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

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A fun serial, 18 June 2003

It's better than a lot of the dreck produced today. It is best not to watch it all at once, but watch one episode a day. When I consider how low the budget was, and how long ago this was made, it adds to the appreciation of this.

For example, making a cliff face look like a plausible ice wall by opening the iris wide to let in more light. It's full of cliches - sort of. But remember, they weren't cliche at the time.

It is interesting that Ming seems rather reasonable in this - not the over-the-top monster we have come to know and loath - and love!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Great movie!, 18 June 2003

If you seek out old, cheezy sci-fi movies, you'll love this one. If you wouldn't be caught dead watching an Ed Wood movie, you may hate it. This movie does what it sets out to do quite well.

The Core (2003)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Pretty Awful..., 18 June 2003

It was a hot day, and we just wanted to get some air conditioning. This movie was pretty horrid, but the sad thing was that it was the best movie choice available.

If you took out the cliches there would be no movie left. And why is it that producers assume that science fiction fans don't mind bad science?

"Quark" (1977)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Cheesy Fun, 18 June 2003

I watched the Quark in 1978, and was sorry to see it go. It was fun to get the chance to watch it again. It does a pretty good job of spoofing science fiction movies. It fails a bit when it uses standard (for the time) sitcom gags.

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
I rally wanted to love this movie., 18 December 2002

I really really wanted to love this movie. I loved Fellowship, I found it nearly flawless. I give a 10/10 for the acting and the special effects. If I have never read the books, I would have been absolutely flawed by this movie. Some of the changes detracted from this movie, but not terribly.

But the fundemental changed made to Faramire (compare him in the book to the movie - not merely changed but the opposite) seriously undermined the whole plot of the trilogy.

Still, I have this an 8/10. On its own merits, it is excellent. But changes were made that weakened the story for no good reason...

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Plot holes you could launch a rocket through., 8 November 2002

This movie was made to cash in on the conpiracy buffs who believed the Moon Landing was a fake. I have heard from people who actually thought there was a fake Mars mission, not realizing it was a movie plot! The FOX special questioning the moon landing was a joke.

The first part of the movie drags by, and the last half is implausible. The conspiracy grows to greater and greater size, and the events are not believable. The black helicopters chasing the astronauts actually turn to face each other several times, as if they were people who had to turn to face each other to talk.

There are too many times that things are pulled out of thin air just to advance the plot. Cheesy, but worth seeing once.

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Fun seeing the Doctors all together., 23 October 2002

It would have been more fun if they could have gotten Tom Baker instead of just using a couple clips of him, but it was a very fun adventure. It also gave me exposure to some of the other Doctors that I had never seen before.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
I made the mistake of leaving my brain turned on while watching..., 23 October 2002

I gave this movie a 4, only because since I am still thinking about it a day after indicates that it must have something going for it. I had difficulty suspending disbelief while watching this movie. Perhaps I just couldn't find the post-apocalyptic world even vaguely plausible.

I also found the main character to be unsympathetic with no redeeming qualities at all. Perhaps it is just "PC" of me (Is anyone else sick of the people who parrot PC! PC! to any objections? That is simply another form of PC itself), but I just couldn't care about the main character, a nomadic rapist.

The underground society strikes me as the Morlocks and the Eloi rolled into one. The movie tries to deliver a critique of how repressive society can be, but since the main character is at least as despicable as the leaders of the underground society, the impact is lost. The main character's life as a nomadic rapist is hardly any better then the socially and sexually repressed underground society.

I also could not buy the idea that the relationship between the boy and the dog was a friendly one. "Albert" is rather cruel to the dog throughout the movie. I probably would have liked the movie, except for the final scene which ruined it for me.

I suppose someone might like this movie if they like sex with women, but don't happen to actually like women at all.

At least it is better than The Fandom Menace., 26 May 2002

It's better than The Fandom Menace, but that doesn't say much, just about everything is better than that.

It doesn't hold a candle to Episode IV, A New Hope (The REAL Star Wars). I do have to say it gets better towards the end, when it relies on action. One problem is the movie tries to explain to much, and the explanations just don't make sense.

Also, the love story just doesn't work. Anakin's seems rather psychopathic in his confessions of lust.

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Rather slow, and doesn't really star Jackie Chan., 26 May 2002

Jackie Chan is credited as the star of this movie, but he really is not. He is a major supporting actor, but not the star. It's just been packaged to highlight his name. I found the movie slow and rather boring. I enjoy watching Jackie Chan movies, but this one just did not hold my interest. Possibly because the movies he starred in were a lot better than ones where he merely appeared in.

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