Reviews written by registered user

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

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

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Riddled with errors, 31 October 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why was Abraham Lincoln at the ceremony admitting California as a state? In 1850, he was a lawyer in Illinois. He wasn't elected President for another 10 years.

When Zorro is hunting through Armand's library, looking for clues, why is there a map with (at least) 48 states on it? In 1850, there were only 30 states! The map even shows California in it's current state. THE PLOT OF THE MOVIE WAS ABOUT California BEING ADMITTED FOR STATEHOOD!!!

Also, if I recall, at the end of "Mask of Zorro", they had a baby GIRL...

My eyes hurt, 20 December 2003

My eyes hurt. I don't think I blinked for about two hours.

I am a notoriously tough grade when I vote on movies here, only about 15 movies have I ever given a 10 ranking to. The first two LOTRs only ranked as 9's.

This received a 10.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
They lost something., 13 April 2003

When making this sequel, many things have been lost from the original.

*First: In Cube, there was the thought, that, however implausible, there was a remote chance that this could be real. In Cube, you dealt with physical maladies, things that you could see. In Hypercube, they were Supernatural.

*Second: In Cube, there was a sense of hopelessness amongst the characters. In Hypercube, they accepted their situation too readily, and too quickly were able to cope.

*Third: In Cube, there was a mystery, an aura, a question of WHY? In Hypercube, all is too readily explained.

All of this is a pity, as Cube was one of the more unique sci-fi movies ever done. I shudder to think how good Cube could have been if it had the budget of Hypercube. But, in reality, its simplicity may have been its strongest asset.

Hypercube could have been great, and could still be good as a "Stand-Alone", but tied in with Cube, it falls a little flat. 5/10.

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
See 'em live, 25 November 2002

For those unfamiliar with the works of the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, this video will give merely a glimpse into their musical genius. This band evolved from a heavy-metal band from the mid-80's called Savatage. As they grew musically, they began to incorporate classical music into their work, ranging from Mozart to Mussgorsky to Beethoven. The Trans-Siberian Orchestra was a side project conceived originally to perform Christmas music, blending traditional and new compositions with a group of highly talented musicians.

This video is just a touch of what they are. Many "guest" performers, such as Michael Crawford and Jewel appear in the video. Watching this video will hopefully give one a desire to look further into the band. These wonderful artists have woven 3 albums together (2 Christmas, and one not) of intricate story-telling, poetry, and, of course, wonderful music.

If you do enjoy what you see and hear, do yourself a favor. Next Christmas, look for their live performance to come to a city near you, and buy a ticket. It is a musical spectacle you will thank yourself for. I have been a Savatage fan for many years, and have now seen TSO play live 3 years in a row. WOW. The collection of musicians, mostly unknowns, is unrivaled. The compositions are wonderful, the performances even more so. Worth every penny.

As a side note, TSO's single non-Christmas release, "Beethoven's Last Night", is one of the best albums I have ever heard. Released nearly 2 years ago, I rarely go as much as a week without listening to it.

Almost Perfect, 21 June 2002

This movie was almost perfect, especially for a fan of early 70's rock and roll music. I gave it a rating of 10 out of 10. (I am tough with my ratings. I currently have voted for 909 titles, and have only given out 25 10's.)

If you get the opportunity to see the directors cut of this movie, do yourself a great favor and do so. It adds incredible depth to the characters. When I saw this originally, I found Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) to be one of the least interesting characters in it, however the directors cut gives her character much needed depth. She comes across as someone who truly wants to escape her "persona" of Penny, and just return to a normal life. She is unable to do so, as the pulls of peer pressure and love keep her going.

Many of the other performances in this movie are as good as they get. Patrick Fugit has a breakout performance as William, the lead character. It is interesting to watch his evolution from a little boy to a man. Watch for the transformation in his character's mood after the scene, about halfway through the movie, where he loses his virginity. Wonderfully performed, as was his conflict to do the right thing, while still learning.

Frances McDormand pulls off a near-perfect performance as Williams over-protective and over-bearing mother, who goes through the turmoil of realizing that her children have grown beyond her care. Don't overlook Jason Lee, whose turn as lead singer Jeff Bebe is well played as well.

Cameron Crowe, the director, controls the mood of this movie in such a way that you are always interested. Humor and drama are well-woven. For every valley, there is an accompanying peak that pulls you along.

This movie is poignant, funny, heart-warming, and lets us all re-live the turmoil of youth conflict. I will continue to recommend this movie to everyone I see, and will watch it over and over for the nuances I may have missed.

You aren't George Lucas, 18 May 2002

I saw Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones last night. I thought it was fantastic! However, this morning, I logged onto the IMDB, and started reading the comments the other users have posted. I was a bit troubled.

After reading through these comments, I have a few of my own.

First of all, the critique of the acting is acceptable. I don't agree with most of the points made, but that's a matter for personal translation.

Second, the people who are deriding the effects...were you watching the same movie I was? The effects in this movie far outshine anything else I have seen...including the Matrix and LOTR, and definately Spiderman. Maybe that is simply because it the newest, but if you didn't like it, watch the battle scenes again. Wow.

Third, the "Attack of the title". Leave the title AOTC alone. You don't get it, do you? Yes, the clones fought with the good guys in this movie. DUH! All part of Palpatines master plan! He hasn't revealed himself as evil, yet....he's getting the good guys to do his dirty work for him! DUH!

Fourth, and most importantly, the critique of the plot and the love story. I have a question: CAN I SEE YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE? DOES IT SAY "GEORGE LUCAS"? NO? THEN WHO ARE YOU TO CRITIQUE ANOTHER MAN'S VISION. IF THIS IS WHAT LUCAS BELEIVES HAPPENS IN ***HIS*** STORY, THEN THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS! SO SHUT UP! The love story is necessary. Otherwise, how would Luke and Leia ever be born. The sub-plot involving the cloning facility is necessary. The clone wars are an integral part of the Star Wars universe history! Even the much derided Jar-Jar Binks has his purpose in the whole storyline revealed. Amidala would never have done what he did while acting on her behalf. Jar-Jar has a purpose. Still annoying, but he has a purpose.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say that those who hated it so much should just shut up and go watch "A Boy's Life"...obviously more your speed.

fun, but...., 27 September 2001

"George Lucas In Love" was a fun little short. I think it was probably the most creative Star Wars themed parody to come out since "Hardware Wars" came out over 25 years ago.

It's only flaw was that it was TOO short! The problem with this type of humor is that it wears out quickly, but in this case, 9 minutes made it feel forced, and if it had been stretched out to about 15 minutes, it could have been even better. Any longer, then it would wear you down.

Still a great show, 17 July 2001

I had no intention on putting in a comment on "The Simpsons", but after reading through the comments others have put in, I feel obligated to get my two cent's worth.

This is one of the greatest television shows ever produced; subversive, funny, deep. It takes great advantage of it's animated format to get away with things other shows can not. Continuity is not a concern. As far as the creators are concerned, each episode is entirely self-contained, with no connection from one to another (except when they feel like it. That's the beauty). They can be more creative that way. Watch the show. Tape it and watch it again. I guarantee that you will see something you missed....jokes that are on-screen for a split second, you will miss them the first time, but later catch them and laugh. Watch the back-ground. The true genius of any TV show or movie comedy is in the depth of the comedy. The Simpsons layers it. A joke can occur in the foreground or the background. A punchline in season 9 can often times refer to something that happened in season 3, put in as a treat to the true hardcore fan. That is the genius of this show.

Those who say that the show has slipped, frankly, they are correct. But to slip from such a peak, it is still a fantastic satire, and I would hope it continues for many more years.

And to those of you who wish the show to be taken off the air, I leave you with this: CHANGE THE CHANNEL AND LET THE REST OF US ENJOY THIS SHOW!!!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
An entertaining 2 hours, 11 May 2001

Being from Milwaukee, I was interested in seeing this film. Since the bar that the main character works at in the film, "Barnacle Buds", is owned by a friend of mine, I was doubly curious, and rushed out on opening night to see it. I mean, how often are movies filmed in good old Milwaukee, WI. (And how often will I have a friend make a cameo? Hasn't happened since "Major League"!)

I had no idea what to expect. I really didn't even know what kind of a movie it is until I saw it. What I got was a wonderful little film noir, a whodunnit type murder mystery filled with little twists and turns, and just a few laughs. I was surprised how riveted I was in wondering, "how will they get through THIS situation?"

On the negative side, there were some very predictable moments, and the movie was obviously filmed on a low budget. When you see a police car appear while they have evidence in the car, of course they will be getting pulled over for something...but this does lead to the movies funniest moment, so it is forgivable.

I have given "Lady in the Box" 7 out of 10 stars....(I am a very tough with giving out my votes. 7 is considered in the "Very Good, but with some problems" range). Go see it, it is an entertaining 2 hours.

Not Sure If I Liked It, 5 May 2001

OK, as an action film, it was enjoyable. Yes it suffers from "Sequel-itis". It was fun to watch. Enjoyable characters, great effects (most of the time-Scorpion King was poorly done).

My big problem with the movie was the "bad guys". The film-makers decided to go with excess. In other words, there were a lot of different bad guys, each with their own agenda. Of course, this made the task our heros face very daunting. They were successful in this. However, if you look at each of the characters one by one, and you consider that each one is supposed to be the epitome of all evil, each was far too easily vanquished. Imhotep, the title character, himself turns into a cowardly, sniveling weasel, therefore making him one of the least significant of the baddies!

Plot holes galore, but that is to be expected in any film of this type. Just a celebration of excess that could have been done better with some restraint. Still enjoyable to watch, but try not to think of it as a great movie, and you will be better off. Give it a try.

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