Reviews written by registered user
halderic

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

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

entertaining show, 13 January 2004

Unfortunately i only caught the last two episodes of this show (including the championship game), but it was pretty entertaining. It was nice to see the celebrities candid in their demeanor. Hopefully this show has done moderately well (although almost no posts here is an ominous sign) and there will be at least a second season at some point this year.

18 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
I'll watch anything once..., 9 January 2004
1/10

and boy did this movie test my resolve. This is a damn awful movie that is neither scary, creepy, or suspenseful. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is even worse. No one in this movie ever has the appropiate reaction to any situation. And the villian is just so bad he's not scary, he's laughable. You know you are in trouble when the best acting performance in your movie is by Huey Lewis. And is it just me or is it odd hearing Huey Lewis say the F* word. I guess it's not hip to be square anymore.

- halderic

(i imported this from the newsboard, since i think anyone ever looks over there)

Hulk (2003)
Surprisingly Good, 20 June 2003
8/10

I just got back from watching an AM showing of Hulk on June 20th, Friday, and i must say i was impressed with this movie. It's not your usual mindless action summer blockbuster. There is nice depth to the story and plenty of character development. The Hulk has limited screen time, which is nice, so we don't get sick of watching him too much. There have been people complaining the CGI effects dont look very well, but they do look a whole lot better in the theatre than they did in the trailers. And yes, there are times when the Hulk doesnt look real, but then it is a comic book movie, and you have to take certain liberties when watching such a movie. The movie has many emotionally powerful scenes (scenes that the x-men movies and spiderman lacked, but needed). On a whole i enjoyed this more than the before mentioned films, though i did enjoy them. I want a good script along with good CGI effects in a movie, and this delivers enough of both to be very enjoyable. Don't let negative word of mouth keep you from seeing this movie, go see it, form your own opinion.

Spider-Man (2002)
pleasantly surprised, 3 May 2002
8/10

having been an avid spider-man reader in my younger days, i was looking forward to the theatrical adaptation ever since i heard it was in the making. i wasnt expecting much, i did not want to get my hopes up too high only to be let down. when i heard toby maguire was to play spidey i was apprehensive, i liked the idea of him as peter parker, but spider-man? when i heard kirsten dunst was to play mary jane watson i cursed from anger over what i thought was a bad casting decision. having seen the movie as earliest as i could i can honestly say i was wrong, and the movie was very entertaining. maguire was perfect as both teenage peter parker and wisecracking spider-man. and dunst was surprisingly good as mary jane (i just couldnt see it in the trailers). the plot is admittedly simple and not in depth in the least, but thats okay, as long as the movie is strong enough in other areas, and it is. character development is fairly strong throughout, especially with peter parker and mary jane. alot of emotions are expressed and dealt with, its not all flash and glitter. norman osborne (aka green goblin) isnt developed as much as one would hope, but he plays it very well, especially in scenes where hes losing his sanity. i had issues about the revamped metallic green goblin suit, i just didnt like it before, and im not crazy about it now, but that can be overlooked in the long run. the supporting cast was pretty goood, especially j jonah jameson, he nailed down the comic book spirit. the special effects are mostly well done. some scenes had me bubbling with excitement over how exact spider-mans moves matched the classic comic book poses. i loved the touches. at times the effects looked like digital effects, but what do you expect? this is not a movie to critique on believability (is that a word?). is this a perfect movie? nope, but for what it is, its very well made with nice touches of humanity added to the characters. and thats refreshing in this genre of film. is this an entertaining movie befitting the web slinger we all love? YOU BETCHA TRUE BELIEVERS!

A Real Disappointment, 31 July 2001
2/10

Tim Burton, known for his visual style, delivers yet again with Planet Of The Apes (POTA), but the film is lacking in virtually every other aspect, from the thinly drawn characters, the barely-there script, to the shockingly bad/incomphensible ending. I'll start first with the character development. There is none. Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg)is so one dimensional that at no point did i care if he ever got off the planet and back to, well, whatever and whomever. His entire time is spent throwing out cliched lines instead of being awed, inspired, terrified, or confused of his surroundings. Any emotion would have worked. As for the humans who live on the planet, I'm not sure what their problem was, they werent savages, they outnumbered the apes supposedly, they could communicate at the same level as the apes (unlike the original movie), so why exactly were they living in the hills scared for their lives. Ari (Helena Bonham Carter) and General Thade (Tim Roth) are by far the most interesting, and well acted, characters. Miss Carter brings a sensual aspect to her character that is very appealing (yes, i know shes playing a simian, but it doesnt seem to matter). While Mr Roth plays Thade deliciously evil and cunning, and his ape-like movements are a sight to see.

I was especially disappointed with the relationship between Leo, Ari and Daena (played by model Estella Warren, who is way to beautiful here to pull off a role as a jungle woman). There are obvious hints of attraction between Ari and Leo, yet these scenes go absolutely nowhere in developing the awkwardness of it all. The script doesnt go beyond yearning glances, which is a shame. The last half hour of the movie was basically the standard action plot. The movie builds up to an inevitable war between the humans and the apes, with Leo devising this absurd plan to stun the first ranks (out of thousands of CGI created apes) with the remnants of his old ships ignited fuel tanks. Never mind the fact this would only eliminate maybe 5 percent of the total forces they are up against. The final conflict is never exciting, but then how could it be when we have no emotional investment in the characters.

I will not discuss the "surprise" ending, except to say not only is it not surprising, it doesnt make sense, and i defy anyone to explain it.

In fact, i read an interview with the higher-ups involved in this fiasco, and they revealed that the ending isnt supposed to make sense, its supposed to leave the viewer confused and guessing. Well, thats just what i want after watching this for two hours, and ending that insults the viewers intelligence by admitting "we didnt even care enough ourselves to give you a plausible ending." Thank you Hollywood. And thank you Tim Burton, for reminding us once more that classics should be left alone and time honored. If you're going to remake a movie, remake a bad movie. In fact, remake this remake.