Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
34 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good for a different point of view, but a glaring omission, 12 January 2005

I enjoyed watching this, and they make some valid points - they broadcast to their people the way we broadcast to ours, they want to show the damage of war, they're journalists first, etc. All quite interesting. The one omission I found was that they didn't address why they show terrorist broadcasts and play their messages. It was never addressed. Also quickly glossed over was their showing dead and injured American POWs, whereas we don't show images of that sort. But still, I'd recommend it to hear from the other side.



It was great, much better than the first, 17 April 2004

Where the first was over-the-top with the humor and gore, the second is more somber in tone, the emphasis on dialogue and character building. I really enjoyed it. I disliked the first one.

There's much much less action in this film, but what there is is quite intense. He really hits for the fences with different techniques. One that caught my eye was his use of different film stocks. I enjoyed it and would recommend it.

This is more like a Tarrantino movie than Vol. 1, although the dialogue was better in the movies where Roger Avary was his writing partner, but still there are plenty of gems here to be heard. 9/10.

I can't believe all the positive comments..., 20 October 2003

I was disappointed. It's merely average, and there's too much padding to bring it out to a 1 hr 45 minute length. Take the scene when the plane's touching down in Tokyo, or the final battle in the snow between O-Ren Ishii and The Bride. It's unique and stylish, but very poorly written. You can see how much ex-writing partner Roger Avary had to do with the dialogue, just compare this to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I just can't believe all the hype, especially from critics. But what astounds me are the posts on these boards. "QT is back", "QT is a genius", "10/10!", "Best movie I ever saw", etc. This board has to be rigged. An 8.5 rating and in the top IMDB 100?

Wait for the video. 7/10 (for uniqueness only).

Mona Lisa (1986)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Highly recommended, 15 July 2003

Not really a gangster movie, more of a love story. Bob Hoskins performance is one of the best I've ever seen. The range of emotion he shows is broad. I wasn't too impressed with Cathy Tyson's performance, or Coltrane's. Michael Caine has 3 or 4 scenes, and at first he's shown as comical, but as the movie progresses you realize how dangerous the man is. I think Hoskins was nominated, and he definitely should've won an Oscar. I was glad to have seen this gem of a movie. 5 of 5 stars.

Extremely intense, 2 July 2003

I left the theater shaking after taking this one in. It's not for everyone. I would not call it scary, but intense. There are some of the most horrific and brutal murders I've ever seen on celluloid in this flick. Not to mention some white knuckle situations. In all, I'd recommend it, if you have a strong stomach. I counted 7 walkouts during my visit.

Additionally, I've read many reviews - including some here - that state the last 3rd of the film with the soldiers doesn't work. I disagree. It is there to make a comparison to the "zombies". It works. You care for the characters in this flick. I liked the look of the digital video as well, it is not a detraction.

In all, recommended, 3/5 stars.

Umberto D. (1952)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
One of the few movies I ever gave a 10., 4 March 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Don't read the last paragraph to avoid a slight spoiler...

The movie works on multiple levels: emotional, political, and social. Basically, it's the story of a man striving to maintain honor (paying his debts and not begging) and love (not abandoning his dog). I really don't want to say too much, you should view the film as I did - knowning nothing about it. This is a must see.

SLIGHT SPOILER: The final scene is bittersweet: the worst doesn't happen, but no resolution is offered - just like life. The last shot of the film is open to interpretation, but I took it to be "out with the old, in with the new".

Old School (2003)
One of the best comedies I've ever seen, 23 February 2003

Don't believe the reviews. I couldn't stop laughing. It's right up there. A must see. Believe me, you won't be disappointed. I'm going to see it again. The audience laughed so loud I missed things. I just can't believe how reviewers are killing it. If you go to a comedy, and p*** your pants, they did a great job.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Good, but hard to recommend, 3 February 2003

The movie's depressing. But they might as well hand Jack his Oscar now, as he is cast against type, yet does an incredible job playing the Everyman. Only the very last scene contains hope, and they way they edit that scene is powerful. It was moving. But the rest of the flick is so full of losers and posers it really gets you down. I thought it was well done, but don't see it if you're already depressed going in.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
It's not that great, or I don't get it, 11 February 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

MINOR SPOILERS: Well, everyone is raving about this film, but I didn't like it. It was very slow and plodding, and supposedly about destiny. I found the narrative to be very uneven. It seemed strange things were thrown in (the nurse jerking off a mental patient, the tracheotomy, the mother's death with the radio in the bathtub, etc). The beginning and ending framing of the friend who lives on the coast. I don't see it where destiny has anything to do with it. The woman forces her way into the man's life. I'd say the man was the Princess, because he needed to be rescued from grief, and the woman was the Warrior, who kept fighting her way into the man's life. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this. I didn't think much of Run Lola Run either, but then again, I could be missing the point. 5/10.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Strains the limits of credibility, 11 February 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SLIGHT SPOILERS: Enjoyable, but check your brain at the door. How can a white guy get all the way into the guerrilla zone in Columbia? On foot? Why don't the terrorists kill him when they know he wants to pummel them? Why aren't people killed during the numerous explosions at the end of the film? How can a fireman fight a CIA killer or trained soldier successfully? That's Arnold for ya. 6/10 for mindless entertainment.

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]