Reviews written by registered user

Page 5 of 13: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
125 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Daredevil (2003)
Marvel's Answer To Batman, 5 March 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Four days and few user comments ago, I came to my own conclusion about "Daredevil". He may be extremely liberal and hell-bent on p***ing both the establishment and the underworld off but it didn't stop me from finding it to be an intensely enjoyable ride (It's kind of like telling a person who is obsessed with eating hot dogs the actual contents of a hot dog and that person still consumes them with the same ravenous intensity). Maybe it's my fatal flaw to love almost every movie I watch but I really liked both "Daredevil" and "Spider-Man". (Is that allowed? Can I like two movies that are ideologically different?). That is me I guess and I can't deny the fact that I am a blanket movie fiend.

Besides that, here are my reasons for liking Daredevil (spoilers herein): (1) Jennifer Garner was an excellent choice for leading lady. (2) Despite some lacking talent in the action hero department, Ben Affleck did suprisingly well as Daredevil. (3) Colin Farrell can play a creepy individual with the best of them (watch "Minority Report" too). (4) Michael Clarke Duncan has the best supporting role in my mind. He has the talent for playing any sort of giant (kind or mean). (5) The fight scene in the church was worth 20% alone of the movie admission. (6) The writing was exceptional. A few of the scenes in the movies were thought out and written well. (7) I found some deep imagery in this film even though was probably not meant to be that way. (8) I love dark films about dark heroes (Batman, Ghost Dog, and Spawn are a couple other sweet dark hero films). (8) A blind man as a superhero is an intriguing concept. (9) The cinematography was intense and (10) the art direction was unreal. 10 reasons means a score of 10.

A couple more thoughts. In my mind, Daredevil is already on its way to being one of the more underrated films of the year. I don't think it will ever eclipse the likes of "Spiderman" or "Batman" in box office draw or critical acclaim. I do believe that it will go on to be a cult classic and a film that will be one of my underrated favorites. It can't escape the shadow of either "Spiderman" or "Batman" but it is on a platform all its own. Here ends my rant!

It is Tenworthy, 16 February 2003

"About A Boy" is a comedy that reminds me a lot of a Wes Anderson film but it was directed by the boys from "American Pie". It turns that really good comedic director can make both smart funny and stupid funny films are worth viewing. There are ten reasons "About A Boy" is worth a trip to the video store.

1) Paul and Chris Weitz did a superior job of directing the movie. They are very versatile when it comes to the material they choose. 2) Hugh Grant had the best comedic performance of the year. It was also the best of his career. 3) Nicholas Hoult was extraordinary as the rather observant and somewhat smart-alecky Marcus. 4) The writing was is definitely Oscar-worthy. The proof is in the nomination it received. 5) The music is really good. Badly Drawn Boy was an interesting choice and the songs that were crafted were of superior quality. 6) The duck scene is a classic. 7) Toni Collette plays a great mother. This is her best role since "The Sixth Sense". 8) The story took an interesting twist on the child teaching adult formula and formed it into something palatable. 9) The cinematography is riveting and almost unreal. 10) The conclusion was nice to view and not sappy.

I think film is the best of the last year that I have actually seen. Hugh Grant is one of my favorite actors and I hope he continues to find roles that go against that romantic lead typecast he seems to be labeled with. "About A Boy" gets 10 out of 10! Here ends my rant!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
May Dead Poets Live On!, 15 February 2003

When "The Simpsons" comments on this movie destroying the profession of education, it made me want to watch it. This movie is good for ten reasons...

1) Peter Weir directs with a haunting hand and certain scenes show it very well. 2) Robin Williams blew me away as John Keating. It made me wonder why he didn't win the Oscar for Best Actor. 3) The story and plotting were exceptional. I didn't expect the suicide scene near the conclusion. 4) Ethan Hawke showed his early star power here as the silent student who wants to be a poet. 5) Robert Sean Leonard pulled in an excellent performance as the student wanting to do things his way. 6) All the supporting performances were well-done and not overacted. 7) The cinematography was crisp and clear. The scene with the bike going down the hill is the best example I can offer there. 8) This was a movie about a teacher inspiring students and I have a soft spot for films like this. 9) There is a good warning in film about actions having unexpected and very unintentional consequences. 10) The last five minutes are unbelieveable. If I were in a theater, I would have given a standing ovation.

With those reasons, this film gets 10 out of 10! "The Dead Poets Society" rules and may it live on. Here ends my rant!

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
I was worth the seven bucks, 12 February 2003

Unlike my earlier comments, the second installment of Harry Potter is surprisingly decent. Consider each reason that I type here is worth a dollar. (1) The adapted screenplay of Steven Kloves. The adaptation stayed faithful to JK Rowling's novel. (2) The rather skin-crawling performance of Jason Isaacs. I think this was his best role since "The Patriot" and the best supporting role in the film. (3) The film had excellent plotting. I was in awe at several unexpected twists the film took. (4) England's A-List reappeared again. Kenneth Branagh did really well as the self-centered Gilderoy Lockhart. (5) The art direction is still some of the best out there. (6) Daniel Radcliffe will be forever remembered as Harry Potter. (7) The special effects are noteworthy again.

The downsides are...(1) the length, (2) the marketing to those younger than myself, (3) the book will always have the upper hand.

Seven reasons make this movie worth the seven dollars. Here ends my rant!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Six reasons as opposed to three, 4 January 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have six reasons now that I like this movie as opposed to three (spoilers contained within).

The good reasons are... 1) Chris Columbus did a rather exceptional job of directing. 2) The art direction reminds me of "Brazil" and "Minority Report". 3) Daniel Radcliffe makes a great Harry Potter. 4) Many of England's A-List came out to play (Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris {he will be missed}, Alan Rickman, John Cleese, and Maggie Smith all did well in their respective roles). 5) The Quidditch Match was the best scene in the film. 6) The special effects are eye candy.

The bad reasons are... 1) The book will always have the upper hand. 2) The film was dry and drawn out. 3) The plotting suffered because of the marketing. 4) It was too simplistic as well because of the marketing.

Overall, it is much better than I made it out to be. I had to read the book to truly appreciate it but the book will always be better than the film in my mind. There are twice as many reasons that I like this film than before so I give this film twice the score. It gets 6 out of 10!

Here ends my rant!

Deterrence (1999)
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
I have ten reasons, 3 January 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have ten reasons why I like this movie (spoilers contained within)

1) Kevin Pollak stands out as possibly the best actor to have played an American President in the last several years. 2) Timothy Hutton and Sheryl Lee Ralph played the Presidents' top aides to the letter. 3) I am a sucker for exceptionally plotted tales. 4) I really like the circumstances that made up the movie (such as the snowstorm forcing the President into the diner and a nuke ends up landing within fifty miles of his location). 5) One bit of dialogue nearly made me cringe at the thought of nuking of Baghdad. 6) The direction was superb. 7) The introduction of the movie is unreal (I liked the interweaving of the ex-presidents speaking about war with current events). 8) The feel of "Deterrence" is rightfully unnerving. 9) The ending came as a bit of a surprise. 10) I really like films that can easily spark emotional and philosophical among those who have viewed it.

By stating the number of reasons I like this, I have a better basis for scoring. I give "Deterrence" a 10 out of 10!

Here ends my rant!

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Revenge with a razor edge, 18 December 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have a few revenge films and the two that stick out the most in my mind are "I Spit On Your Grave" and "The Count Of Monte Cristo". Unlike the former, the latter is much less disturbing and sadistic. The latter is also better acted, better written, and better plotted. Herein lies small spoilers. "The Count Of Monte Cristo" may not be the seminal revenge novel but it is the best known and best of all time. Several film adaptations have been made and this one is quite possibly the best (it is the only one I have seen). Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce are currently two of the best method actors out there. Jim Caviezel turns in an excellent portrayal as the once naive but eventually embittered protagonist Dantes. Pearce plays the slimy and evil antagonist Mondego to perfection. Both performances were reminiscent of some of my favorite films (Caviezel in "Frequency" and "Angel Eyes" and Pearce in "L.A. Confidential" and "Memento"). Watching these two battle wits to the point of using swords is almost seat-gluing. The eventual sword fight at the end of the film will go down as one of the classic scenes of all time. After viewing "The Count...", viewers should smile as opposed to feeling guilty because it is fun to see a man get deserved vengeance once in awhile. I really like "The Count Of Monte Cristo" and I give it a 10 out of 10!

PS: If the best revenge is served cold, is the worst revenge served warm? Oh well, here ends my rant!

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Even renegades have ethics, 18 December 2002

Juxtaposition is a big word that means side by side usually for contrast. A young surgeon named Black Jack is a juxtaposition in my mind. What other word could you use to define this complex character? He is an unlicensed miracle worker who believes a doctor must save all patients before him even if it means going toward unorthodox lengths to do it. "Black Jack" is a quiet an intriguing film. Like other Manga-based films, it is loaded with graphic content and enough philosophy to make a person think. The subject tackled in "Black Jack" is ethics and medicine. "Black Jack" takes a rather mind-numbing approach (graphic scenes of surgery, stunning and warped animation, philosophical banter, clever writing and direction, and a twisting plot) to drive home a powerful point. Sometimes, the renegades are more ethical than those who make the rules. "Black Jack" is a quality medical thriller that would even make Robin Cook want to watch. I give this film a 10 out of 10!

PS: Sometimes animation drives home a point so well that one won't easily forget it and that is one reason I like it. Here ends my rant!

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Brian is a small satire with some bite, 12 December 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's about time I wrote my defense to what I stated earlier and in here spoilers will be contained.

I did watch the opening scene. I thought it was hilarious and downright funny. I loved the way the Wise Men mistakenly went to the wrong place. Brian's mother tried to keep the gold with minimal success. I know that wasn't Jesus lying in that manger, it was Brian. Throughout the rest of the movie, Brian keeps finding himself intersecting the path of Christ wherever he went. His story is more of dumb luck/fated consequence unlike Christ's story.

Let me make this clear. This is satire/comedy and I know it is satire/comedy. For me though and me only, I was horrified by the last third of the film. I personally hold Jesus Christ on a pedestal like many others do and they do want to see anything bad happen to him. Imagine someone took a person, object or issue you personally held close to your heart and satirized it. It could be very hard for you to view. I love satire on organized religion as much as anybody else but I personally feel that the life and spirit of Christ cannot be contained in someone's interpretation (forming one's own religion based on teachings and life of Christ) so I find the satire hard to watch. Christ has many, many, many followers and they dearly respect them. I truly understand why they were up in arms back when "Life of Brian" was released.

I understand satire to be a creative commentary on some particular issue. The user who broke my comments down suggests that I didn't know that this was a satire. Satire needs a basis and the Four Gospels were the basis for it. Like I said earlier, it is hard for me to deal with that (I guess I am opening myself for being targeted, so fire away!). On other subjects, I don't mind satire but when it comes to Christ's life as the basis and even though he is not the central character, I find it hard to swallow.

One more thing, I never suggested that we return to the Inquisition. I would want to strangle myself I ever suggested that. My point was along the lines of banned work. Works like "The Divine Comedy" were banned because they suggested things that went against the Catholic Church and "Life of Brian" is a direct challenge (whether they meant it to be or not: I am thinking not!) to the authority at that time if it had been released at that time. Since "The Church" was in charge at the time, they did not have a sense of humor and people were savagely tortured to the point of death (the boys of Monty Python could have suffered like that). I am suggesting that the world in our own time is more accepting of to the thoughts and words of satirists and comedians than ever before. The Inquisition was retributive in ways I cannot fathom. The methods they used that I can fathom make me want to die. I would bury myself in a garden plot with a funnel over my mouth to breathe as just a small punishment for suggesting "a return to the 'good ol' days of the inquisition'. The Inquisition was as bad as those suffered under the likes of Amin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler (insert others here if you can think of any). May The Inquisition Forever Stay Dead!!!

So, in conclusion, I find "Life of Brian" to be a funny movie for the first 2/3 and it heads steadily south by the end on my above reasoning. I think the boys of Monty Python have created a comedy/satire that will forever stand the test of time. Many, many, many movie lovers love this movie. I think it is a great comedy myself in several ways (jokes, writing, direction, acting are well-done). As a movie, it entertains but as a satire it fails. I give this movie 8 out of 10!

PS: Jesus Christ has whethered satire before and people have cheapened the Crucifixion and Resurrection in ways I cannot imagine and those cheapenings have been much worse. All in all, "Life is Brian" is somewhat small in the scheme of things.

Here ends my rant!

The life of an altar boy can be dangerous, 11 December 2002

"Dangerous Lives" is an interesting peek into the real life on an altar boy. There is more to these youngsters than just being an acolyte. The two main characters played by Emile Hirsch and Kieran Culkin are altar boys who are trying to grow up in a world surrounded by uptight clergy and tough households. They escape into the world of comic book fantasy so they can keep their sanity. The movie has a pace that purposely meanders because I believe it is told from an angle that tries make the viewer perceive it as reality. The story is relatively refreshing for this genre (comparable to "Y Tu Mama Tambien") and Todd McFarlane's brilliant talent for animation edifies the story even more. I thought the cast did an excellent job with their chosen roles. My favorite performance went to Jodie Foster as the "evil nun" (I found her character is very easy to sympathize with). For what it was, I loved this movie. I give it a 10 out of 10!

Here ends my rant!

Page 5 of 13: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]