in the cosmos, and what that may mean for yourself.

There is only one director with such consistent scope, depth, and vision demonstrated over many decades, and encompassing such an extensive body of excellent work.

Akira is THE man.


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]