Reviews written by registered user
izzy-19

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

5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
This gets a non-committal "eh", 6 April 2005
5/10

I was told by several friends to go buy this sight unseen. "Don't bother renting it. Just buy it." Boy, am I glad I didn't. This movie was average in the extreme.

On the plus side, yes, the animation is excellent. The close up facial features and attention to detail is fantastic. Jason Lee's voice work was excellent, as well. However, the story never really took off. I wanted more time spent on the children, giving me more details about their problems so that when they came into their own later in the movie, it would mean more. I didn't get it. Worst of all there was very little humor. In the past, Pixar has been known to have a good dose of wit in their movies. This one had almost none. Had I gone in knowing this was 99% drama, I probably would have been much less disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, this is still a pretty solid film. It isn't really "bad" by any means, but it is just not as good as the hype would lead you to believe.

1 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Horrendous, 6 January 2005
1/10

In the past I have warned others to avoid this hilariously bad movie. Now, with the popularity of this Rufus Wainright guy growing, I feel I must once again spread the word. Do not see this film. Don't go looking for it. If it is on TV, read a book. I'm telling you, the acting, the plot, the pacing, the very look and feel of the film are straight-up BAD. I had to air it over and over again at a television station, inflicting this travesty on the unsuspecting viewing public. Even cheap-o fare like "The Retrievers" and "Castlerock" were better than this, and they were not good.

One other warning. Don't go looking for it thinking "If it's this bad, I GOTTA see it." Trust me, it isn't even good as a joke. You will be angry you wasted your time and money. If you see it at the store, leave it be. Don't touch it. Don't even look at it. Just keep walkin'.

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Possibly the most boring movie ever, 29 December 2004
2/10

If you like noir movies you MIGHT like this one. Otherwise, I would stay away. I'm pretty sure 90% of the people who like this movie are Coen fans who would like anything that they do, no matter how unwatchable, and defend them to the death.

There are a couple of positives. Tony Shalhoub is always good, no matter what. Scarlett Johansson is good but it was distracting for me how much she looks like Laura Prepon in this movie. Oh, and the first couple of minutes were alright. Beyond that, sheer boredom.

The Coens are just too hit or miss. Big Lebowski - my favorite movie Raising Arizona - also good Fargo/Oh Brother - barely watchable, incredibly overrated Man Who../Ladykillers/Hudsucker - soul-numbingly dull

If you like Man Who Wasn't There, good for you. But I just can't recommend this movie to anyone. According to the current IMDb rating I'm way off here, but I still think it's a movie only a select few people can enjoy.

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Excellent, 25 November 2004
9/10

You could do way, way worse than this for porn.

This is arguably my favorite porno. If you dislike Selena Steele, pass. Raven is the worst part of this film and that's a good thing. Selena + Raquel Darrian = near perfection. If you need guys, Rocco and Randy Spears are in it. Randy is the man.

There's a circle jerk with Zara Whites in the middle. This freaks some people out. Zara is hot, so don't focus on the guys. This shouldn't be a problem.

Look, very simply, the women are very hot and the sex is well shot. The plot makes Zero sense, but who cares? If you're looking for early 90's style porn, this is it.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Timeline: boring, exciting, bad, 21 October 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all, if you've read other reviews, you know about the goofball editing. And, yes, it's that bad. Just because it looks good in the opening credits doesn't mean you need to do it throughout the whole movie. The whole two and a half hour movie. So, be prepared to be annoyed there.

Next. Fifty minutes to set up the relationship between Denzel and the kid? Come on. I understand wanting to provide a little extra time to show how and why they care about each other, but it is just too much. Move it along.

Also, the ending is just bad. I'm not going to put in a spoiler. I'll just say that the ending goes against the premise of the entire two and a half hours that came before it. It's just not good.

On the plus side, the revenge stuff in the second half of the film is excellent, minus the crazy editing. I was even willing to set aside the fact that I had to wade through 50+ minutes to get to it.

I wanted to see this in the theater and everyone I know who saw it really enjoyed it. There is some good stuff in there, but there's a lot of bad that you have to put up with, too. Ultimately, I can't recommend it.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Sorely disappointed, 21 October 2004
3/10

I was incredibly excited to see this movie. When I heard about the puppet sex in the film, that was a sold ticket right there. Unfortunately, when I saw it, I was incredibly let down. I went in ready to laugh, and while I did find much that was amusing, I laughed out loud only three, maybe four times. The songs are good, but short, the puppet movements and reactions are funny for maybe the first fifteen minutes, and the political/social points they are trying to make just get muddled. The social commentary in a 25 minute episode of South Park is much more clearly realized than it is in this feature-length film.

Speaking of which, other reviewers have said that if you like the South Park movie, you'll like this. I disagree. South Park: BL&U is in my top five funniest movies I've seen. The timing and voice work is far better in the South Park movie. Plus, the social/political issues they tackle in it are done in a much funnier way.

I really wanted to enjoy this film. Maybe it was the crowd I saw it with. They didn't really seem into it, either. Like I said, it was amusing, so it isn't a total waste of time. I'd say it's a solid rental for most people, but I never need to see it again.

3 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Yes, the production value is that bad, 5 October 2004
2/10

When others here say that this thing has cheap looking production values, believe them.

Beyond that, I still don't see what everyone loves about Neverwhere. The story doesn't seem particularly original or interesting and the performances weren't too hot, either. Maybe if you live in London and know the locations they are referring to, you can get more out of it. Unfortunately, I do not.

Between the laugh-inducing freeze-frame editing during monologues, the poor video quality, and the goofy music, I had to fight my way through disc one and refused to watch disc two. I read that even Gaiman didn't like it. I certainly can't recommend it. In fact, stay far away.

Paradise (1997) (V)
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Eh, 5 October 2004
5/10

You could easily do worse than this title if you want a Vivid mid 90's style title. You can pretty much tell what the tone and style of the movie is going to be just by who is in it.

While a previous reviewer watched it for Holly Body, I got it for Avalon as I'm a big fan of her softcore work. She is ridiculously hot and was vastly under used in hardcore titles, including this one. Holly Body isn't bad, but the best scene for me actually turned out to be a Jenna scene with TT Boy of all people. Beyond that, though, it's a pretty average title. Curse of the Catwoman might be a better choice, or maybe one of the Night Trips titles unless you're dead set on seeing one of the performers in Paradise like Jenna.

Like I said, you could do worse, but you could do a lot better, too.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Honestly not that bad, 28 October 2003

This girl goes through the worst weekend ever. It is comical the number of things that happen to her in two day's time.

I was in fear of watching this. I more or less had to. I actually found myself drawn in. By no means do I think this was great. I'm just saying that if there is nothing else on or you have nothing else to do, you could do worse than this movie.

If all else fails, the lead actress is easy on the eyes.

Blood Work (2002)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Predictable, 22 August 2003

I have never been so far ahead of a film in my entire life. Once everything was established, I had the entire thing figured out from plot point to plot point. What would lead them to the next clue which would lead them to which particular next clue, etc. Fantastically, stunningly predictable. The entire time it was, "get there faster!" I still watched the whole thing, though. It was still watchable for Clint, and especially for Jeff Daniels, whom I usually don't like.


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