Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
18 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

King Kong (1976)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A true Kong re-imagining, 29 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You know having re-watched the 1976 version a few days ago, my opinion on the film has drastically changed. I actually appreciate it for having the guts and determination to re-image this great tale by taking it in a completely different direction without disrespecting or ignoring the source material it stays faithful to. It doesn't rehash the original film nor does it update on its context, it borrows the basic concept of obviously a giant overgrown Ape on a strange island when its symbolized as a god only this time an expedition of the "Petrox" company is exploring in search of petrol when the girl is captured by the Ape and is fantasized about here. One of the general complaints about this film is that there are no dinosaurs located on the island, but it seemed to me that the film was trying to lead into a more realistic and believable approach rather then a straight up fun fantasy about shooting and violence. That's not to say that I dislike the 1933 or 2005 versions, in fact I still greatly prefer them to the '76 version, but I can understand the intentions in terms of the new ideas and concepts they were trying to inflict on the story this time around. The relationship between Kong and the girl was kept at a happy medium without being too scared and feeling nothing like in 1933, or being too friendly and not at all scared like in '05, so I thought the balance worked well apart from a few corny scenes in between. So all in all, I'd bump the rating up from a 4/10 to a 7/10 making it my third favorite Kong film behind the original and '05 remake. It's amazing what a re-watch can do with an open mind on the prospective.

Predators (2010)
42 out of 82 people found the following review useful:
Slightly disappointing but still entertaining, 7 July 2010

Predators, on paper, is the true sequel fans have been waiting for. First things first; we're back to a jungle-like location, which IMO is where the Predator belongs. The classic breed (from the first and second films) plays a extensive part, the traditional score from the original '87 film is back and we have ourselves a very simple plot that doesn't try to take itself to seriously which was one of the many faults with 2004's AVP. Now one of the weakest elements about Predators is the obvious poor writing. The characters lead by Adrien Brody as Royce, Alice Braga as Isabelle, Topher Grace as Edwin and Oleg Taktarov as Nikolai were given little screen time to development, and along with the weak dialog provided it at times felt like a cheaply executed B-Movie; which was the tag line they were desperately trying to avoid after 2007's AVP.R. The story moves along at a relatively fast rate as the group of elite hunter find out that there located on a gaming preserve planet, where the Predators hunt them down as sport for trophy's and ranking points. The new Predator designs are a highlight, and the action scenes were very well handled, with CGI only used as a enhancement tool making everything else like the sets, the make-up and the costumes very physical and organic. The homages were definitely full on, which to be honest I found quite annoying seeing as it seemed to be acting as a remake or re-imagery rather then a sequel. Overall, I'd say Predators is properly the second best film in the franchise even though it wasn't near as good as I expected it to be. The original obviously being the best, and by a long way to...

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Decent but could've been better, 6 July 2010

Predator - The game developers were clearly inspired by the settings and ideas AVP (2004) helped established, which is why much of it's design in this game resembles those from the actual film, which in IMO was a bad route take. Now it's not all bad, as a matter of a fact, some of the concepts are actually quite interesting, like for example the ability to jump across long distance, from platform to platform, and the fact that the disc actually requires skill to eliminate your opponent unlike it's predecessor which featured a lock-on tracker system allowing killing Humans and Aliens to be far to easy. The sound bites were arguably the biggest disappointment about playing as the Predator, because literally all the sounds the Pred makes have been re-recorded, leaving the player with no famous roar, or screech but instead a mutated horse which doesn't in the slightest sound anything like a Predator should. The single-claw approach along with the updated sound effects almost makes for a different creature, and therefore doesn't leave you feeling like your controlling a Predator, which overall is rather disappointing. The campaign was rather flat story-wise, but I did enjoy the expansion of the Predator culture, and slashing Aliens never gets old especially since there's many trophy kills and normal strikes to choose from. The lack of the combi-stick and/or net gun was also disappointing..

game-play - 8/10 story - 6/10

Alien - One thing I must say that they improved on with the Alien game-play in terms of realism, was that they finally fixed the heat bite feature. In all 6 of the Alien films, it's clearly established that the 'little mouth' pokes a hole right through the center of the human forehead, which is exactly what the Alien does here. In lets say, AVP2; the Alien completely bites the head off, which whist looks cool doesn't fit in with the logic of the Alien's capabilities -- so I was glad to see this fixed up. The controls look and fell accurate to how the Alien moves and behaves, but having said that the pounce is no longer in tact which I found disappointing considering stunning enemies and then attacking them when there most vulnerable in terms of movement, was one of the funnest things to do in AVP2. The sounds have once again been modified, and apart from a death scream, all the original sounds have been replaced, but in this case, I actually don't mind 'em as much as the awful re-made roars the Predators make. I'm about half-way through the single player campaign and while I heard a lot of positive reviews about it, I was quite underwhelmed; mainly due to the fact that you don't start as a face hugger and work yourself up through the life cycle which I really enjoyed in the AVP2 Alien campaign.

game-play - 7.5/10 story - 4/10 (so-far)

Marine - Quite possibility the most underrated single-player campaign out there. I really enjoyed the dark and creepy atmosphere of the Marine, and IMO, it really captured the fear of the Aliens again, since there really wasn't much light and you had to use your motion tracker and flares to get an idea of where they were located. The weapon selection was a bit of a let down considering there was no rocket launcher or mini-gun to choose from, and the sniper whist understandably toned down from its 'overpowered' approach in AVP2, doesn't do near enough damage as it should. Overall I found the Marine to be quite entertaining; and it was easily the best single-player experience in the game.

game-play - 8/10 story - 9/10

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
My version on this 2010 remake, 30 May 2010

A Nightmare on Elm Street directed by Samuel Bayer is a remake of the 1984 horror classic of the same name. Instead of Tina, Rod and Glen we have Quentin, Kris, Jesse and Dean. The only "same" the remake shares with the original is of course Nancy, who once again is the lead character in the story. Freddy played by Jackie Earle Haley, had big shoes to fell considering Robert Englund had help established Freddy Kruger as one of the most iconic horror monster villains in all of movie history with a staggering 8 films under his belt, a couple of TV shows and multiple commercials over almost a 20 year period span. So how does this remake live up to Wes Craven's masterpiece? read on and you'll hopefully find out..

Let's start with the acting. I through most of the cast were reassembly impressive with the acceptation of a couple of moments when some of the dialog just felt forced and Cliché. Excluding JEH; Rooney Mara & Kyle Gallner were properly the best of the teenagers, mainly due to the fact that it felt really natural whenever they would approach a certain task or situation for good or for worse. Perhaps it helped given that they both received the same amount of screen time, but above all, neither character overreacted or didn't react enough which is pleasing from a audiences prospective since the blend worked just right.

The dream sequences were beautifully shot which could be seen as a problem to some given that the dark, gritty and grainy atmosphere of the original was almost non-existent through these lenses. Personally I didn't have a massive issue with it, although having said that, they seemed to heavily rely on "jump scares" to get to the audience which I found to be cheap and quite annoying after a while. I mean it's OK to have a few jump scenes every now and then (the original NOES had a couple); but when a horror picture constantly features them at every turn that builds up even the slightest bit of tension, it just becomes predicable and above all, boring. Sometimes these scare tactics even kills the scene all together which is a shame since there were many scenarios in A Nightmare on Elm Street which could've been executed a lot better.

Freddy was back to his dark, more evil roots of NOES 1, 2 and New Nightmare only this version was a lot more serious and angry. I hated the make-up; in fact, the first time we get a perfect look of him on-screen I laughed a little which obviously wasn't the director's intention. Sure its realistic to what a burnt victim would look like, but this is the dream world we're talking about, Freddy can take on any persona he wishes. Anyway JEH was definitely the highlight of the film. I loved the voice and his aggressive temper, and I liked the fact that they junked in a bit of dark humor, the only negative I can think of was the laugh which I felt was extremely disappointed.

Bottom Line: Don't listen to all the negative feedback around here, just sit back and enjoy it as I did, and if you can, try not to compare to the original film because its simply not as creative or intelligent but it is dark and to a certain extent scary.. a solid modern day take on the re-imagery of Freddy Kruger..

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Great idea but not without it's flaws, 2 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I thurley enjoyed New Nightmare, although I cant help but fell that Wes Craven (who directed the original NOES) let a fantastic opportunity slip from his grasp in terms of undoing some of the damage parts 3 to 6 inflicted by taking Freddy back to his original, more evil roots. Freddy cracking silly one-liners was what made the previous sequels so cheesy and campy, and although there aren't near as many to speak of here, the ending battle sequence between Nancy and Freddy was what almost killed the film for me given how serious the subject manner obviously was and how corny the scene was delivered. On a much higher note; it was extremely well written, the camera angles were great and the score, acting and story were/was also really well done/told. I also loved Freddy's new look as it made him appear more menacing, and Julie's death was properly the best since Tina's way back in the original. Would've loved to see Robert England some what confront Freddy but oh well.. In closing: a great edition to the series and properly the second best right after the original, but at the same time, potentially, Wes Craven's New Nightmare could've been so much more.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
B-Movie with a high point, 17 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

What to say about AVP.R, well, it achieved what AVP didn't and that was get the Predator design and vision mode right, as well as attach an R ratting which allowed the freedom for more blood and gore, unlike it's processor before it who sold out for a broader appeal. Anyway, aside from all that, ultimately it did fell like a B-Movie, which is a insult to both the Alien and Predator franchises; the characters were predictably weak and the plot was just plain garbage. Wolf, which is properly my second favorite Predator right after the original, was far to overpowered at times, since he seemed to kill Aliens with the flick of a risk, which isn't really fair to the Alien fans. It was also really dark at times which obviously made it difficult to outline what exactly was going on, especially during the fight scenes, which were great I might add.

In closing: both AvPs are heavily flawed films with a long list of negatives and only a few positives. AVP:R slightly holds the advantage due to Wolf, but that isn't saying much since he was basically the only good thing about the movie. In my opinion, Both films deserved the bashing they have and always will receive, and I think most Alien and even Predator fans will agree with me when I say that the concept of crossing with Aliens and Predators should've never happened outside of comic books and video games. I guess you could argue the fact that if done by the right director with the right script and the right team, then it potentially could've been different, but we'll never know that now, unless they make a AVP3, but that wont be taken into consideration for a while yet.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Destorys the Predator name, 17 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

AVP was properly the better quality film out when compared to it's sequel AVP.R, especially when brought into the subject matter of: story, character development, acting, lighting and special effects, but the Predator design itself was ultra disappointing; and that's an understatement. Anderson introduced us to a breed of short and stubby hunters who resembled almost nothing of the original creature, and don't get me started on the terribly poor faces and the fact that humans and Predators work together to combat the Aliens now? WTF, since when? Having said that, I did enjoy some of the battle sequences, through even then there's no blood to speak of, since the film was restricted to a PG-13 ratting, which is something NOT TO DO in a film that involves freakin' Aliens and Predators battling each other! In closing: both AvP flicks are heavily flawed films with a long list of negatives and only a few positives to speak of. AVP:R slightly holds the advantage due to Wolf, but that isn't saying much since he was basically the only good thing about the movie. In my opinion, Both films deserved the bashing they have and always will receive, and I think most Alien and even Predator fans will agree with me when I say that the concept of crossing with Aliens and Predators should've never happened outside of comic books and video games. I guess you could argue the fact that if done by the right director with the right script and the right team, then it potentially could've been different, but we'll never know that now, unless they make a AVP3, but that wont be taken into consideration for a while yet.

Creature (1985)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Good Alien rip off, 25 January 2010

With only a four million dollar budget to work with, I thought the crew did a resemble job with the casting; which included Klaus Kinski, the set designs, the lighting and of course; the creature's special effects, which I thought were done extremely well, considering the creature himself is quite obviously a blatant Alien rip off from head to toe. The plot, while basically ripping off the concept of the original Alien, had potential to work, through with a relatively slow vibe to it all, as well as the addition of what was in my opinion, a unnecessary love triangle relationship, which was performed so poorly that the audience don't fell anything at all for it, the story just seems to bog down, and dragged on during stages, which leaves me with the feeling that it was all just time filtering. While the creature itself looked great, I thought that some of the full-frame shots of the him looked absolutely ridiculous. I mean, Ridley Scott hesitated at showing the "Alien" in all its glory because he didn't want it to look like a guy in a suit, which it was in real life, but by making it stand on two legs and fighting toe-to-toe with a human, was what reminded me that I was watching a b movie. Anyway, since I received a poorly handled DVD when I bought this film, I missed out on quite a few scenes due to freezing problems, so going on what I saw; I'd give it a 5/10. Also, the special features on the DVD indicate that the special effects studio for Creature was the same company that did Aliens, and Commando; I was dead shocked to read this.. lol

Avatar (2009)
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
12 years later, and Cameron still holds the key of excellence, 17 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just got back from the theater, and once again: Cameron has reacted to the gigantic build up & hype that surrounded him, with something unique, something heartwarming and most of all; something special that has to be witnessed by you the peers to actually be believed.

Sam Worthington does a terrific job playing Jake Sully, who is the main character in the story. Sigourney Weaver, better known as "Ripely" from the Alien series, is almost back to her best with the role of Dr. Grace Augustine and Stephen Lang, who is pretty the "villein" in the movie, does a more then convincing job with Colonel Miles Quaritch, who is head of the Marine team.

The special effects like with Aliens, The Abyss, T2 and Titanic set the bar for excellence with photo realistic CGI used for just about everything you'll see on the screen. I mean, the Na'vi's, the creatures, the robot suits as well as pretty much the land known as Pandora itself was brought to life with some of the best on-screen visuals effects ever recorded on film. The 3D takes that, and brings you into a entire different universe with detailed graphics that look and sound stunning. Highly recommend that you check out the 3D version either at your local theater, or in IMAX which is ultimately the most rich experience to see it in. Many say that you lose focus of the story because of the stunning pictures, I can assure you that's not the case.

In conclusion: Avatar is a amazing ride with excellent storytelling, backed up with a terrific cast and amazing special effects that will only increase with the beauty of 3D. Dare I say it, Avatar is one of Camerons very best!

The Grudge (2004)
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Grudge agienst The Grudge, 14 March 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Finally after 5 years since its release I decided to rent the DVD perfectly knowing that If I enjoyed it I would be picking up the more recent squeal, The Grudge 2. Well, doesn't look I'm going to because this film sets a new stranded for the word "bad" The acting was terrible, I never once feared nor cared for any of the characters life's. The storyline made no sense whats so ever, all the events that occurred seemed like a big gigantic mess, that didn't connect with the outcome of the film. I had previously herd that The Grudge was known for its scare factor, but even this was a letdown--all we see and hear is a pair of eyes wildly opened and a sound effect which to me is very similar to Predator (1987.) In conclusion, If you like horror films with a confusing story, no character development or no scare factor there's something wrong with your tastes in movies, however you will love The Grudge.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]