Reviews written by registered user

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

32 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
Underrated Show, 23 January 2009

This is a tremendously underrated show from Canada. The characters are well fleshed out, the story lines are funny and very entertaining. It's not one of those typical cheap, low budget, old school Canadian shows but rather more like the modern show like TPB, or Corner Gas where it's got good production values and an amazing writing staff. The problem with it is that City is not promoting it enough, and it's never on when they say it's going to be on. I hope this show doesn't get canceled, or if it does, i hope it gets picked up by Showcase since they seem to have a better eye for talent and originality.

Find out where you can find this show and watch it. You won't be disappointed. It's another one of those shows that are amazing but need your support or it will go the way of the dodo or the Firefly.

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Don't listen to the critics, they're wrong again!!, 22 January 2006

Underworld 2 is an excellent sequel. Its by no means a perfect movie but it does manage to better the original or at least match it. In terms of its mix of story and action, this film combines the two elements quite well. Unlike the first, which i thought lacked the action that the previews promised and went too far in with the details. Which isn't always a bad thing but thats what expectations can do for a movie.

In this second coming of Selene and Papa Smurf aka Scotty Speedman, the Vampire nation is shaken by the deceit and secrets of their former leaders Viktor and Kraven. Selene and Michael are now on the run looking to escape their enemies which are pretty much everyone on the planet.

The movie starts off well with a scene detailing significant events that shed light on how things in the world have become and also shed light on Selene's family and past.

Underworld Evolution does an exceptional job of explaining the unexplained elements in the first installment, and also leaves just enough room and mystery for a third film to complete the intended trilogy. Unlike Matrix, this sequel was well planned and executed, and unlike the Matrix it did not have to live up to critical praise or commercial hype. The critics ripped this movie unfairly and they should really remove the object that was up their behinds and just try to enjoy this action packed popcorn popping' ride.

10 out of 10... only because it does what its supposed to well, without anything more or less.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Yawn, 16 December 2005

Yeah i just came out of the theater after watching this one and i had to get on here to warn people. Unless you're 10 years old or younger, avoid this movie and save your money. This movie can be best described as a made for TV movie with a bigger budget. Or perhaps it could be seen as a watered down kid's version of Lord of the Rings.

The first 3/4 of the movie was a total yawn. Character development is non existent as we are not given any insight about the personalities of the children at all, all we know is that they're children running away from the Nazis. Furthermore, what we do realize about these children are that they are quite the little runts. With exception to the the youngest child, Lucy, the rest are a bunch of malcontent, annoying, complaining, unworthy rodents. Edmond in particular is an obvious pain and i would not be misty eyed at all to see this little brat's existence come to thankful end. The older sister is annoying as well and there are several times during the movie where she was so annoying that you wished you could reach into the movie screen to ring her neck. I was not made to feel any sympathy for these two. The oldest boy, Peter was a bit easier to tolerate however still not worth a care. How could the viewer enjoy this movie if they didn't care for the main character's well beings? A very good question...

The story is seriously flawed and also share painful parallels to the triumphant Lord of the Rings movies. For example the death of their leader, who later is resurrected by questionable, and head scratching means. The big battle that seemed to be lost, suddenly saved by a last minute addition of troops. A character that does not wish to take their role as leader but afterwards taking up his sword and marching into battle... Please give me some credit... please give viewers credit... we are not morons, don't treat us like we are.

The inhabitants in Narnia also do no make much sense as they do not seem to be able to follow footprints. The White Witch (aka female Saruman) is all powerful, able to freeze anyone with a motion of her staff however fails to be able to dispose of a child who just picked up a sword 2 days ago for the first time. She forgets about all her powers and tries to swat him with swords. Which brings me to another point... how could children who were given weapons by Santa Claus and have had not previous training be able to battle in a war, be better able to lead an army into battle better then any soldier already in the army? Overall this movie was a real disappointment and falls short on many many levels.

4 out of 10

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Totally Underrated Movie, 18 December 2004

Nothing to lose is one of the most underrated movies ever. The jokes and humour are right on. This is what so many racial mixed action comedies try to do but most of the time fail. However, this movie does it right. The only other successful pair i can think of is from Lethal Weapon, and if anyone mentions Rush Hour, i am gonna backhand you... i kid you not. Tim Robbins and Martin Lawrence make a perfect pairing and in this movie, display a convincing comedic duel. I don't want to mention any funny parts so i don't ruin it for anyone but if you haven't seen this, you gotta make an effort to. Don't bother watching the TV version where they cut out all the good stuff.

10 out of 10

10 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Spider-man some more... please!, 10 December 2004

After being very impressed with the first one after some skepticism, Spider-man 2 is tackling a sequel with great anticipation and even greater expectations. The way Sam Raimi was able to produce the story of Spider-man with such style, realism and above all, faithfulness to the Marvel original comic is tremendous to say the least. The reason why it took this long to make a live action movie for Spider-man is due to the difficulties in making the action sequences look real and being able to connect all the side stories and characters in a single effort. Although it doesn't look flawless, it is still able to fool the eyes. The characters are also faithfully represented.

Spider-man 2 is a great sequel for many reasons. First it ties right into the original without skipping a beat. Set a few years after the original with all the same actors and characters. Though it differentiates itself enough from the original so you're not watching a clone of the first. It dives deeper into the psyche and the experiences of its main character in order for you to gain a greater understanding of his situation. At the same time it still provide great visuals, pulse pounding action sequences, humorous side sequences and breath taking special effects and camera work. This movies stands head and shoulders above all super hero comic movies. It delivers what a movie goer seeks and leaves them gasping for more. Immediately after viewing, I was pondering what they will do with the next installment and i am sure that the majority of the viewers were thinking the same thing.

The movie is strung together in a great sequence that never ever bores the viewer. The new villain gets a good intro which explains his situation in a neat and tidy manor. Doctor Otto Octavius is a perfect villain which is played and visually represented to perfection. The movements of Doc Ock are fantastic. It's just as i would have pictured it in my mind, if i could... while watching the cartoons or reading the comics. Only Raimi presents it in a way that connects the loose visuals in our minds with the visual reality (of course with the aid of computers).

Some may complain about there being too much story, too much Peter Parker and not enough action. One must realize that if it were the other way around, that you'd be complaining that there wasn't enough storyline. People are so hard to please. Even with this seemingly flawless movie people still find something to complain about. The only thing i didn't understand was the presence of Ursala, the daughter of Peter's landlord. What was her role in all of this?

Anyways, i just bought the DVD for this and realized that i should voice my opinion especially seeing how low of a score this movie got in contrast with what i would score it.

Action:10 Directing:10 Acting:10 Re-watchability(if thats even a word):10

Overall rating: 10 out of 10... bravo!

Bring on part 3 whoever the villain might be. Venom, Lizard, Gobblin, Scorpion, whatever. Heck bring on the sinister 6!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
When the wheels fall off, 9 December 2004

I am sitting here in utter disbelief after watching Blade Trinity...

Blade 1 + 2: Blade through the first two movies had consistently been a dark, edgy movie franchise and thats what made Blade interesting. The dark atmosphere that went along with the quiet, yet intense personality of Blade was in perfect balance. There was a bit of subtle humor here or there to keep it interesting but overall the atmosphere stayed consistent. The first 2 films had meticulously added detail and personality to ensure that even though this was not your average vampire movie, that its still had a realistic vampire feel with dark scary looking characters, and vampires that acted like they were superior. Believability is never been an issue.

Blade 3: (in contrast) The dark edgy atmosphere is gone, replaced with an techno style, teen flop feel. Blade isn't about humor, its not suppose to be funny. If it were suppose to be funny than they would have got Ben Stiller to play Blade not Wesley Snipes. The Nightstalkers are a joke. Blade even makes the comment that they're just a bunch of punk kids that dress like idiots. Well there's some irony in Snipe's lines because thats a key element(or flaw) that ruins the whole feel of the franchise. Ryan Reynolds was funny, i'll give him that. The sad thing is that people don't go to a Blade movies expecting a comedy. Vampire hunter: rough, tough, rugged, take no prisoners type of attitude. Night Stalker: joke cracking, techno bopping, careless, moronic. Its sad that Reynolds when to all that trouble to workout and look believable when everything else goes against that effort.

Blade 3 makes you question everything that happens in it. Like why are all the vampire henchmen/henchwomen all little punk kids or teenies boppers? Why would the lord of the vampires, Dracula, go running around the streets stealing babies? Dracula is suppose to be this all-powerful immortal, i seriously doubt that he would do such petty little things. Then again, why did it take this many years for the powerful vampire race that we have come to know from the first two movies, to find their lord and master? Dracula, or "Drake" (eyes rolling) looks like a backstreet boy, or some loser from the OC that pumped up on roids and has zero acting ability. For proof, reference that scene where he has a conversation with Zoe. I could just go on and on about this movies problems but i'll spare you the crap i went through by actually watching it. By the way, he goes down easier then Nomak and Frost combined... this supposed "lord and ruler of the vampires".

Blade is a shadow of his former self. Just his appearance alone looks cheapened. Just as a small indication, his vest which looked very cool in the first one is replace by a cheap nylon vest with straps and a cheap looking buckle. He doesn't have that dark quiet personality anymore and its as if Snipes isn't sure how to act in this new found personality. The there's the matter of Whistler. Who they brought back in the second, went through a lot of trouble to explain his return and was an important element of the first two. He just dies outta nowhere without much of a fight. What the heck is that!!?!?!!?

So what happened? My guess is that they finally said enough is enough, lets just make as much money as we can off the success of the originals and get the heck outta here. Snipes himself said this would be the last one. Just a pity considering the potential, the hype, and the success of the first two.

Directing: 0/10 Acting: 0/10 Action: 3/10 Sequel appeal: 0/10

General Score: (not an average): 4 out of 10. Had to consider how i would feel about it if i hadn't seen the first two.

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
The Princess Diarrheas 2: The Vomit Inducement, 11 August 2004

I am gonna feel really bad about this later because it was suppose to be such an innocent, fun loving film but heck, i'm gonna go ahead and blast this film cause i just can't help myself. WOO!

If ever there were a film that epitomizes the term 'chick flick' this is it right here. Step up step up ladies and gents, but fair thee be warned: The following ride could induce vomiting, nausea, and/or gagging.

Okay first thing that needs to get sorted out of this mess is the boomstick thing. I'm talking about the boom mic...we're not suppose to see it. I know i know, maybe this director wasn't paying attention in film school but i am pretty sure you don't need to go to school to figure that out. I mean damn, the boom mic shows up like every 5 mins. Even the kids in the audience were laughing at it.

The whole plot was like a fairytale, as it should have been. But perhaps they should have made it a cartoon. The sweet, lovey dubby parts were overwhelming and definitely too much to handle. You know when you see something so cute that it makes you sick? Okay, let me paint you a picture: You're in a huge room, its all pink and its filled with millions of teddy bears, fluffy pink boas, cupcakes, koala bear babies, and giant lolly pops. Put all that cute cuddly stuff in a bottle, squeeze till its in concentrated form and then spray it all over the silver screen. That would be the best description of it.

What does it feel like to watch it? I would compare it to being kicked in the stomach. Its the 5rd movie, (ahh yes nice to add to the collection)that i felt like walking out on. To top it off, we all got nice pretty cards with make up tips to make us all look like princesses. It even has a section that teaches you how to properly put on a tiara. Sailor Moon! Where art thou!

In conclusion, umm.... 5 PUKES out of 5. YEAH! BTW: Mortal Kombat Annihilation, Unbreakable, Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolution were the other 4 masterpieces.

Return of the Bling, 17 December 2003

There's nothing much to say about this movie, other than that it was amazing. Nothing else quite describes it. Fantastic ending to a fantastic story. The flow of this film was great. Not many slow parts at all. Gives you a sense of whole, or completeness that Matrix could not come close to. Filming these films all in one shot really gives it that advantage of making it all seamless unlike other trilogies or sequels that just don't measure up.

Another spot is anxiously waiting on my DVD shelf for this one.

10 out of 10...the perfect movie.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The Matrix...Retarded, 7 November 2003

It's November, and the mindless money grubbing FX machine has rolled out in full force. Now after i've seen this movie and taken a step back, i realized that its nothing but a money train running out of control; riding the previous success of the original.

The matrix is a mixed bag of bad acting, over-acting, under-acting, lame moments, over the top CG and a table full of muppets. Now before you call the crazyhouse to come pick me up, allow me to explain. The bad acting is apparent everywhere. Obviously, acting was not on the menu when the director and the casting director went shopping. Keanu Reeves can't act, i'm sorry. Scene after scene of stone faced Reeves cements that fact. Can he express any emotion other than, "Whoa!?". Next we have over-acting which can clearly be seen by the lackies riding the robots. Especially that fool, Captain "Constipated". Under acting is served up by Mr. Anderson once again as his stoned face is mirrored by Trinty. Trinty, who's finally put out of her misery. They have absolutely no on screen chemistry. Now for the lame moments, they were everywhere. I found myself laughing at many parts that i don't think i was supposed to. I noticed this from the entire audience i was with. From the stupid looks on the faces of Zionians to the stupid poses by Agent Smith. The computer graphics which looked alright in most parts was just too overwhelming. You can't make the backbone of a movie the CG. It looks cheap and fake. Case in point, the little slow-motion punch by Neo delivered to a rubber faced Agent Smithers. Also bad was the little drill machines that broke through the walls of Zion. You know what they looked like? I'm sure i wasn't the only one who thought this but they looked like little turds squeezing through and plopping down in the drain. Now whats more annoying than a civilization in peril, who are controlled by a group who does absolutely nothing to help, nothing to contribute but scorn and ridicule those who are trying to help? I'll tell you what more annoying, when they're looking like a table of muppets or circus freaks. Looks like someone freed the freak section of the matrix and let loose the circus of poor fashion sense. This "council" is nothing more than a table full of geriatrics with dreadlocks and hippie stink. They should have loaded a canon full of their useless hippie carcuses and fired them at the squids.

That brings me to another geriatric. Colonel Sanders, aka, the architect. When i saw him, i started getting cravings for fried chicken. How are we suppose to take this movie seriously when the dude who supposedly created the matrix looks like he should be on a bucket of fried poultry?

Now finally comes the count down to the "END"...that makes no sense:

1.The long struggle against the machines. Lets not forget, has been going on for centuries.

2.The programs which the machines created to control the minds of their energy providing blood sacks.

3.An actual physical war that is ongoing.

4.Insignificant rogue program that could have easily been erased. (lets not forget the story from the original where the original matrix was a paradise but didn't work, so they simply erased and created a new one).

5.Zion on the ropes and literally about to be crushed.

6.Neo the moron, strikes a deal with machines to terminate the rogue program. *Now lets take a look back* Why would the machines need Neo to take care of Smith? Why wouldn't the machines simple unplug the matrix and reset it? I guess were suppose to be too stupid to think that up. The writers obviously didn't give us much credit.

7.The stupid fight which ended with a stupid ending as Smith terminates himself, knowing full well that he was doing what he shouldn't.

8.Then the really dumb part comes. Neo had struck a deal with the machines. *Now lets take another step back* The machines hate humans and have eraticated them in the past, bringing them back as their food source. Now that 1 human has helped them swat a fly that they could have swat themselves, suddenly all is forgiven. Those who want to leave the matrix ,can and the machines suddenly allow their food to run away.

Now what should have happened in that situation by all logical thinking is that the machines kept on attacking Zion, crushed the resistence and continue living and thriving off the bodies of those who remain in the matrix.

What this movie failed to do, is it failed to accomplish its main objective. In part 1, the main objective of the resistence as we were lead to believe is to topple the machines and take back the earth. Have they done that? Obviously not. No they supposedly live in harmony with the machines who have enslaved them for centuries. The tag line was, what has a beginning, has and end? It should have been, What has a beginning takes a break, and we won't show you the end.

Lastly, a parting thought...Is this a Matrix movie in the sense that what we were served up in part one was "the Matrix"? Heck no. All the style is gone, all the flair, all the coolness. Its all gone. This and Reloaded were nothing more then taking what was "cool" and "hip" in the original and milking it for all its worth. In reloaded we were drilled by the martial arts and leather jackets, over and over again till we puked. In this installment we were drilled with the special effects.

ALL IN ALL: Nothing but a conglomerate of cliches and bad story telling.

1 out of 10

Bring on the King...The Return of the King!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The Mark of a good Director *POSSIBLE SPOILERS*, 25 October 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The mark of a good director is when the audience is given credit. The plot isn't dumbed down, or the film doesn't go out of its way to explain things that don't deserve attention. In that way, Tarantino has earned respect.

Initially i had my reservations about this film because of some of the action scenes i witnessed through commercials and what not. The fighting seemed a little stiff to me and this movie breaks a serious rule in my books by casting main characters as fighters or martial artists. I have to admit, fighting scenes in terms of choreography is very important to me when it is an element in a film. My philosophy is that you do not under any circumstance cast actors with no martial arts background in a film that requires them to perform martial arts. Its sloppy, choppy and only "showy" at best. Take for example Charlie's Angel 1 and 2, and the Matrix series. Given the Matrix did do a decent job, however i dare you to watch Keanu, then watch Bruce Lee or even Michelle Yeoh. Charlie's Angels highlights my point. The 3 main characters sicken me. Whats next? Are we gonna have Leo Dicaprio swing around nunchuks? Or how about Julia Roberts busting out wing chun moves? Not enough? How about J-Lo, (man, i hate that nickname) squeezing a sword with her rear end? The only mainstream actor who's a legitamate star who should be cast in these movies is Snipes. Snipes would have been good for a role in Kill Bill. He has that solid martial arts background and at the same time he is a solid screen presence.

None of the main characters have a real martial arts background, the closest being Lucy Liu. However my opinion of Liu is that she has almost become a pseudo asian, adding to bad asian stereotypes with every film she makes.

With all that said, I am not disapointed with the action in Kill Bill. Surprisingly the style holds it up. It was a little stiff but it has its style, its speed but yet it doesn't take itself too seriously so it makes things alright (spraying blood, like from an air pressured hose). I guess what i am implying is that they're not trying to become 100% authentic, and in that way they fail to insult my judgement on this topic. That deserves applause.

With the fighting aside the movie itself is outstanding. The style that Quentin brings to this movie is clever and cool but never to the point that it became cheap. I like the colours, the flair, the leads and the transitions. Everything was very smooth and nicely paced. The clothes are very cool, and the settings were eye catching. The only beef i have is the little references to the Great One. No not Gretz, Bruce Lee. Nobody wears the number 99 and for the same reasons i believe that nobody should wear the Yellow jumpsuit that Bruce wore in Game of Death and certainly nobody should wear the Kato mask much less a bunch of lackies. Unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that you can be as good as Bruce, (and nobody since Bruce has even come close, i don't care what anyone says, not Jet, not Jackie, gimmie a break) you don't wear the Yellow jumpsuit or any rendition of it.

I also like the little short anime scene. It brought out a lot of flare and its something only Tarantino would be creative enough to think up. It brought a nice little boost to the movie which already had a very good pace.

So...Kill Bill was good...See it


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