Reviews written by registered user
|9 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Look at all the people praising Al Gores self promoting propaganda! All these people giving 9 or 10 stars to this film saying that it's fact based without discussing said facts. Of course I'm talking about "An Inconveniant Truth! " I finally got around to watching this stinker and had to comment. The aforementioned reviewers must be DEMOCRATS who would praise any film that promotes their party. First Mr. Gore says that this is a moral issue, not a political one, then he proceeds to dis the other party and show clips of all the politicians who argued against his theories and spoke out in campaign rhetoric against him as he was running for political office (all republicans). I give it 4 stars for bringing about public awareness on an important issue, even though it simply would have been used to help him if he had decided to run for President, I personally thank God that the founder of the internet didn't run again! If you want the truth about global warming read what a scientist (like Michael Crichton) has to say, not a politician. (If Al Gore is elected global warming will stop! Yeah big Al!)
This is the best made amateur Christian film of all time! It is the true story of preacher David Wilkerson who felt called by God to go into the city to help the troubled gang members. The acting can be uneven at times but the direction was very well done. Eric Estrada is excellent as Nicky Cruz. The biggest problem with this production is the musical soundtrack. The story is very good even if the dialog is somewhat hokey. All in all a good solid entertaining film that should convert even the toughest of skeptics. It realistically deals with what life on the streets is all about. See this movie, you'll be glad you did!
One thing most of the commentators do not point out is that this film was released, not just the same year as "Return of the Jedi" but the very same month! So. Of course the film was destined to tank! I don't know what the producers were thinking but they should have waited til "Jedi" had run it's course and then released it! Sci-fi fans wanting more might have made this a successful film! Peter Straus is not just a poor man's Harrison Ford he does a real good job in the title role of wolff, Molly Ringwald is sometimes irritating but still endearing in one of her first film roles and the android Chalmers should definitely have had a bigger role all in all, the action is well handled and the pace is smooth, see this if your in the mood for some escapest fun!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I give this episode 9 stars for being excellent overall! It is one star short for one glaring problem, it never explains why the crew didn't send a shuttle craft to pick up Sulu and the landing party! The real reason of course is probably because the Shuttlecraft as a prop had not been created yet! However, this is Star Trek's take on the Jeckyll and Hyde concept and I think it was brilliantly handled by all concerned. William Shatner as the more mild version of Kirk, or the weaker half, excels, while his stronger half, or more aggressive side has to be subdued! The script does this in a way that we can relate to on a personal level. The makers of the Superman series would do the same thing to the man of Steel in Superman three, and although Christopher Reeve's performance is also a tour DE force, the final solution of the "Good" Superman chocking his "Evil" half, is not as well realized as it would be in this Star Trek episode, the side that was more passive would not have choked anyone or done harm to anything. So Star Trek, in my view, dealt with this story line in a more believable manner.
Looking at all the people who praise this film on the IMDb I find it hard to believe! This movie is terribly made! (And I'm a Martin Scorseese Fanatic!) This is one of two Scorseese films that I did not like! The majority of actors sleep walk through their roles (With the exception of David Bowie, who is the best thing about this film!) I do not condemn this film because of the controversial elements, after all, it does not teach that Christ did have an affair with Mary Magdalene, only that he was tempted to! (The Davinci Code, on the other hand...) I give it four stars for an attempt to show the human side of Christ! I applaud Scorseese for wanting to show a part of Christ that most people don't want to see, the Human side! But I feel that he went about it the wrong way, (The right way was with Jeffery Hunter in "King of Kings") the film moves very slow, which Scorseese films seldom do! This shows me that Scorseese was unsure about what he was doing, I believe the man has a faith in God, but that he was afraid of the possible negativity that the film would generate, therefore his usual pacing and brilliance did not shine through, I wanted to like this film, but I'm sorry, good ambitions do not a wonderful film make! I think that all the praise on the IMDb are people who are happy that Religious people were upset by it! How many of you have seen it more than once? Not at the box office, as the numbers would indicate! (Mel Gibson's film, on the other hand was seen by enough people to put it into the top ten money makers of all time!) I have seen most of Martin Scorseese's films many times, but this one I could barely make it all the way through only once!
Other than Jeffery Hunter in "King of Kings" no other actor comes as close to the Biblical Jesus than James Carevizel (Spelling is wrong, I know) This film is a testament to the faith of Actor Mel Gibson! No one in History has produced such a moving portrayal of Christs last days on earth because, even though many of them are well meaning, it is obvious that they don't have the faith to pull it off! Many Christians do not think that an actor should portray Christ at all, therefore many Christians did not see this movie! I respect their beliefs, but personally disagree with them! I don't find this performance blasphemous at all! I think other people of faith should be making movies! They would do a better job than those without faith! I think it is a shame the way that Hollywood has treated Mel Gibson, simply because his views are conservative! How is this film anti-semitic? why did Entertainment Weekly find it to be the most controversial film ever made? (Wasn't Martin Scorsesees "Last Temptation of Christ" More Controversial at the time of release?) MGM released two pictures on Christ's life "King of Kings" and "The Greatest Story ever Told" and they also show the Jews Killing Jesus, for that matter so did "Last Temptation" Which, according to those in the media, must mean that Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer and Martin Scorseese are anti-Semites as well!
I have seen "King of Kings" many times and I consider it to be superior to "The Greatest Story ever Told" of course I am A star Trek fan so having Captain Christopher Pike play Jesus may have influenced me a little bit! I think the acting is a plus and the film makers sincere in their portrayal of Christ! It moves a bit slow, but it is the definitive film on Christs life up until "The Passion of the Christ!", but wait a minute, this film shows the Jews Killing Jesus too! this must mean that Metro-Goldwyn-mayer are anti-semitic! After all, if one film maker is anti-semitic for showing the Jews Crucifying Christ, aren't they all??
I must admit that when I first saw Superman IV at the box office I knew
that it would flop! It was so badly made by the Cannon group and Sydney
Furie! Even with the low budget it had to work with, I think a good
director could have pulled off a more successful film! We have three
"Superman saves Lois Lane" scenes, in the first film we have the
helicopter scene which was edge of your seat suspense! and an awesome
special effects scene in the pre-CGI era. The Eiffel tower scene in
Superman II, almost as awesome! another edge of your seat suspensor,
then we come to Superman IV, the Subway train scene, which I almost
fell asleep through! come on Sydney! what were you thinking? If Richard
Donner had made this film, it would have soared! The subway scene could
have been suspenseful even on the low budget the crew was given to work
So, you ask, why are you giving this film four out of ten stars? Because of the story, the performances of Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman and the over all fact that I was glad to see another Superman Movie! The ideas that went into this movie were great! Superman tries to save humanity from itself! Perry White looses the Daily Planet to a competitor! Superman fights a villain created from his own DNA! If the filmmakers had anywhere near the passion for this material that went into the first two films then it would have been a very entertaining Superman movie! and it may have been the first Superman film to break 200 Million at the Box Office! But, it was not to be! I was hoping that there would be five Christopher Reeve Superman films and this film, sealed that fate! I have seen the new Brandon Routh Superman and I feel that the new filmmakers have a passion for the material, but the films story is weak! The special effects were top-notch and the cast is great! But I think the story ideas for Superman IV are actually better then the story ideas that went into Superman Returns! (However, it's good to see a Superman film in the hot 100 selling films of all time again). I would like to get all the film shot for Superman IV and find the special effects team for Superman Returns and get them to take out the bad special effects and re-do the Special Effects through CGI! How much would this cost anyway?
The greatest adaptation of a marvel comic book until the first Spiderman Movie! The Incredible Hulk Television series was great but was not faithful to the source material the way this cartoon was! Many people comment that the animation does not stand up to todays standards, well tell me, nay-sayers, what animated show from that time does? Lets compare this one to other animated shows of that day (40 Years ago)Let's say, Marvel Superheroes?!?!? how about Superfriends? The action and pacing on this Spiderman show was top, notch. The Action and pacing on Superfriends was slow and plodding. Yes, they over used animation cells more than the bigger budgeted super friends but they knew how to do so in a way that made the show have a visual style all it's own, and the over all feel of this 40 year old cartoon is better than any superhero cartoon before or since! In my view! I still love watching this one as much now, as I did then, and I'm 44 years old! The last time I tried watching Superfriends, I fell asleep!