Reviews written by registered user
LebowskiT1000

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

Page 1 of 35:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
344 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Not really worth your time, 26 July 2006
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm not really sure what to think of this film, a bit over-dramatic in my opinion. I love how you can always tell where the commercials would be inserted because of the fade-out and the sound of the music. All in all, I don't think I'd recommend this film to anyone, not because I thought it was bad, but just because it's rather pointless, personally I didn't get anything out the movie, it wasn't thought-provoking, it wasn't terribly interesting, there wasn't much of a moral lesson (other than "don't give up"), there was virtually nothing to it. The film can literally be summed up into a sentence or two. Man loses job, man can't find new job, man gets desperate, man realizes his family is more important than a job, man continues seeking new job, the end.

So, in the end, I wouldn't recommend seeing this for any other reason than to perhaps see James Woods in one of his first roles ever. Other than that, there really isn't much to be missed. I'd strongly recommend watching something else.

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
A look into the 30's film-making, 26 July 2006
7/10

I've never been a fan of westerns, which is probably why up until last night I'd never seen a film starring John Wayne. Of course it doesn't help that our lives only overlapped by a year, so I didn't have a great deal of opportunity to see any of his films (in the theater at least). I received this film in a VHS films lot that I won from ebay, so I finally popped it in last night and gave it a whirl.

I went in expecting a really low budget, really old western...needless to say, my expectations were pretty low. All in all, I'd have to say the film really isn't that bad. I don't have any other John Wayne films to compare it to, so thus far it's my favorite. I can however, compare it to other westerns, and frankly, it was no "Tombstone", but it was worth my time.

The story is nothing fantastic, but it's has it's moments. The acting was just fine as far as I could tell and overall production value was OK, granted it was made in the 30's, so again, I wasn't expecting much. One scene in particular made me laugh out loud. Whenever the halfway-house is shown from a bird's eye view it is CLEARLY a scale model, it's hilarious how bad it actually looks...but again...30's.

In any case, I have no idea who to recommend this film to, but I will say that it's really short (60 minutes) so it won't take up too much of your time and it's kind of fun to see a film this old to appreciate films of today and how far they've come, not to say that this is bad, but just to further appreciate film-making.

Hope you enjoy it.

P.S. I just realized that this film has the honor of being the 3rd oldest film I've ever seen (as of 7-26-2006).

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
A New Low in Cinematic History, 26 June 2006
1/10

There is no other way to put this other than this film is just plain terrible. I was a fan of the "Tom Green Show", although I've only watched a handful of episodes, so I was slightly interested in the film and saw it for under $5 at wal-mart or something...so I thought I'd just buy it and check it out. Let me also note that I like just about everything, and most films have something good to offer...there are of course a few exceptions. After watching this film I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Freddy Got Fingered" is absolutely in the 10 WORST FILMS I've ever seen, no question about it!!! This was TERRIBLE!!! It is absolutely devoid of any redeeming qualities. It really isn't that funny either, it's got a few laughs, but most of the time it's just moronic and sick. It is truly rare that I would recommend someone NOT see a film, but I strongly urge you to spend your time doing something else or watching different movie, any movie. I'm actually considering throwing my copy of the film away, cause I'm sure I'll never watch it again.

-LebowskiT1000

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Only for a Jim Carrey completest, 13 April 2006
5/10

There's no way around it, this is a very bad movie, the plot is virtually absent, the dialog is nothing great and the film quality is as if they filmed it with an everyday camcorder (from 1983). So, don't start watching this film expecting a well-written hilarious Jim Carrey film, as you will be quite disappointed.

The only people that will have any interest in watching this film are the die-hard Jim Carrey fans (such as myself)...or I guess Alan Thicke fans. Other than that, there is really no need to see this film. Although, it is only 60 minutes, so it's a rather short film to watch.

If you still feel the urge to watch this film, just keep in mind that this is Jim Carrey's first lead, and pretty much his first film all together, so don't expect anything great. Thanks for reading.

Was good, could have been great., 9 March 2006
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After watching this film several times now and having let enough time go by to really let the film sink in, I feel I can now write a well-rounded, as objective as possible review of the film. So here it goes...

Let me start by saying that I liked the film a great deal and it's "fun-factor" was quite good, but the film really missed the mark, in my opinion. While the film was good, it could have been spectacular.

Let's start with the acting. I can't say it was great and it wasn't ALL bad, but there was certainly nothing to write home about. Hayden Christiensen is nothing spectacular and comes off as rather laughable at times. Natalie Portman is normally quite good, was just OK in this film. As for Ewan McGreggor, I'll say this, his acting was well executed, but his dialog could have been much better. Samuel L. Jackson....well...he's a great actor and I love most of his films, but I sincerely believe that he should never have been cast for any of the SW films, he just doesn't fit with the character, nor can I take him seriously as a Jedi. I truly believe he just didn't work well with the role and the role would have been better suited for someone else. Ian McDirmid was just awful in this film. Normally he is a fine actor, even in the previous SW films and his other works. There were times where I thought he was fine, but there were many times were I couldn't help but cringe. I just wasn't impressed with his portrayal of Palpatine/The Emperor in this film. Everyone else in the film did a fine job.

Now for the story. I'm sorry, but it was just bad! It could have EASILY been MUCH, MUCH better. I didn't buy into the reasons why Anakin became Darth Vader and turned to the Dark Side, it felt WAY too forced. Not that it really matters, but this is what I would have done (and was hoping for): Anakin becomes increasingly impatient with the Jedi council and becomes more and more unpredictable (in the vain of him killing Count Dooku...I did like that), Padme becomes fearful of Anakin and decides it would be best for her (and her unborn child{ren}) to leave Anakin (with Obi-Wan's help). She proceeds to leave and of course Anakin wants to know where she is and what happened to her. Obi-Wan and the Jedis try to help Anakin understand that due to his actions she does not feel safe with him, etc... This, of course, only makes Anakin more angry. Then somehow amidst a fight or something Padme is severely injured and ultimately dies (unbeknownst to Anakin). Then Obi-Wan tries to tell Anakin that she has been killed and he does not believe him and is sure that he is simply trying to keep Anakin from Padme, so this begins his journey to the Dark Side, he begins to hate Jedi's for keeping him from his love. Who do you think would be there to help him find Padme? A certain Darth Sidious perhaps? Anakin then begins hunting down the Jedis, hell-bent on finding Padme, refusing to believe that she (and their child) has died...and when the Jedi's don't give him the answer he wants to hear...he kills them. This could also lead to a kick-ass fight between him and Yoda, where he really works Yoda, and thus forces Yoda to go into hiding until a match of Anakin/Vader's abilities can be found (this could take place after the fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin, so he's already become a cyborg, got the Vader outfit and had time to develop his Dark Side abilities). OK, so that's Episode III as done by LebowskiT1000. You may disagree with me that this would be a much better story, but it really doesn't matter, cause I seriously doubt Lucas is going to let me re-direct the film.

Let's talk about the directing and dialog. There are certain scenes, such as the scene where Mace Windu attempts to arrest Palpatine that were excruciatingly bad, everything in the scene was terrible, the directing, the dialog, the acting...just plain bad. Why did Palpatine's own electrical storm cause his face to get all wrinkled up? That was dumb! I always assumed that the reason he looked the way he did in ESB and ROTJ was because he was REALLY old (as he would be). Assume he's probably in his mid-to-late 60's in TPM, then he'd be at least in his late 90's to early 100's in ESB and even older in ROTJ, so of course he's going to look all wrinkled up and old. So, in my opinion you could have omitted the entire electrical-storm-wrinkling plot-point and it would have been a better film. There are many other scenes where the dialog/directing was less than stellar, but I'll leave it to you to find them an dissect them.

The bright and shining star in the film is the special effects. This is one thing that was really well done and if you disagree, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. The special effects are simply amazing in this film, all the CG worlds look great, the CG characters look fantastic and there really is nothing to complain about. General Grevious looks fantastic, by the way.

In the end, I thought the film was quite fun and worth my time, but it was VERY disappointing, it had the potential to be a fantastic bridge between AOTC and ANH and to just be an overall great film, but due to some bad choices in writing, directing and dialog, the mark was missed. Having said all that, I do strongly insist you watch the film yourself and come to your own conclusions, I hope you enjoy it. Thanks for reading my review/comment/rant.

Hulk (2003)
Bad choice for director., 21 December 2005
7/10

I remember back when I first heard that Hulk was being made into a motion picture. At the time I was rather excited, as I grew up watching the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno TV Show and really loved it. But then a bit later a director by the name of Ang Lee was hired on to helm the film. I vividly remember my first thoughts: "He is going to ruin it!" At the time I'd only seen two other Ang Lee films, "The Ice Storm", which was a fine film, but nothing spectacular and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (Which personally I thought was a complete waste of time). So, yeah, I'll be the first to admit that I judged the film before I'd even seen it, but I knew his directing style and it just wasn't going to fly with "Hulk". After seeing the preview I was less than thrilled with the special effects, but even still, it looked like it might be fun and just maybe he'd prove me wrong. Sadly, he did not.

In some respects, the film was better than expected, but not many. For instance, I thought the special effects were much better than they originally looked in the trailers...it may have been that they were in context within the film, maybe they had more time to work on them, or maybe I'd just come to terms with them, I don't know. But in any case I thought they looked pretty damn good at certain points and rarely looked terrible.

It is my personal opinion that in order to make a really good comic-to-film adaptation you need to base the film in reality and then throw in some border-line far-fetched sci-fi and finally some fantastic characters, all without going too far. In my opinion Ang Lee went too far with the fantastic-ness of Hulk. Bullet-proof...OK, maybe. Being able to hurl himself miles in a single bound...I don't think so. It's not a major plot point in the film by any means, so I could get passed it, but it was just a little too much for me...it made him look a little too cartoonish.

The fact that you have to watch quite a bit of character development before you get to see the green beast didn't bother me too terribly much, but the editing, the acting and the way the story was told did bother me. I really didn't like the whole comic-book-editing that he tried in the film. Sometimes it worked, but other times it was too distracting and made it painfully hard to "get into" the film. Personally, I dislike any editing that reminds me that I'm watching a film and that this is not reality.

As far as the acting talent goes, I thought it was less than impressive. Sam Elliott is usually a great actor, but I found him incredibly annoying in this film, like he was acting overly angry throughout the entire film. Eric Bana was OK, but I didn't buy his angry moments, he just didn't pull it off. Jennifer Connolly did a fine job however, I can't say anything bad about her. Josh Lucas was decent, but nothing spectacular. Nick Nolte was also decent, but very annoying at times, more due to the dialog than his acting abilities.

And the last order of business is the actual story used to bring "Hulk" to life. For the most part, I thought the story was actually pretty good with some really good ideas...but then again, there were some god-awful ideas too. The entire last 20 minutes of the film was HORRIBLE, just plain RIDICULOUS (special effects were pretty good though). As one other reviewer on this site said, it seemed like they ran out of ideas so they slapped together something to get the film released, while not bothering to think that perhaps this just doesn't make any sense. There were also other minor story points throughout the film that either didn't make sense, seemed silly, or just plain didn't work.

I'd also like to say a little something about the soundtrack. The soundtrack was really good, but way too repetitive, I was in shock how many times the main theme was used. It sounded good, but too much of a good thing makes it not a good thing anymore.

All in all this could have been a really good film with a different director. Ang Lee may be a good director within certain genres, but comic-based films is not one of them. I'd place this film somewhere between Daredevil, Punisher and Elektra as far as quality goes. Far below Spider-man (1&2), X-Men (1&2...and probably 3), Fantastic Four, and Batman Begins. Although, it was far better than Catwoman. I guess I can say this, if you are a die-hard fan of Ang Lee and like experimental films, then you might like this film. If you want a fast-paced, fun comic-book film, this is probably not the film for you.

Encino Man (1992)
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A fun time., 9 October 2003
10/10

"Encino Man" is just an all around fun, silly movie with some good comedy and numerous quotable lines. The story behind "Encino Man" is very simple, it's about two friends that find a frozen caveman in their backyard while trying to dig a pool...then the caveman wakes up from his frozen slumber. Yeah, it's a silly plot, but it's all in good fun.

The characters in the film are great, as is the acting on all accounts. Brendan Fraser plays the title role of Link. Brendan has very few actual lines in the film, mostly just grunts and sounds...but nonetheless, he does a fantastic job with the role. Sean Astin plays Dave Morgan, the main character, who desperately wants to be popular, but has yet to be discovered. Stoney, Dave's best friend is played by Pauly Shore, a guy who is content with himself and really doesn't care for popularity. Megan Ward is Dave's love interest in the film, and looks nothing short of fantastic throughout the film. And finally there's Michael DeLuise, as the antagonist, Matt, Dave's arch-rival. There's also a few notable supporting cast-members. Robin Tunney ("Vertical Limit", "Empire Records", "End of Days") in one of her first roles, Patrick Van Horn ("Swingers"), Jonathan Ke Quan ("The Goonies", "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom"), Rose McGowan ("Phantoms", "Scream", "Monkeybone", "Ready to Rumble") and Jack Noseworthy ("Breakdown", "U- 571", "Event Horizon") all fantastic actors rolled into one comedy.

All in all, this is a great film. The cast is great, the characters and acting are great, and the story is silly, but good at the same time. There's even a few somewhat touching scenes here and there. If you like any of the actors mentioned above, be sure to check this film out, or if you just enjoy a good, silly comedy, this is the one for you. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-LebowskiT1000

Payback (1999/I)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Interesting..., 9 October 2003
7/10

I'm somewhat at a loss for words with respect to "Payback". I thought it was an interesting movie and a well told story, but it certainly isn't a "fun" or "happy" story. In this film, there really isn't any good guys and bad guys, they're all bad guys...also the person you should be rooting for (Mel Gibson) is sometimes a bigger a**hole than the guys that are supposed to be the really BAD bad guys.

The acting in the film is great on all accounts, although it's really hard to accept Mel Gibson in a role such as this. He's great at playing rogue cops or all-out good guys, but an anti-hero is not his strong suit.

I suppose if you like Mel Gibson, go ahead and check it out, just remember, this isn't his typical type of role. Or if you just like films where you are rooting for a bad guy, than by all means check it out. I guess as far a production value and directing, acting, characters, and all that, it was a great movie. But personally, I'm not terribly fond of the subject matter, so there's just no way I could say this is an excellent movie...but it was interesting. Hope you enjoy the the film.

-LebowskiT1000

22 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Good sequel, worth watching., 8 October 2003
10/10

I had always thought that "European Vacation" was much funnier than the original "Vacation", until just recently. I watched both films back-to-back and in the end I've got to concede that I like the original "Vacation" more than it's sequel. I think the two films are equally funny, but the first one has a little more originality to it and a slightly better cast. Don't get me wrong though, "European Vacation" IS a funny movie and a very good sequel, but just not as good as the original.

Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo of course, play the parts of Clarke and Ellen Griswold (although spelled "Griswald" in this film for whatever reason) perfectly. The parts of Rusty and Audrey Griswold were re-cast (for whatever reason) with Jason Lively and Dana Hill. I thought Jason Lively was a fine replacement for Anthony Michael Hall, and even slightly resembles him. Although, I was less than impressed with Dana Hill. Not that she did a bad job acting, but more that her character seemed quite different and didn't resemble the original Audrey (Dana Barron) at all. It was nice to see both Eric Idle and Robbie Coltrane in the film (both playing very small roles).

"European Vacation" was a good film and a nice sequel, but still not as good as the original. Although, I would strongly recommend you take a look at this film if you liked the original or just like Chevy/Beverly. Chevy Chase is great, as is Beverly D'Angelo, both make the film well worth the time I put in watching it and I hope they'll make your time worth it as well. Thanks for reading,

-LebowskiT1000

Rocky II (1979)
57 out of 62 people found the following review useful:
Excellent sequel, 8 October 2003
9/10

"Rocky II" is one of those sequels that is just as good as the original, if not better in some aspects. I can't say it's better than the original because you can't have the second film without the first one. Meaning that this film does not stand on it's own, you need the first film to understand the characters and back-stories of everything in this film. But all in all, I think "Rocky II" is slightly more enjoyable than the original "Rocky".

In all honesty, I think this film is better directed than the first film. The story seems to flow quite nicely and is slightly faster paced than the original. Not only that, but the main fight in the film is much more exciting and longer.

The acting in "Rocky II" is better as well, or at least I thought so. Sylvester Stallone does a fantastic job with his role of Rocky Balboa and really struts his stuff here. Talia Shire and Burt Young also pull off nice performances. Carl Weathers plays the character of Apollo Creed to a "T". And of course, Burgess Meredith does a fantastic job as Mickey.

This is one of those sequels that truly has the same feel as the original. Granted, it isn't as fresh as the original...but it's a re-match that can't be missed. If you liked the original "Rocky", then you definitely ought to check this one out, I don't think you'll be disappointed. I hope you like the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,

-LebowskiT1000


Page 1 of 35:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]