Reviews written by registered user

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Emotionally UN moving, 28 May 2006

I really don't have problems with the plot but I must say that this just didn't move or touch me so emotionally. I'm a big fan of the comic and story. I understand that the director had to take some liberties with the plot details - I thought that worked out really well. The problem was the implausible human reactions, poor acting, and awful script. It's like Jackman and Halle Berry were just there to pick up a check. Patrick Stewart was solid as usual. Kelsey Grammar really was the only stand out in the acting department. I just left the theater unmoved - not disgusted or feeling ripped off like some movies - just unmoved. Poorly done - could have been much, much more.

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
So brutally bad that you HAVE to see it..., 28 October 2005

This movie is single handedly responsible for crippling or destroying the careers of all actors associated with it. Gertz, Atkins, Cameron, Roy Schneider - none could survive this horrible thing.

I must say that Kirk Cameron's poor display of acting is surpassed only by Vanna White's performance in the TV movie, Venus the Love Goddess. The on again off again southern drawl makes Costners Robin Hood look positively Shakespearean.

An Opus of thespian ugliness, it has no rival, although Lost in Space (the movie), and showgirls come close. Required watching material. I forced my wife to watch it because it simply must be seen.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Why such a low rating?, 31 January 2004

A light and enjoyable romantic comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously. Good acting, funny situations, good chemistry, happy ending. I hate most romantic comedies but this was cool. If you've lived in the SW United States like I have, you will relate to much of this. I liked it.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
I don't get it..., 28 December 2003

What a waste of time. The lack of realism was horrible. Why is it that everyone if raving about this director - his character relationships, etc. did not touch me in the slightest. I can suspend reality to belive in giants, trolls, orcs, and dragons but don't paint unrealistic human relationships and expect me to believe them.

So the orc army was killed by ghosts. Uh, okay. So women are killing bad ass shadowlords. So calvary can kill orc infantry+ huge animals bigger than mamoths.

So a stormed castle does not fall. So 2 hobbits are barely alive and exhausted, and they're running all around.

So a hobbit can kill trained warrior. So what's up with mister baggy eyes getting all that screen time again?

So we have a 80 year old wizard who seems to only be a master swordsman and not a magic user. So the humans approve and cheer when an freaky elf marries their king.

So what's with all these little reminesings prior to imminent death?

So how many loose ends you gonna tie up?

Perhaps the most annoying thing was the emphasis on the two other hobbits (although Frodo and Sam were bad also). I actually walked out of the movie early - just as they were about to go to the 'shire'

Not a 'Feel Good' movie, but a good movie, 5 July 2003

Don't worry - NO SPOILERS. I was expecting a poor movie due to the lack of buzz, but I was very pleasantly surprised to finally see a worthwhile action movie this year. I'm not a big fan of sequels, but this one took the series in a totally different direction. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of what Cameron did with the first two. Those who expect to see more of the same style will be disappointed. Go in with an open mind and you will be delighted. Claire Danes is good and the 'Terminatrix' is awesome. Arnold finally stars in good move for a change (from his recent improbable stinkers). Definitely worth seeing.

Daredevil (2003)
Wait for the video, and rent it., 14 February 2003

Don't worry - no spoilers. Had the opportunity to screen this and first, let me clarify - I'm a huge fan of the comic. The weak link in the movie is Affleck. He's simply not a leading man. He is strong when he plays the yuppie in love, but he is not the dark psyched Daredevil. He does a really poor job and just adds no edge to the character. He is supported by the lovely Garner who is adequate as Electra. Colin Farrell steals the show as Bullseye and does an excellent job. Affleck should focus on romantic comedies and leave the action flicks to the big boys.

6 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Totally Brutal, 12 December 2002

Why this unrealistic poorly done movie is in the top 250, I'll never know. Sean Connery is an annoying distraction and the ending is the worst. There is a reason why this and Temple of Doom are hardly ever televised. They are both a disgrace to the awesome Raiders. Awful.

Beware of the apes, 29 July 2001

Much like most of Burton's work, visually stunning, but lacking in substance (a la Sleepy Hollow). Kudos to the make up and effects teams - outstanding visuals. How many more chances will this director get to waste money, talent, and effects. Movie is slow, unexciting, uninspiring, improbable and has numerous plot holes. The ending will not leave you with a sense of irony but will leave you scratching your head like a chimp. A disappointment.

9 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Cheese, garbage, terrible., 27 May 2001

This is one of the all time worst movies ever made. So improbable, bad stunts, bad acting. It is only eclipsed in sorriness by it's sequel. If you're thinking of watching this one, don't waste your time.