Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
27 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Actually a pretty decent movie, 29 May 2004

Well . . .this was a complete fluke for me. I was at K-Mart with a friend, and I saw this for $3.49. I figured you could hardly rent a movie for that, and the plot interested me. Having lost a friend to suicide myself, I found the movie to be very honest and real in its emotion and messages. While some of the acting was pretty B-grade, it wasn't that bad considering the obviously low budget. AND I'm shocked to say Keanu Reeves wasn't at all bad--in fact, he was quite good (and I'm not a fan)! Overall, I'd definitely recommend this movie and say it was well worth the money I paid--in fact, I'd have paid more. I'm really pleasantly surprised (for once) and glad I got the movie.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
HAHAHA, 12 February 2004

I love how somebody said that Waiting for Guffman has a "cheap reference to Something About Mary." I seriously laughed my A** off! Waiting for Guffman was made in 1996, and Something About Mary was made in 1998. Think before you write such silly things. (hehehe)

BTW--One of the best comedies ever. I already wrote a rave review.

The Piano (1993)
3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
You people make me ill, 12 February 2004

Okay, notice something. Bad reviews: Americans. Good reviews: Europeans. There are several reasons for this. First of all, we Americans seem to find things like "American Pie" brilliant. This is because some of them are embarrassingly stupid. Just plain stupid. Secondly, European Cinema is traditionally not afraid to be . . .GASP! . . .DEPRESSING! (Oh, the horror!) or meaningful.

Get a brain cell before you ever try watching a movie like this again. Stick to Farrelly Brothers movies and shut up. Leave the rest of us who appreciate good cinema alone.

If you're reading this review--this IS a beautiful movie, but apparently some of the slower folk don't think so. "She don't even say nothin'! How could she win no oscar?" (say in George W. Bush-esque Southern Accent) Ignore them. If you recognize TRUE beauty, have any amount of intelligence and depth, and are not afraid to experience real emotion, please watch it. It's amazing.

um . . .ok??, 3 October 2003

Someone said that this film is for "diehard King fans." Well, I can tell you, I am a DIEHARD DIEHARD Stephen King fan. I love him, always have always will. I was a literature major in college and defended him to the end against literary snobs who think he's second rate. I think he's the best writer alive today. HOWEVER . . .that being said, I think this movie really sucked. First of all, most King movies either CAPTURE his voice, or they don't. This one did not even come CLOSE. It had none of his humor, sarcasm, or wittiness. It was just Terminator with a twist. The novel is so much better, with so much more depth. If you ARE a diehard King fan, read the book, but don't see the movie. It's a disgrace to the King. (hehe)

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
JOE PESCI???, 3 October 2003

I am just in shock . . .I know I have already commented on this film, but I just happened to look up the 1991 Oscars and realize that Bruce Davidson was beaten by JOE PESCI. What were they thinking?????? What a joke! Watch this movie . . .Bruce Davidson is amazing.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
outstanding, 25 May 2003

Some say this movie may be "malinformed," but the misinformation contained in the movie were things that people really thought or feared when AIDS first became a public threat. No one really understood what it was or how it was transferred, and the movie does an outstanding job of portraying that.

Secondly, someone mentioned that it is too sweet and corny in the way it deals with the gay couples. The point is this--if you saw a movie full of married heterosexual couples who were all dealing with something like, say, miscarriage, would you have reacted in the same way? I am so tired sometimes with the way movies recently like to portray gay couples as hedonistic party animals who are never faithful to one another and run at the first sign of conflict. The couples in this movie were what made me LOVE it. It doesn't really matter what gender/sexuality/race/creed/etc. people are . . .what matters is the way they show love to one another, and this movie was truly a beautiful example of that. I thought every relationship was realistic, and watching the movie made me feel so proud of all the actors, cast, crew, writing, directing . . .proud of EVERYONE who worked on this film, because it is truly an amazing testament to human love and sacrifice. 10/10

"Rose Red" (2002)
59 out of 87 people found the following review useful:
A Novel on Film, 25 April 2003

Someone said this was "too long" and made the comment that longer books don't translate well to screen. However, if they knew anything about Rose Red, they would know that it was never a book. It was written directly for the screen by Stephen King. As I watched the film, I kept thinking how much it was like a novel come to life! Then I was watching the featurette "The Making of Rose Red" on the DVD and Stephen King as well as the director said that it was really just a novel that was played out on screen. It is so true! I am an avid fan of King's work, and this film was a real treat, because it was just like reading one of his books. It it not SUPPOSED to be your typical 90 minute work (as King says, he feels like that is similar to stealing all the towels in the hotel room and then quickly packing them into your bag and sitting on it to try to force them to stay in). It is much more character driven and rich, and takes much more attention than a regular film does. That is WHY it was a 3 part series!

If you are willing to put forth the effort--and I mean this as a COMPLIMENT to the film, for it really is like reading a novel--then you will love it. 10/10 from me!

Holes (2003)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Thumbs Up---Way Up!, 19 April 2003

If you've read the brilliant book "Holes," by Louis Sachar, you will most likely agree that this movie was one of the best book to film transitions of all time. I was so thankful to see that Sachar also wrote the screenplay, because the story was great to begin with, and I did not want another writer to mess it up, frankly. From start to finish, this movie is excellent and completely captures the setting, characters, and feeling of the book. Especially outstanding was the actor who played Hector "Zero" Zeroni. I rated this movie a 10/10 and would recommend it to anyone who has either read the book, plans to read it, or can watch with an open mind and pay attention to tiny details because they will be important later on.

Barbershop (2002)
breaks all the stereotypes, 19 January 2003

This was a funny, poignant movie that broke all the usual stereotypes one tends to see in comedy. The characters were all vivid and real, and the acting was outstanding. Ice Cube was particularly good, as was Cedric the Entertainer. A definite must-see!

"Rose Red" (2002)
6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
great job!, 9 September 2002

This was an awesome classic King story. It was a lot of fun to watch. The acting was GREAT, esp. by Julian Sands. Some of the effects were awesome, and it wasn't cheesy (except when it was intended to be) And a super cameo by King himself as the pizza delivery man! All around good experience. 8/10

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