Reviews written by registered user

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

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Havoc (2005)
25 out of 52 people found the following review useful:
Pitiful, 29 November 2005

Really have to lean on the side of why was this movie made? Anne Hathaway, 17 or 18 year old? I am the worst judge of age, but this girl looks like a 25 year old trying to play an 18 year old and doing a very very bad job of it. She just looks flat out out of place with the other actors.

The opening sequence was just about as pitiful as it can get.

Yeah seeing Anne Hathaway naked is interesting, she is absolutely gorgeous. The language, probably close to reality. It just doesn't make good film.

Points for the film being well shot and with very good sound. Just don't buy into somebody that old playing somebody that young.

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Nice Film, Not Great, 29 April 2005

This is a very nice film, there are much better films, and there are much worse films. There's nothing edgy here, nothing remarkable, just a very solid slightly unusual film. If this had been a Hollywood film, everyone would hate it. But given the Indie look, feel, and budget it seems like a better film. Not a bad first effort for the director.

Rachel Leigh Cook really does carry this movie, she is an amazing actress. Ryan Alosio seems to be acting like Mark Ruffalo too much. In fact Ruffalo would have been a better casting choice. The small homages here and there are nice touches. Sadly Rachel's character seems much older than she is, and Alosio seems much younger. The idea that he is an older man from the big city, just doesn't play here at all.

Two other things carry this film - Montana filming and the music. The outdoor cinematography is very good, Montana looks great here. The music is fantastic. I wish Ron Judkins, sound man on so many other films, had gotten the mix right - the music is so much louder and bass heavy compared to the dialog. Sad miss on his part.

Finally - this is no family film. PG is a total misnomer. I'm not sure I'd show this to anyone under 13, the subject matter, some of the language. I wish Mr. Judkins had just given in and made a better film at PG-13 or R rated.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not fabulous, but a good retelling of the book., 31 March 2003

By no means is this a fabulous movie, there are infinitely better films. Truthfully, there are much higher rated movies that are much much worse than this one. However, it is a wonderful retelling of the children's book. As a family film - 6 and 12 year olds - we enjoyed this film. The scenery is wonderful, stark as it should be.

Excellent, 16 November 2001

The critics are right, this movie is a classic in the mode of Wizard of Oz, and Star Wars. I've never read the books and enjoyed this film so much. My 5 year old was a bit scared, but not too badly. My 10 year old expert on Harry Potter thought it was the best film he'd ever seen, even better than the Seven Samauri and Crouching Tiger. Go see this film. It has all the wonderful elements of classic films.

Star (2001/I)
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Broke the mold of the previous three BMWfilms., 2 July 2001

Of the BMWfilms this is probably the funniest and most enjoyable. Seeing Madonna thrown around the inside of a 3 series is pretty funny. The previous three films were all pretty serious. In this one Guy Ritchie has Clive Owens acting unpredictibly, adding to the humor. The pacing was really good, longer cuts early on, to fast cuts during the car stunts. Compared to the previous three this one had a bit more realism in the car action. It also broke significantly from, what had become in the other three, a formula for car chasing. The only down side was the very ending, not sure I really liked the coffee spill so much. Guy spent a bit too long building that moment.