Reviews written by registered user
cLoNe

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

Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
133 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Chainsaw? Check. Texas? Check. Massacre? Nope., 27 July 2001
1/10

This movie was written and directed by the co-writer of the original movie, Kim Henkel. So I expected this movie to be at least half as good as the first one, but sadly it is just a bad movie.

Henkel remade some scenes from the original movie, but did none of them any better. All the good bits from this movie were already done better in the first movie. The absence of blood maybe satisfied the BBFC and the MPAA, but was a real slap in the face for the fans of the first movie. Why would anyone want to see this blood-free movie when the gorey and bloody original movie is available? A sequel must break new ground to justify its existence, not paddle backward.

The most outrageous thing that really p****d me off was the fact that in this movie there is NO chainsaw massacre. The bodycount is very low and no one is either killed or wounded by a chainsaw.

The previous movies in the series were really bloody and inventive, and therefore shocking. This movie is like Chainsaw-light or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for dummies". A real shame.

Even good actors like Renée Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey can't save this movie. Zellweger's performance felt fake as hell and McConaughey's psycho also seemed fake and over the top.

Yet another problem is the lack of realism. Zellweger's character jumps from panicky mode to action hero mode to can't-really-act-scared mode. McConaughey's character cuts himself with his knife, but doesn't seem to bleed at all except for a thin strip of blood.

All in all, you can watch this movie. If you are a big fan of the series you will feel compelled to. Just don't do the mistake I did and buy it. It is simply a bad bad movie.

3 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Fantastic and exciting., 23 July 2001
10/10



After the somewhat disappointing LOST WORLD, the latest installment in the Jurassic Park series is a delightful surprise, and I say latest because according to the incredible success there will be at least one more movie in this series. If it's going to be as much fun as this one, I wouldn't mind a few more sequels. The Jurassic Park concept is a fresh source for many exciting stories if you just find the right spin. JP3 found it.

The movie makes sense and the plot works quite well. The relationships between the characters are quite cliche, especially the divorced couple who joins forces to rescue their child and by doing so they rekindle their love. But it works. The cast is superb and you really care for those character (in fact, it's not hard to figure out quite early on in the movie who's cannon fodder and who's going to survive).

The dinosaurs are great looking as usual, but the thrills are also exciting and original. We are even treated to a brief fight between two big dinosaurs and some new dinosaurs species that were featured in the original book, but were absent from the first two movies.

I only think that the climax could have slightly more... Er... Climatic, and considering how frightening the evil dinosaurs are, it's a bit of a shame that the movie is not really scary or gorey.

But it doesn't change the fact that the movie is an excellent thriller for people who want to see dinosaurs trying to eat people.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A great thrill ride., 22 July 2001
10/10



The groundbreaking computer generated dinosaurs are only one aspect that makes this movie so cool. An engrossing bizarre plot about men playing God and fantastic action-adventure scenes make this movie really exciting and enjoyable.

It is a mixture of many great ingredients: horror, action, comedy, thriller, suspense. And everything is directed with great efficiency by Spielberg.

I read the book before I saw the movie and I was disappointed to see the horror and the violence toned down so much, as well as missing some of the dinosaurs that didn't make it through the adaptation (though the "missing" dinosaurs were finally introduced in JP3). But I wasn't THAT disappointed.

It's simply enjoyable. It's like one big roller coaster ride. It is a bit formulaic, but also inventive and very well done.

The worst in the series, but still a fun movie., 22 July 2001
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Lost World has some really great suspenseful scenes in it and fantastic dinosaurs effects. That alone makes it worth seeing. It also has tons of flaws. Mostly annoying flaws.

The violence and horror are even more toned down from the first movie to an unrealistic level and the movie is flooded with plot devices, especially the forced and clumsy attempt to set up a scene where *spoilers* -------- a T-Rex goes on a rampage in a city.

It is definitely worth viewing for the plenty of great thrills in this movie, but a great movie it is not.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A giant classic!, 22 June 2001
10/10

The Iron Giant is a fantastic animated classic.

The story has a big heart with wonderful characters. The friendship between the kid and the robot is handled perfectly. The clever combination of smooth 2D animation with 3D animation create an attractive world of fantasy. The attention to detail is impressive and is why this movie is so engrossing.

The heart of the movie is covered with enough muscles: many genuinely hilarious moments and a climatic action packed finale.

A fantastic must-see must-own movie. There's nothing out there like the Iron Giant.

--MB

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The quality of a direct-to-video B movie., 21 June 2001
1/10

I didn't have many expectations for this movie. I only played the second game in the series and I thought a Tomb Raider movie could be fun.

The bad reviews didn't bother me. Pearl Harbor and Godzilla got bad reviews and I enjoyed those movies for what they were. But I didn't expect it to be THIS BAD.

I slightly enjoyed only a couple of scenes, but the rest of the movie was boring, stupid and BORING. No tension, no plot twists, NOTHING. The action scenes didn't have anything new. We've seen it all before done much better.

Some special effects were nice, but not spectacular. It really felt like watching a direct-to-video movie. BAD, BAD, BAD. Angelina Jolie is a great actress, but even she failed to save the movie. She looks fake and even slightly annoying in this idiotic mess. The script writers should be banned from Hollywood. I'm not kidding.

--MB

Eh... Where's the horror?, 21 June 2001
6/10

I love slasher movies and I really tried to enjoy Cherry Falls. And I did enjoy it a >little< - because there was so >little< suspense.

There are very few thrilling scenes and they are all painfully short. How can you have suspense if the scenes are over so quickly? The end result is long boring horror-free teen-movie scenes with a short bloody climax.

It wasn't the body count that bothered me, it was simply the short scenes. 10 extra minutes of suspense would have made this movie much better.

--MB

A worthy sequel, 21 June 2001
9/10

More of the same. If you liked the first Mummy you'd enjoy the second one.

Most of the faces are the same, but the new plot takes them in a different direction. Nothing brilliant, but it serves as a good excuse for a variety of cool scenes in cool locations.

I think I liked the first movie better, but this movie has a few wonderful scenes that make it hard to decide which Mummy movie is better.

They are both great popcorn movies, I suppose.

The only thing that really bothered me was Freddie Boath who plays the little cute/annoying kid. The problem was that he was more annoying than cute, as a well as an incredibly bad actor. I was not surprised to see that his mother is a producer in his IMDB profile. Oh well...

--MB

Valentine (2001)
15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Excellent slasher., 21 June 2001
10/10

It's a colorful slasher movie. That's about it.

It has the mystery element that SCREAM made so popular in slasher movies, but I never care for such things. Figuring out who's the bad guy is not that interesting considering the clues are all misleading anyway.

The death scenes were inventive and gorey, bringing back memories of 80's horror movies like Friday the 13th.

Another nice thing about this movie is that it's hard to pinpoint the surviving girl, unlike in SCREAM and IKWYDLS where it was obvious.

People who don't like slasher movies won't like this movie. As simple as that. I truly enjoyed it and I plan to watch it again while waiting for more of the same.

--MB

A bit slow, but has quite a few good moments., 11 February 2001
8/10

When talking about this movie, it's hard to avoid a comparison to the Sixth Sense, because of the same team of director/writer-lead actor.

But the fact is, it's a pretty different movie with a whole different theme. I thought the movie was slightly too slow paced, but there were quite a few moments in the movie that I liked. Some were funny, some were dramatic and some were thrilling.

It's yet another good movie with a cool twist from Mr. Shyamalan who excels in creating touching and moving moments in unusual situations.


Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]