Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
68 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
A fine piece of cinematic history, kind of like Re-Animator, 18 August 2006

The thing about Snakes is that people forget it's not all in the name. Everyone is in on a joke. Everyone wants to tell you the joke as fun as possible. This is is the movie in a nutshell.

Nobody cares about the plot holes, or even the most insanely crazy snake vision thing (yes, I said green-tinted snake vision). Nobody cares about the main characters besides Samuel L. Jackson, or the fact that we only see Eddie Kim (guy who puts snakes on plane) at the start of the movie, or the fact that some of the people on the plane are just as hilarious as Jackson's continued one-liners.

Besides Sam Jackson, the flight attendants, and a few other random people, some of the other main characters have maybe two lines in the whole film, which I find kind of funny. There are LOADS, LOADS of one liner quotes throughout the ENTIRE film, some of them laugh-out-loud hilarious.

Director David Ellis knew what he was doing. He knew exactly what crowd he was looking at for this movie, he knew exactly where to put the T and A. He knew where to put the jokes. He knew that having snakes bite people in obvious places would get viewers to laugh instead of cringe, and he knew how it would change the characters in the end.

And you know, as bad as some people might say this movie was, that was kind of the whole point of the thing. But the difference between a terrible movie and a good B movie is that everyone associated with the film knows it's bad, and they end up having fun with it, which, in turn lets the viewer in on the joke.

That's where it really counts. If you had seen a trailer and were not blinded by the internet fandom, thinking this might be some kind of serious film, re-think your options. This is campy and hilarious, the kind of movie it was supposed to be in the first place.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Avast! Craploads of characters, but Jack keeps some of it in check., 7 July 2006

Ah, Pirates. The movie of the summer, I'd imagine. Regardless of whether this thing is going to get good or bad reviews, people are going to go in droves to this thing, and they should.

The best parts of the movie were self explanatory, really. For me, and for most people it was Depp again, but I saw that coming. This seemed to be another one of those "The movie is alright but his performance makes it grand" thing, only not so much as say Secret Window or the Ninth Gate where he was 'making' those movies completely good. This one had a strong cast, but at the same time had a whole huge load of a supporting cast, and could make anyone paying half attention to the story easily confused (like the person sitting beside me).

It had some great CGI things with the evil pirates from Davy Jones' ship, and the little story involved with Will Turner and Bootstrap Bill was introduced quite well, because it gave both the viewer, and the people involved that "out of nowhere" feeling, so it was easily identifiable. They do tend to pack a whole crapload into the first hour or so, just to have that 'wrapping up' feeling to make sure that you're following along from the previous film, which seemed to be the same as the first hour of Superman Returns (which was only 4 minutes longer. Howabout that!). But like Superman Returns, the rest of the movie following that hour is smooth sailing until it's hang-ending that you can see coming from a mile away if you're paying full attention to the film and not just staring at Captain Jack and waiting for him to do something funny. Oh, and Keira Knightley's in this movie too. I forgot that. She's cute, and mostly lost in the shuffle behind all of the other massive amounts of characters that are there as a seemingly effortless (but actually not quite) plan of wrapping everything up in the third film.

The one thing I do like above everything else about number two is how much darker it was. It wasn't the happy, almost always sunny movie the first movie was, this was something a bit darker, a bit scarier, and a bit uglier. That's how it should be, and they pulled that off beautifully, savvy?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
The most disappointing., 27 May 2006

When comic books turn into movies, there's always an element lost in translation, a storyline that gets touched upon, parts that get torn out or missed, or even completely ignored. It's part of the whole formula that makes it cater to broad audiences that don't read comic books, that always have fans of whatever series is coming to the screen upset that specific parts are left out.

And that's where X3 leaves me. When I'd heard that they were visiting the Phoenix story in this film, I wondered how exactly they would be able to fill a whole movie with the story, and not let most people down.

The basics of the story are covered, sure, but the character issue is there, that half of the things that would be important had they been signed on for more than three movies are completely and utterly tossed aside.

Now, I can live through that. But what I can't live through are the lines given to Halle Berry. She said she wouldn't sign on unless she had more lines, they say. It's funny, because the lines they've given her are almost exactly the kind of terrible one-liner clichés that she'd had throughout Catwoman, and I found myself shaking my fist every time she came to the screen.

So terrible, so very terrible.

On the other hand, there were some really great parts. Beast (Kelsey Grammar) was fantastic, Logan was great, Shadowcat (now that she has LINES!) was great, and Magneto was also fantastic. The rest of the characters were boring, silly, stupid, and not very much fun to watch.

This my friends, is the worst of the three movies. Plot flies by with nary too much weight, story lines don't develop very well, and some of the fight scenes are boring.

Sad to think that when I'd told people I'd seen this movie that I was more excited seeing the trailer for Snakes on a Plane, than actually talking about the movie.

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Bruce knows why we like him., 13 May 2006

Ah, classic comedy. At the point in the movie where brains get messed together, a two minute scene with Bruce Campbell beating himself up partially, reminds me of how simplistic movies and ideas can grab you and wrap you into a whole movie.

For years and years, Bruce Campbell knows what kind of movies we want out of him. We want to see weird movies like Bubba Ho Tep. We want to see cameo roles in Sam Raimi movies, and we want to see 'Man with the Screaming Brain'. With the title alone, one knows that it's going to border that completely silly type of movie, like Army of Darkness, only with more silly and less monsters.

The idea of the movie is simple. Bruce sees doctor. Doctor has new idea. Bruce gets bad things happen to him on way to see doctor. Coincidentally, it's the thing the doctor wanted to show him that saves him. Hilarity ensues.

With the addition of Ted Raimi as a weird Russian guy, and journeyman Stacy Keach as Dr. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, it's funny, that does this movie. Complete funny. Never a point of scary.

If you like the silly Bruce Campbell, you'll like this. Then again, why would you be watching this if you didn't like Bruce Campbell?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A bunch of Eh., 13 March 2006

The Libertine is that kind of movie where you watch and go "eh". You laugh at some parts and you smile at some parts and some parts amaze you, but all in all it's not really that great. It resembles Secret Window, kind of, where Depp carries the movie, and where you go into work the next day after thinking about the movie and you say to yourself "There was a lot of really strange stuff in that movie. It's okay. It's not bad. But there were so many large phallic symbol items!" I'd recommend seeing it if you're a Depp fan, because he is as he always is. His face, even when he's doing the smallest things on screen beg you to look at it. But overall it kind of drags in many spots, and flies all over the place. You never get the feeling that there are many characters outside of the Earl of Rochester in the movie. Everyone else is playing a significantly smaller role.

There's no doubt it's about Rochester, but to have a stronger associated cast would've probably made all of the immensely weird portions more bearable, and sensible, even.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
More fun to watch than anything Costner ever did., 9 January 2006

There have been many film versions telling the tale of Robin Hood and Maid Marion. This is my second, and favorite, so far. It's a much better telling of the megathon that starred Kevin Costner, because it seems more down to earth than the other. Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn are a fantastic screen duo playing the pair, as if their chemistry had been borne much beforehand. The story follows the Merry Men much later in life, re-visiting the roots that brought them to where they are, bringing back the band of old folks, and fighting again for glory against the same old enemies, and though the plot never dictates to follow anything but a few main characters, and that's okay by me.

A strong outing all around.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A good starting place for new fans to Hepburn, 6 January 2006

This is about the fourth or fifth movie starring Audrey Hepburn that I've had the pleasure of watching. Charade was really what turned me on to her brilliance, and some of her other roles just had me hooked. Strange then, that I was keeping this for a little later, as I've only ever been told that this is her masterpiece, this is the movie that everyone knows her by, this is the movie that will really make you believe? Unfortunately, for me I found myself a bit disappointed. Unlike her earlier roles in Sabrina and Funny Face, where she was treated as a child, she would hardly act as one. But I'd found that Breakfast was really a childish type movie, trying too hard, you know?

And this movie really is all about Hepburn. She is the focus of the complete film, and everything pretty much revolves around her, but it seems to be just a little bit out of focus. As if everyone's running around with heads chopped off to make it seem better than it could be.

I would have probably enjoyed it more had it been earlier in her career. But with all of the movies surrounding this one that were released (pre and post), it just seems like a disappointing middle-part.

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A fun movie about making a movie that looks more fun than fun can be., 4 January 2006

Interesting summary? I haven't seen many films that include people making a film, where the ideas that come out of the making of the film, go into making the actual film. Come to think of it, I don't believe I've seen any kinds of films like that.

This is a fun movie. It's a fun movie because Holden and Hepburn make it so. It's a sound plot idea, but could have had so many outs into being terrible with the wrong people acting in it, but the whimsical nature of both stars here make it an entertaining romp through Paris.

And I do believe it's one of Hepburn's more underrated movies. She's as fantastically drawing here as any of her other roles. One of the only actresses that I can remember in my history of movies that you end up just ogling on the screen, your eyes never leave her, because she makes you feel everything she's going through so well, that it's effortless.

A great movie to sit at home and watch on a lazy summer Sunday.

4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Stalwart Mitchum makes the best out of the bits, 4 January 2006

I must admit it to myself and everyone else, that I've always found Marilyn beautiful. Who hasn't? She's a poster child for everyone who's come along since. But up until now I actually hadn't seen one of her films.

And on that note I must say, that it's not a very good place to start. Co-Starring Robert Mitchum, this movie is slow on most counts, which is kind of odd to say for a movie that doesn't actually hit the 2 hour mark. It's drudge though, is at least paced by the regular, strong performance that Mitchum's put through in every movie I remember ever seeing him in.

Marilyn however, is the death-piece to this film. Besides her mouthing the songs to pre-recorded tape, and strumming a guitar along with no notes that's the high point, her acting is nowhere near someplace that a person can believe, and is quite sub par. It drags the movie down to the depths and just when you think that it's about to get even worse, Mitchum and Tommy Rettig (the child) bring it back to life.

If this is the best of the bunch for Marilyn, I'd be hard pressed to watch another one.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Plot line issues slow the film, 6 December 2005

When my mother and father came home from this movie, I asked "How was it?", expecting the real deal from people who remember some of the events portrayed in this movie. Besides my dad's opinion of how great Joaquin Phoenix was, they basically didn't tell me too much besides that. On their word, I was thinking that it's probably going to be a great movie.

And so when I sat down with a friend to watch this movie, I was entranced by it. The performances of the main actors (Phoenix, Witherspoon), and a great supporting role with Robert Patrick were far and away the highlights of this movie, and merit going to see the film on just this.

But the problems with the movie are the timing. There's a whole slew of things that just didn't make sense, was put together in a fast-forward fashion, and some scenes completely pointless. In this, it reminded me of the Doors movie, which also had great acting by the leads and some of the cast, along with a very important childhood event, but overall, the plot was what killed it.

Don't get me wrong, Phoenix and Witherspoon save the plot enough because you're so entranced with their performances that most of it doesn't matter, but the fact that some of the other people are looked over (the Tennessee Two - and then Tennessee Three by far here, have no explanation), and some people are added to the movie for no specific reason (Waylon Jennings. Played by his grandson).

Basically you're getting the cream (and the dirt) of a five to eight year period in Cash's life (I'm not even discussing the children part) with no real conception of time, and no thorough glance at any specific song.

When you leave the theater and actually think about the film, you realize that they're basically just throwing things at you hoping they're going to stick, plot wise. And though a whole lot of it does, the overall feeling of it is not as good as I'd hoped.

Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]