Reviews written by registered user
The Spectacular Spider-Man

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

Page 5 of 7: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
64 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Hurried, half-assed and slapdash, 2 August 2001

You know when you have to get a job done, say some homework or tidying your room, and you just can't be bothered to do it properly? What do you do then? You cut corners, you rush the job just to get it finished. The end justifies the means. Well, that's what happened on Superman IV. Everything comes down to how rushed this film was. The special effects especially are the sort of last-minute 'at least it's something' crap the BBC used to put into Doctor Who. An inexcusably lame movie, and yes, it even reaches the level of awfulness of (dun dun DUNNN)....Batman & Robin! On the other hand, this is the only bad Superflick ever made: Superman, Superman II, Superman III, the pilot movie for Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and the animated The Last Son of Krypton and The Batman/Superman Movie are all decent Man of Steel entertainment.

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
The unofficial Bond flicks are SOOOO bad, 1 August 2001

I just can't believe this film. It's incredibly, deliberately slow, more intrested in dull light comedy than thrills and adventure. The entire Bond mythos is given a bizarre working class make-over. The weak action scenes are staged like they would be in the 60's, especially the loooong fight scene in the health club. Sean Connery doesn't really play the 007 he made legendary, he plays a grey-haired parody of himself. This entire film is a comedy, more like Casino Royale than any other Bond flick, and more like a TV movie than any other big budget film I've ever seen. Bond films are supposed to be thrilling, spectacular epics. Never Say never Again is a boring, slow, and above all, LOW-KEY. Why on Earth would you make a Bond movie low-key? Unbelievable.

But the shark scenes are somewhat impressive.


DO NOT GIVE AWAY THE ENDING! Tim Burton...what can you say about this guy. He just keeps coming up with spectacular, off-kilter films that no-one else could. Batman, Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and now this stunning re-vision of a sci-fi classic. To be honest, today's youngsters aren't likely to watch a film from the 60's anyway, so it was quite acceptable, and logical, to update it. And what an update! This and Jurassic Park III and going a long way to making up for the lame-ness we've had so far this summer. DO NOT GIVE AWAY THE ENDING!

Bafflingly popular, 28 July 2001

The cult success of this movie is puzzling to say the least. A plotless series of ridiculous gore effects and slapstick violence is what you'd find in a Troma movie, but director Sam Raimi tries to mix it with real horror in the style of Night of the Living Dead and ends up with a disconnected, awkward and bizarre mess. But James Cameron went from Piranha II to Titanic, Sam Raimi has gone from this weirdness to Spider-Man - a very uplifting thought, no?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
No way!, 24 July 2001

I had no idea it was possible to make a film this bad, let alone with a decent cast and a huge budget. Absolutely extraordinarily bad. I pity anyone who thinks this film may be enjoyable, because anyone NOT entertained by simple spaceships and explosions will be tearing their hair out that this insult to humanity was ever made. A disgusting piece of crap.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Why do people like this?, 22 July 2001

What you'll find in Charlie's Angels: - Simpering - Hair-flicking - Giggling - Matrix-style kung fu - MTV directing (no shot lasts for more than three seconds)

What you won't find in Charlie's Angels: - Characterisation - A storyline - Depth - Anything to think about - Acting

Even as popcorn entertainment, it's shameful that such a film could be produced. It's a 2-hour mix of things that are popular, not a film in it's own right. It's disgraceful and quite saddening to see the movie industry reduced to this sort of thing.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One of the best action movies ever, 19 July 2001

Sure, this is more action than plot. But is that a problem? There IS a plot, and it's far more complicated than in most actioners, the characters are far more developed than in most actioners, and the acting is far better than most actioners. And most importantly, the action is better than most actioners. This is absolutely loaded with intense destruction and violence - NOT JUST REPETETIVE SHOOT-OUTS. There are car/motorbike/helicopter chases, fist fights, airplanes, missiles, ships, martial arts, everything than you could possibly want. And it's throughly exctiting and satisfying, with proper HEROES who you can root for, who deserve to win over evil.

We've all seen Bond movies now, so TND cranks the explosive action up to 110% and let's it off in the viewers face. You've seen Terminator 2, right? This is the same sort of thing. Massive, intense action, far and away better than any other Bond movie, and up there with the greatest action movies ever made. Don't let other reviews fool you; this is superb entertainment.

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
How utterly, utterly dispiriting, 19 July 2001

After the classy, complicated Mission Impossible, which mixed a mysterious, cloak and dagger atmosphere with genuine tension and thrills, how typical the the follow up should let down. All the intelligence and style of the original thriller is gone. Instead we have John Woo's stale style that is as over-exposed as it is over-rated. Ask yourself this; do you really want to see Tom Cruise shooting people in slow-motion for two hours? REALLY? Because that's what this is. If you want a real espionage spy thriller, go for the superb original. If you want a proper action movie that doesn't just involve the 'hero' shooting down hundreds of people, go for Tomorrow Never Dies.

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Inspired - at first, 29 June 2001

Ali G is the most original comedy character to come out of Britain since Alan Patridge. At first, on The 11 O'Clock Show, he was a stupid, uninformed waster, who wanted to be a black rapper, who thought drugs and violence and rap were cool because his friends told him so. An all-too-acurate parody of British youth today, and hilariously funny.

But when Ali G became popular enough to get his own show, it all changed. No longer was Ali a fool; he was somewhat of a hero for the kids who tuned in. They never understood his humour, nor where they mean to; this is 20-something cult comedy, and should have remained so. However, thanks to his new-found fame, Ali actor Sasha baron Cohen turned Ali into a character you laughed with rather than at. He was in on the joke, and instead of making viewers laugh at today's youth, he made today's youth laugh at the rest of society. It's still funny, but no way near as clever.

It's a shame that such a great concept has been so diluted, but hey, that's what happens when cult goes swimming in the mainstream. Atleast Cohen's other character, Borat, is as unchanged as he is hilarious.

Beowulf (1999)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
WOEFULLY BAD, 24 June 2001

I am astonished that anybody could give this film the thumbs up. It is appalling. An amatuerish mess with absolutely no redeeming qualities. It isn't even a proper film, it's a pathetic attempt to make a film by copying Highlander, Mortal Kombat and other low-rent, high violence fair. Very cheap actors on a cheap set shot by a very cheap director.

Please do not watch this. I guarentee you will be disgusted.

Page 5 of 7: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]