Reviews written by registered user
Tulsa90

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

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
39 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Underrated and Really Quite Good, 20 June 2009
9/10

I can't figure out why this movie is receiving such harsh criticism and low votes at IMDb. I really liked this movie a lot. I thought the story and acting were both very good. The plot was similar to one that might have made for a two-part episode in the original TV show. The chemistry between Scully and Mulder was obvious, just like it always was in the TV show. The only theory that I can come up with is that many people were expecting a plot for this movie that had something to do with aliens, or alien abductions, or UFOs, or the Smoking Man. The original series did not deal with aliens and alien abductions in every episode either. I think you should ignore the negative hype regarding this fine movie and check it out for yourself.

3 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Not on the List of Hitchcok's Best, 8 February 2007
4/10

The Wrong Man (1956) is one of a few Alfred Hitchcock films that has either not aged well, or was never very good to begin with. Vera Miles does the best she can with a shallow and poorly developed character. Henry Fonda is quite disappointing and delivers some of the most wooden dialogue that he uttered in his entire career as an actor. The movie starts off strong but gradually loses steam as nothing unpredictable or exciting ever develops or happens, (**possible minor spoiler**) unless you consider the wife's stunned disillusionment with the system to be exciting and surprising.

This dud also sports one of the corniest and most ridiculous scenes from any critically acclaimed film from the 1950's. The scene with Henry Fonda's character speaking to his oldest son about what is happening to him is just downright laughable. In fact both me and my Hitchcok loving movie viewing companion both totally cracked up during this overly corny and crazily smarmy scene.

Without question, this film ranks in the bottom five (5) of Hitchcock's career, and is possibly his second worst effort. It is worth watching just to see how such a brilliant director in his prime with proved actors and actresses, could deliver such a bomb.

Suspicion (1941)
12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Is this Movie not aging well or was it just plain bad to begin with?, 8 July 2006
3/10

There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.

However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.

After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.

The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.

"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.

Above Average and Entertaining Horror Film, 25 June 2006
8/10

I must admit that I rented Jeepers Creepers II for viewing during one of those trips to Blockbuster where I couldn't fin anything I really wanted to see. I enjoyed the first movie, but sequels are usually a big disappointment. However, I thoroughly enjoyed Jeepers Creepers II (and I), though I really think the sequel was better than the first film.

The character development is surprisingly solid for a horror film, and the creature is legitimately scary. I am very surprised by the low IMDb voter ratings for this film. When you watch a horror film with a monster or creature as the bad guy, you have to realize that the "monster" is not likely to be realistic. It is not intended to be plausible that a boogie-man exists, I mean it is a monster movie. You should put your disbelief aside and check out this film on a Friday night with a friend with all the lights turned off. It is very entertaining. Every one I know who has rented this film based on my recommendation has liked it.

Near Dark (1987)
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good Movie, If Your Like 12 Years Old and Really Bored, 6 June 2006
3/10

I finally got to see this overrated film after hearing about it for years. Anyone that claims that this is the greatest Vampire movie of all time has never seen another Vampire movie. The acting is pretty weak at times, especially from a young Bill Paxton. Even the often underrated Lance Henriksen is pretty bad in this dog. The story is reasonably interesting but the execution is uneven and stilted. There is a cheesy 1980's feel to the film and some of the scenes with Bill Paxton trying to act like a crazy vampire are downright laughable. I will admit that if you are 11 or 12 years old and having a slumber party, this movie is probably pretty cool. But if you are an adult who has seen a lot of good movies, this one will be a big disappointment. This is maybe the worst "liked" vampire film of all time. I gave this movie a 3 instead of a 1 because of the first 10 minutes, which is the only decent part of the movie.

16 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Overrated and Predictable Film with a Ridiculous Premise, 2 April 2006
4/10

I also watched this film for the first time yesterday. Jimmy Stewart gives another good performance as the small town lawyer, defending the husband of a hot local babe. The courtroom scenes were probably groundbreaking in 1959 but seem more than a bit ridiculous now. The duels between Stewart and prosecutor George C. Scott are often times forced and silly. Lee Remick gives a decent but slightly amateurish performance as the gorgeous and flirtatious wife of the accused husband Ben Gazzara. The film is directed by the legendary Otto Preminger and he did a good job of mingling the court room scenes into the rest of the story. However, the explanations of what "not guilty by reason of insanity" means, are so childish and illogical by modern legal interpretations, that the whole plot and story falls apart. In 1959 these elementary school level explanations about legal matters might have seemed adequate, but by modern standards it is just plain laughable. The ending comes a bit suddenly and this is definitely another weakness to throw onto the list. Really, this movie wastes some fine performances from the cast. The script is so bad at times and the court room scenes so silly and forced, that the movie just fails completely.

15 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Overrated, Awful, Amateurish, Waste of Time, 6 March 2006
2/10

The Night of the Hunter is an amateurish production of a predictable story that is as bad as a critically acclaimed movie can possibly be. How can any student of motion pictures and film consider this a classic? From the wooden delivery of the dialogue to the contrived and silly story, you reach a state of extreme and deep perplexity at what all the fuss is about. Even my boy Robert Mitchum is just plain terrible in this picture. He was a very underrated actor, and starred in some fine films and has provided some complex performances with layered depth in his characters. However, he is just plain awful in this religious-themed waste of time. In the first 5 minutes of this film you begin to realize that you have been mislead by the IMDb voters. My own theory is that the religious themes in this film appeal to people who are obsessed with religion, thereby causing them to enjoy what is really a bad movie. There are literally hundreds of old movies that are much better than "The Night of the Hunter" and it is a shame that this film is ranked in the IMDb top 250.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good Character Development and Fine Acting Performances, Lessened by a Weak Script, 9 January 2006
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have been wanting to see Touch of Evil for a very long time. I generally really enjoy classic old movies that are highly rated. We rented Touch of Evil from Netflix and viewed the movie on Saturday night. In my humble opinion this movie is overrated due to key sections of the story that are not believable.

Several of the characters are quite interesting and well developed. Heston and Welles are very good in major roles and Marlene Dietrich gives a fine supporting performance as Tana. Without going into too much detail and submitting a series of spoilers, there are some major holes in the story. If the bad guys wanted to threaten Ramon Miguel Vargas into backing off on his case against the other Grandi, there would be much more obvious ways to do this other than the unbelievable and really quite ridiculous method that was used. While the selected method allowed for some very dramatic scenes of Janet Leigh at the hotel, the premise for this major portion of the plot was silly and forced.

This movie is certainly worth viewing for the fine performances by several famous movie stars from this era, it ultimately is way overrated by IMDb users.

4 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Very Very Overrated, 29 September 2005
5/10

Wow, this is one of the most overrated movies of all time by the IMDb voters. The acting is wooden. The story is choppy. The plot is ridiculous at times. The basic premise of the movie is a good one, but the execution is poor. The English version is really bad and the use of subtitles would have been better. The friends and family of the director or producer or the actors must be sandbagging the voting process at IMDb, or the IMDb users are suffering from collective brain-lock. Don't waste your time with this dog. It is highly overrated. The director fumbled the ball. The editor was asleep at the wheel. I am out!

14 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Enjoyable Despite Some Flaws, 29 March 2005
6/10

I have seen this movie several times, since first viewing it when I was about 12 years old. It is on AMC tonight and I was just curious to see how it was rated by the IMDb crowd. I was a little shocked to see all the negative reviews. In fact many of the reviews are extremely harsh. While I must admit that this movie pales in comparison with Oliver Stone's classic 'Platoon' and other great war films, I disagree with the 4.9 average rating. While the movies has a few flaws, overall I find it to be worth viewing. David Jannsen was well cast and does a good job with his character. The Duke is the Duke. The parts with the little kid are a little over the top at times. But there are also some very powerful moments along the way. It is a little funny that this movie rates much lower than some really bad Hollywood films such as 'Look Who's Talking', 'Three Men and a baby', 'Child's Play', and 'Bride of Chucky' - to name a few examples.


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