Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 13:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
125 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

5 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Muslims Good, Americans BAD!, 21 January 2006

I always love reading reviews of anti-American movies by anti-American Americans who will almost always claim a movie is "brillaint" and "needs to be seen" just as long as the story has a string of anti-Americanism in it.

America is bad! Bush is evil! The world would be a better place without America in it! The only thing missing from "The War Within"? Poor Muslim children being beaten with clubs by Evil American CIA agents. What, don't you know? All CIA agents are eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Why, if it wasn't for America and the CIA, the world would be one big happy village! A regular campfire where we could all roast marshmellows and whatnot.

Remember, kids, Muslims Good, Americans Bad! CIA Evil! Bush dumb! Brilliant!

6 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
The Crow -- Stuff Ballotting, 30 June 2005

Eh, a kinda bad movie, with not a whole lot to recommend. I dunno what they were thinking, but this barely makes up for the last one (with Kirsten Dunst) which was just awful. Anyways, I give it 3/10, cause it's so bad it's almost funny.

The really funny thing isn't even the movie, but all the "Crow" lovers (or are they Furlong lovers?) stuffing the movie with Perfect 10 votes. At last count, there were over 60+ votes for a Perfect 10. Either these people have never seen movies in their life, or they're stuffing the vote to keep the movie's score above 5. I'm going with the latter.

Then there are the comment stuffing, most likely by the same people stuffing the grade voting. Take a look at the 6 or 7 people who comments in a row, all of them with glowing reviews of the film, but here's the kicker: IT'S DONE BY THE SAME GUY/GIRL!

How do I know? Here are some evidences:

1) The "username" is a first name followed by random numbers. 2) They've only commented on one movie in their whole life -- this one. 3) They're all list "United States" as their location. 4) The reviews are all one paragraph, no more. (They're not only cheaters, they're also lazy!) 5) The fake reviews are all in the same time period -- I think half of them were in the same day!

Well, that's it. I thought it was funny, that's all. This movie should be a 3 in the grade scale if not for all the stuffing. It's really not very good.

7 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Tis Okay, but Sort of Below Average, 2 April 2005

This is another okay/maybe-below-okay action-comedy from Hong Kong. Stephen Fung doesn't really show any ability behind the camera, and really, any fight choreographer could have done all the fighting stuff for him. The script is pretty lame, not to mention as original as "Agent Cody Banks". The fights are okay, but you've seen them before in so many other movies, it's not even funny. Anthony Wong is the best thing about the movie, and choosing a villain that is confined to a wheelchair is the worst decision EVER. Overall, I'd give it a 2 out of 5. I wouldn't waste 90 minutes of your life on it, and I really wish I had waste 90 minutes of mine on something better. "House of Fury" is just too plain and uninventive to waste time with.

Shutter (2004/II)
15 out of 61 people found the following review useful:
Been There Done That Don't Want the T-Shirt, 2 March 2005

I absolutely positively can't believe my fellow IMDb reviewers. All the praise about how "original" this movie is, it's like they've never seen "Ring" or the million of imitations that's come out in the 10 years since that movie. And some of them claim to be horror movie buffs! I think not! "Shutter" is okay. Average, I'd say. I give it 5 out of 10, but there's just no way it's original and great and "the most frightening thing I've ever seen" as one reviewer said. Puh-leeeze, people. This one is plain. It's predictable.

I swear, if I see another ghost movie where the hero traces the past of the ghost in order to find out why she's so mad and after them, I'm going to scream.

"Original"? Give me a break. You people need to get out more. Or at least stop calling yourselves "horror movie fans".

25 out of 68 people found the following review useful:
Over 100 "1" Grades for this one -- and only 1% have seen it, 28 December 2004

Or probably less. Let's face it, kids, the fact that over 140 Michael Moore Worshippers found their way on this board to grade the film a "1" should tell you all you need to know: That Michael Moore sycophants HATE this movie, not because they've seen it, but because it dares to poke fun at their Dear Leader (sort of like how North Koreans will shoot you if you deny that their Great Dear Leader is a God, etc). Or at least they HEARD it pokes fun at their Dear Leader, thus it can't possibly be good, and thus they MUST DESTROY IT NOW!!!

Such is the state of political "discussions" in this country. If it speaks out against your "side", then it must be evil, and must be destroyed! But if it speaks for your side, then it is untouchable!

In fact, the sheer amount of childish posts in the movie's message board, particularly by one "fukwan", should tell you all you need to know. If you don't think Michael Moore is God's Gift to the Truth, then you'll probably like the film. It's funny and entertaining, and is in no way a direct attack on Moore, just as Moore's earlier documentaries (you know, before his "documentaries" turned into "propaganda" for "his side"?) were.

As such, the title is a bit misleading, as it really doesn't try to convince you that Michael Moore, in fact, hates America -- I suspect that's just a clever way to get the movie some PR, and it worked! Whatever your ideology, you must admit that the sheer volume of "1" grades for the film is ridiculous. No movie in the history of the world, probably, has gotten more "1" than this one, and the poor, sad fact is, that 99.999% of those "1" graders haven't even seen the movie. They heard the title, heard a bit about the film, and immediately attacked it like rabid dogs, determined to rip apart the flesh of the man/movie/thing that would dare question their Great and Dear Leader.

It reminds you a bit of a cult, doesn't it? These Michael Moore fanatics?

11 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
Not an iota of originality in its big, bloated head, 5 December 2004

Seriously, I don't know why they even bother. This film basically transplants every single cliché of the genre and throws it into one big melting pot, slap on a big budget and glossy look, and expect people to fall for it. If you're a clueless schmuck you'll be scared.

If you've seen even ONE little Asian horror in the last 10 years, you'll liable to roll your eyes and think to yourself, "Geez, can't they even try to be a little more original? Oh, look, the ghost has her long hair drooping over her head again. And oh look, she's doing the 'slow look up to reveal her ghostly eyes' gag again."

In fact, the whole movie consists of the ghost appearing with her hair over her face then slowly looking up to reveal her eyes while the director throws some "scary" music at you. Seriously, folks, it's almost insulting just how unoriginal and cliché this movie is.

Paparazzi (2004)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Average Movie, Dumb "Commenters", 17 November 2004

This is an average B-movie, and like all B-movies, if you approach it right, it's bloody entertaining. That said, I found it curiously entertaining that some of the "reviewers" on this board (you know, those guys that spend 3 or 4 days writing their reviews?) hate this movie not because they hate THIS movie, but because Mel Gibson's name is attached as producer. LOL. One guy was gay, since he mentioned Gibson's name and politics about 90% of the time, and the other guy just hates Gibson. Dudes, this is a fun B-movie. Get over yourself and stop polluting the board with your childish rants against people you've never met, and will never meet in your life.

That said, Cole Hauser is the da man. I like this guy in PITCH BLACK and I like him here. Tom Sizemore is so good as the ruthless photog. Bloody hell, these guys make this movie!

R-Point (2004)
9 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Good, but not scary, 11 November 2004

I've heard people comparing this film to APOCALYPSE NOW. Puh-leeze. It's a good little psychological thriller, but it's not scary at all, or very deep for that matter. PRetty straight forward, in fact. I liked the lead, but the rest of the soldiers basically crumbled into little pieces when the sh*t hit the fan. I mean, these guys are supposed to be hardened soldiers that have been in Vietnam for years? They act more like little girls! Also, the filmmakers wanted to have it both ways -- make it a horror movie, but also as a psychological horror (i.e. is it real or not?) Etc. But he kept showing things that undermine his own point. Why did we keep seeing things from the ghost's point of view? That ghost girl? Then at the end, he tried to give us a twist ending. This movie reminded me of THE BUNKER, which was pretty good, and had almost exactly the same story as R-POINT. Except THE BUNKER came first, so who stole from who? I give it 6 out of 10.

10 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Familiar, Clichéd, Overwrought, and WAAAAAAY Over-hyped, 1 October 2004

I don't think TAEGUKGI is a bad movie. In fact, I love war movies. Maybe that's why I can see all the film's faults, since most people who have seen it (you'll noticed that the bulk of the giddy and over-the-top compliments for the film are from nationalistic South Koreans -- that's never a good sign) seems to looooooove it, I just had to throw in my two cents.

Okay folks, here's the thing. YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. You've seen it all before in RYAN, in THIN LINE, and done at least 50 times better in BAND OF BROTHERS. Heck, even the TV movie LOST BATTALLION has already done this! So where does that leave TAEGUKGI? Well, not much ground to cover, that's for sure.

And here's my biggest nitpick with the film: if these soldiers got tossed into a train and drove immediately to the battlefield (i.e. NO BASIC TRAINING!!!) how the heck did they learn to fight, shoot, and even lay mines??? I mean, one guy is a shoeshine boy! The rest are just regular civilians! How the heck did these guys go from shoeshine boy one day to Rambo the next??? It doesn't make sense. And NO ONE has mentioned this.

Hey, maybe I've just seen all this before, but don't try to sell me hype and tell me to like it. I've seen this film 100s of times before. Just because it's made by a South Korean guy doesn't mean it's super brilliant and original, guys. Get a grip and wake up.

Saved! (2004)
8 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Kids love this movie, 1 July 2004

Well, kids and anti-religious movie critics, anyway. Mind you, I'm not very religious myself, have gone to church exactly once in my life (I'm in my 20s) and that was just to get some free gifts on Christmas, and don't plan to pray to anyone anytime soon. I didn't see THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST because bible stories bore me, and I don't particularly care for those guys in the white shirts and black pants that seem to ride their bikes everywhere trying to "spread the word".

Having said all that, SAVED! is a very anti-Christian movie. Oh sure, say what you will -- "It's a satire!" or "It's a comedy!" But satires need some measure of respect, even a little bit of fairness, to be effective. This movie was full-on Christian hatred. Look, folks, as I said I'm not a Christian, Catholic, or anything, but even I, as a non-functioning member of the world, can see bias representation when it hits me in the face. And SAVED! couldn't even be troubled to try to hide its agenda.

In other words: if you hate Christianity, you'll love this movie. If you happen to believe God exists, you won't care for it.

Other points people have brought up are legitimate: This movie gets praise only because it bashes Christians. Try any other religious group and you'll get mass protests. Of course you wouldn't SEE HOllywood bashing any other religion except Christianity. In Today's America, Christianity is the only accepted religion to bash. Me personally, I think all religion is stupid.

Nuff said.

Page 1 of 13:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]