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]
31 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Given up after 45 minutes, 16 April 2006

Well, although generally not a fan of thriller / horror movies (unless they feature truly intelligent story accompanied with superb film-making) and I am even less fan of psychological thriller movies, I have to say that this movie disappointed me even more than average of this genre. As I read the final resolution of the movie here on the forum I find the entire story totally unbelievable, Robert De Niro's acting under his average, the dramatic music absolutely overused throughout the movie (perhaps they needed to tell us when we should be scared, because otherwise some situations in the movie would not work at all) etc.

Do not waste your time.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Plot holes spoil this above average movie, 28 July 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw the movie yesterday in one of Prague club movie theaters. First I had to give credit to the movie for overall good atmosphere, cinematography, music and acting. I was about to give 8 or 9 rating to this movie. After a second thought however I was forced to lower the rating due to the holes in the plot. As pointed out by other commentators here:

(a) it is hardly believable U.S. secret service agents would be as lame as they were in this movie.

(b) it is hardly believable that the murder attempt of Matobo president would be punished just by expatriation, under most legal systems the murder attempt is generally punishable by the same sentences as complete murder. And also, did not they say that she had a double citizenship? If the second was U.S. citizenship, the expatriation is impossible, you cannot expatriate the citizens of your own country.

(c) the bus ride does not make sense at all.

(d) i hardly believe that the opposition leaders would attend meetings at the abandoned stadiums without any military cover in the country where killings are on everyday's order.

Well, I must say that the said plot flaws are regrettable because the movie is good in other aspects. However, the plot is of great importance in this genre and therefore plot holes deserve decrease in rating.

So I gave 7, however rather weak one.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Movies like this should come in U.S. and European editions, 9 July 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First, I have to say I was completely astonished by this movie. It is dark. It is crude. You can really believe the horror of the characters. Great music, camera, effects, everything, Tom Cruise as the lead is top notch. So far, I would say I was watching a 10/10 movie. However, there are some things that make me to subtract at least one point. First, THE ENDING. Why THE HELL? Ummm.... well, it is a waste of time to point out that the Hollywood endings can totally screw up entirely awesome film, as they did million times before. I really think movies like this should come with different U.S. and European editions. U.S. edition could have cheesy sentimental endings like this movie and European edition could end... well, the worst thing is, that I can exactly imagine where the movie should have ended - beware of spoiler here - do you see it? The hand of the dead E.T. comes out of the tripod, some music comes in, maybe a shot of Tom and the girl, and here come the end titles. I would be more than happy with the ending like this, which would not undermine the atmosphere of the movie.

Also, I think that bloody weed thing or whatever it was and ripping that guy towards the end of the movie were unnecessary, the movie would be better of without this scene.

As I said, otherwise perfect. I would not be surprise, if Spielberg gets another Oscar for this.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Very strong piece of work, 9 November 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


It would be fair to say at first that I generally do not like so called "romantic" movies, unless they convey an authentic feeling with which I could identify. And I must say this movie gets it big time. First, I very much like the way it portraits the cultural shock. And second, I just cannot believe Hollywood can make an ending like that. I do not want to spoil it but I really expected that he will at the last moment turn away and run to her and stay with her forever :))). It is something like Pavlov's reflex because I have seen so many movies in which the ending would be exactly like that. Therefore I must praise the folks who made this for not fulfilling the usual expectation. Plus the lead actors very both very good and the music was very beautifully crafted.

My overall rating is a very strong 8 (of 10).

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
How great it is to watch movies on a PC!, 6 August 2004

Well, I cannot praise enough watching movies on PC. Back in the old days when folks used to go to movie theaters and had to pay hard $cash$ to watch movies anyone hardly ever stood up and walked out of the theatre in the event movie sucked. From this point of view watching movies on PC certainly represents a huge progress. I usually give movies 20-30 minutes and if they do not manage to entertain me within this period I simply shut it down. Charlie's Angels are quire remarkable in this respect, the movie was shut down after 10 minutes of watching. I think no further description necessary, if there was a vote for the most stupid movie of all times, this could be a hot candidate(it is even a lot worse that Part 1 which at least managed to be funny at some points, but the in this one the gags are entirely lame).

Maybe someone would give this movie a chance because of the easy-on-the-eyes chicks in it, for that purpose I would rather recommend to buy a Playboy!

1/10 (only because there is no zero vote). AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

21 Grams (2003)
93 out of 159 people found the following review useful:
One step short of movie heaven, 4 July 2004

This movie is very, very good. Unlike some others I do not think the unchronological storytelling hurts the movie, on the contrary I think that the pieces that the viewer has to put together in order to get the picture of the whole story just make it more interesting.

On the other hand, no matter how good the movie actually is it is one step short of masterpiece. It is like you are climbing to heaven but you cannot make it over the last step. The story is good, the filming is good, the acting is good, but there is still SOMETHING missing for this movie to be added to my hall of all time faves. Maybe it is the music, this film does not have a strong score, maybe all the components do not add up well together... It is hard to describe why, but I was not as stunned as I usually am after watching movies I rate at 10.

Thus, I was deciding between 8 a 9, finally I voted 9 but it is a rather weak one.

Zelary (2003)
24 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Even better for the second time, 23 November 2003

When I originally wrote this comment, I predicted Zelary are on their way to Oscar for the best foreign motion picture of 2003. As we now know, this prediction was wrong. Nothwithstanding that, I have to say that when I saw this movie for the second time on Czech TV on 1 January 2006 I have absolutely no reason to change a word in my below comment. Perhaps the strongest 10/10s I have ever given.

I may be a little bit biased observer, since I am Czech local, but there are many great Czech films. The problem is that a vast majority of them are not understandable to international audience because they deal with specific Czech matters and the storytelling is primarily aimed at Czech audience. Then they are few that avoid this trap and may be interesting and appealing to movie viewers across the globe. Zelary definitely pertain to the latter group.

It happened by coincidence that I have seen two great movies somehow connected with World War II in a very short time. First was the Pianist a brilliant work of Roman Polanski, second is Zelary. Although may not seem so at first sight these two movies have a lot in common. The similarity lies in the basis of the story and in the way the story is told. Both these movies successfully try to portray awful times of World War II through a human destiny. They tell a story about human whose life was broke into pieces by war. Pianist Szpilman must have been hiding for several years, the main character of Zelary, Hana, must disappear from the city and attention of Gestapo to rural mountain forgotten area. Both survive, Hana in addition finds a new life.

But enough of comparisons, Zelary are also distinguished for wonderful cinematography, perfect music and excellent acting of the recent top-class Czech and Hungarian actors. If this movie ever comes near you either to the movie theater or on DVD or video, it is definitely worth while. 10/10

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Why the best movies of the year hardly ever get an Oscar?, 28 October 2003

Well, I am kind of used to that the best movie of the year never gets an Oscar recently (save for Forrest Gump and American Beauty of course). Most flagrant mistakes of the Academy are their choice of Titanic over As Good as It Gets in 1998 and awarding Chicago over the Pianist in 2003. And the worst thing is that the Schindler's List which is in some points similar yet worse than the Pianist was awarded. Well there is no justice on earth.

Anyway, the strongest point of this movie is the story. The survival of a jewish top pianist through the dreadful WW II in Warsaw, Poland. Of course, there have been numbers of movies like that but this one is so beautifully crafted that it leaves trails in your memory forever. After seing a movie like this one must be assured that the atrocities of WW II must never be forgotten.

Couple the wonderful story with a great acting and cinematography and there is a masterpiece and you bet this one is. Go see it, because words are not enough here.

10/10 - It is a no-brainer.

You can never make two great movies based on the same recipe, 2 February 2003

Well, this movie is not bad. The problem is that it is directed by THAT guy (Sam Mendes) who achieved such a success with American Beauty. And the way the things are portrayed in the movie, the atmosphere, even the music resemble his first flick so much that one cannot avoid the comparison. And here it all comes to an conclusion that this movie lacks the ONE thing that makes the American Beauty one of the best movies ever: Clever, strong and realistic story. The story of Road to Perdition is weak and illogical in some points, in other words it is always bad when it is apparent that the things in the movie happen just because otherwise the movie would not make sense at all. The unbelievable characters do not add any points in favor of the movie either. The strength of American Beauty was in its believability, the movie was so stunningly real it made me shiver. I did not have this feeling when watching Road to Perdition, it was replaced by questions like why? and really?

I was convinced the whole movie through that I will rate it at 6, however finally I chose to upgrade to 7, for two reasons: First, the music. Thomas Newman, who was also one of the writers of music to American Beauty did a wonderful job here as well. And second was the ending. Although it was quite predictable at least the ending did not screw up the whole movie like it is quite common in Hollywood made movies nowadays.

Final word: 7/10 but the story is very weak 5.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not as bad as some people here say, not as good either, 23 November 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


Well, this is not a serious and compelling war movie like the Platoon was. Rather than that it resembles Saving Private Ryan in many ways. We need to thank these movies for one major thing. They portray the war in the naturalistic way. I can imagine someone may walk out of the theater after seeing some scenes of this movie, but hey, the war is even hundred times more gross than any movie can be. But starting with Saving Private Ryan, the trend to unleash the evil spirit of war and bring it to the movie screen started and this movie continues in it, and does pretty well. Also I liked, that the movie did not try to bring up any philosophical aspects, just shown the plain war, nothing more but also nothing less. Also the music is well written and accompanies the movie nicely, particularly I liked the main song.

But then there comes the bad stuff. And that is the plot - well, although I definitely must give some credit to the writer for leaving out the usual Vietnam controversy stuff, there are numerous other unnecessary scenes, such as American flag waving in the highest emotional scenes, it has been currently some kind of fashion in the movies of this type, but is it REALLY THAT necessary? Also the scene with the soldiers gathering at the airport in the middle of the night to leave for Vietnam - come on, give me a break! And final, and the worst - why the heck Moore first leaves two thirds of his men die in the hellish battle and then second day suddenly calls for the airstrike? Does that make ANY sense whatsoever? And then, am I the only one who thinks the soldiers behaved like monks in the monastery? No f-words, no profanity. Would that really happen in the situation like that? A bit unrealistic, at least for me.

So the conclusion - I have to praise this flick for the portrayal of the hell of war. But I also have to put it down for unnecessary scenes, unrealistic political correctness and some flaws in acting. Lets break it even then - 5/10

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