Reviews written by registered user
daisuke69

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
27 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

King Kong (2005)
very good but way too long, 15 December 2005
8/10

This version of king kong is probably by far the best that has ever been made from a technical and artistical standpoint. Everything about it is good, except for the length of the damned thing.

This is probably the most entertaining movie I have ever seen, I've never seen an audience of normal moviegoers be so wowed and affected by a film in my life (myself included), and the fact of the matter is, when king kong isn't plodding along and extending every possible scene, it's riveting and absolutely amazing in every way.

Kong the character is completely believable, his facial expressions and every other move he makes just reinforce that more. All the CGI is seamless, even the ailerons on the airplanes move the way they're supposed to. The fight with the T-rex will be a benchmark for a very very long time, I'd vote it the best fight scene ever.

Acting is at par or better, with adrien brody and naomi watts delivering good roles, jack black is good in his self-absorbed persona but be it the character or his rendition of it... something could be improved.

And then to the only bad part of the movie. IT'S TOO LONG!!!! they could easily have cut a half hour off of it by shortening those poignant and heartfelt scenes between kong and ann. Every single one was perfectly timed to go past the point of "awwww that's nice" and all the way thru the realm of "ok this is getting old but its still bearable" and ending just at the moment when you start thinking "COME ON ALREADY!" good timing, yes... but after the 15th time you really get annoyed by it.

This is a film you have to see, and one you should probably own, especially if the director's cut is SHORTER.

All in all it's excellent, just take preparation H for afterwards.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
this is as bad as it gets, 28 June 2005
1/10

I could not believe how bad this film was, I should have looked at the rating here first to make sure I didn't watch it. But I did, oh my poor eyes.

This film is so uninteresting I still didn't know what the main character's name was at the end, I just didn't care! So let's start by saying that the characters are all ludicrous, the fact that everyone's acting makes them even worse doesn't help at all... Tara reid's transformation from museum geek to gun-slinging lara croft teamed with a paranormal investigating indiana jones (slater) is just too much.

The story is idiotic and borrows from many sources, including tomb raider (unabashedly so) so there is nothing original about it. The plot is full of holes, barney the dinosaur and the teletubbies have a better plot than this!!! I must admit that it was interesting enough to keep me awake at 3 am, but I just kept wishing that it would end, and when it did end... I wished I had gone to sleep, it's probably the stupidest worst ending I've seen in a while, I won't tell you about it so in case you see it I didn't spoil it for you, but trust me... it's not worth waiting for.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
the best war movie/series ever made, 27 May 2005
10/10

Without a question the finest war documentary/movie/miniseries ever made, I'll even go as far as saying that it's one of the best motion pictures of all time. Too bad TV movies and series don't get Oscars because this thing would sweep them all aside, it should be #1 on the IMDb list.

One can only speak in superlatives about this, near perfect acting, amazing storyline, superb character development and amazing adherence to reality. Everything about it is so real in fact that it has effectively set a bar which every single other war movie ever made is under, except perhaps tora tora tora. either future war movies have to be as good as this or risk looking bad. It doesn't even stoop to patriotic or heroic clichés, it sticks to the truth of what happened and nothing more.

This is an absolute must-see for everyone.

"Earthsea" (2004)
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
OK on it's own, 24 May 2005
5/10

Let's get one thing straight right away, I haven't read the books! so those who have may not agree with me.

When I first picked this thing up I read the back cover and it talked about comparing it to the lord of the rings and harry potter, well they shouldn't have, when I first started watching this I kept looking for strange unfamiliar and mythical animals but none were apparent, it also starts out very slowly but then again it's almost 3 hours long so it can take it's time (which it does). After about 2 hours I realized that this is by no means in the same league as harry potter or the lord of the rings because it has no budget, at least nothing up to the likes of a Hollywood movie. But unlike other movies I've seen, that squander their budget on low quality CGI that makes the whole thing unwatchable and laughable, this movie instead focused it's budget on creating sets and costumes that are nicely done and detailed, and in those few scenes where they actually do have CGI, it's at least passingly decent.

The story isn't too compelling but enough so to maybe keep your attention for all 3 hours of it, but many ends are left open that leave you pondering later... uh why was that again?. I want to stress again, I haven't read the book, I hear this movie butchers them, but as a film unto it's own it still delivers an OK story.

Acting is around par for most involved, expect as much as you normally would from a made-for-TV movie.

All in all a decent movie to kill a lot of extra time with, even though there are a lot of other better alternatives out there.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
mediocre attempt at a war movie, 17 May 2005
5/10

This film might have been considered something good if it had come out in the early 80s along side chuck norris movies like invasion USA and the Iron Eagle series, because that is about where this thing ranks.

All modern war movies such as the thin red line, saving private ryan and Band of Brothers all very accurately portray the true horror that is war, and deliver not only in the graphic sense but also in the physical sense by adhering strictly to reality, everything about the battle sequences is fake, the blood looks fake, the opening sequence is laughable, each grenade and artillery shell explodes like a molotov cocktail (real ones don't), the artillery guns are firing black powder to make clouds of pretty smoke for the cameras (real ones don't) and the guns are noticeably hydraulically powered for their recoil after firing. Instead of a war movie it looks more like something out of robocop. the trivia line showing on the main page says that for this movie that they brought in genuine WWII radios to make it more real... well I wish they had put that much effort into making the battle scenes look better. Oh yeah... and the airplanes dropping bombs from that altitude would probably have blown themselves to pieces along with the japs. All reality is sacrificed to make great big balls of fire.

All technical mistakes aside, the story isn't very strong and strangely enough the best parts of it are when the soldiers aren't fighting. I felt a little caught up in the drama near the end when they're fighting in the town, but that was about it.

The acting is OK by those involved, nick cage is less annoying than he has been in other recent efforts (and he seems to have this magnetic bullet repellent suit) and everyone else falls either on or under par. I actually did connect with the main navajo character. The script could have been better.

All in all not a really bad movie, but it did have the potential to be a 7.5 out of 10 instead of a 5.9 out of 10 had they made a concerted effort to bring quality and reality to life. A good movie to watch on a boring Sunday afternoon or a rainy day, but it sure as hell ain't no classic.

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
the best TV miniseries ever made, 15 May 2005
10/10

Not only is this by far the best film adaptation of Columbus and his life, it is very probably the best TV miniseries ever made. Nothing I have ever seen surpasses the setting and acting given out in this series, this is so good that it should be shown at schools religiously in order to teach them about columbus' voyage (even if current wisdom no longer reads that columbus discovered America).

I have watched this series at least 5 times and it never ceases to enthrall me. The first time I watched it I must have been about 8 and ever since then when I think of columbus I think of Gabriel Byrne, this one performance seen at an early age made me a fan for life of his work.

ALL acting is superb, wardrobe is out of this world. There isn't a single thing I could criticize in it.

I echo the other comments... if this ever comes out on DVD I'm buying a copy in case I ever have kids!

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
garbage, 14 May 2005
1/10

This poor excuse for an abortion should never have been made.

While the first Starship Troopers MOVIE is an undying cult classic, this second installment is more like a 30 minute long cheap B-class TV series episode that runs for an extra hour. I wasn't even able to watch the whole thing! It takes place in an indoor set, with no outside scenes worth mentioning, no big battles and no good action or acting. I mean... at least alien 3 has a dark ambient to it and the acting is top notch, even if it wasn't very good. You can tell this thing doesn't even have a budget worth speaking of, much less any other endearing factors. At least most truly awful movies don't take themselves seriously! Nothing of the original film survives here, not even the clichés and bad parts, if there's anything you didn't like about STS 1... even that isn't here, it's all some stupid psych drama that fails to excite, scare or entertain you. Avoid this festering hunk of B-movie like you would a case of gonorrhea or herpes... it really IS that bad.

Phil tippet should stick to making visual effects shots instead of directing movies with (ironically) horrible visual effects.

14 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
pathetic, 19 April 2005
5/10

I can't rate this film any lower than 5 because it actually is well done, well acted, edited... you name it, it's a very good quality film, but all that doesn't actually add up to making it good.

The one thing I don't think this movie is, is funny. It's more like a pathetic parade of stereotypical nerds, geeks and losers who you can only feel sorry for and hope that everything will work out for them in the end despite all their trials. You can't really care about them either because they're so pathetic, either that or you relate to them because at one point you considered yourself to be the same way.

Some people think this is funny, and some don't care because it's so pathetic. I guess it's worth watching just to find out if you'll like it or not because it's hard to tell up front, give it a try, but if you don't like it and think you wasted money then sure as hell don't say I didn't warn you!

Solaris (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A true thriller, 22 March 2005
8/10

Although I picked this movie out of the sci-fi section of Hollywood Video, the only thing that relates it to the genre is the setting, this movie is a true thriller, I had ignored it before as being a probable sci-fi shoot em up or lame 2001 attempt, but I was very mistaken. And I must say this is a well executed and even creepy movie. It's not meant to scare you, it's not meant to wow you, it just makes you forget about everything else around you and concentrate on the central question, I would say it succeeds quite well at what it's meant to do.

I loved the acting of everyone involved, and everything else is believable about the film, no fancy shots, no impossible technologies, it focuses only on the plot, and looking into anything else to find flaws involves departing the whole purpose of the film. There is a definite 2001 feel to this one, the music is somewhat evocative and just the general weirdness of the film is there too. The end gets sort of predictable once you're nearly done, but if you don't pay attention you might not understand it right away (I did but from what I read, many ppl didn't) There are many things that make this something completely new, completely out of the ordinary, it makes you ponder existence and human emotions, it captivates you. Definitely worth watching when you don't know what you're in the mood for.

This review is purposefully vague because this is something you need to watch to really understand and experience, the less you know about it, the better

Garfield (2004)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
painfully predictable LITTLE kids movie, 20 February 2005

This movie is just wrong in so many ways for so many people that grew up loving garfield comics. You would have thought that there would have been some effort into making this movie equally appealing to both adults who grew up on the comic strips and little kids... didn't happen. Let me make this straight, Garfield doesn't appeal to young kids, he appeals to the generation that grew up on him! And even thought the comics have always been as G-rated as this movie is, I think the animated series holds much more value than this live-action junker.

The universe of garfield has been completely transformed into something that is even more of a kids movie than most of Disney's latest efforts. Garfield the movie is a completely predictable and benign flick that will have anyone over the age of 10 groaning when they realize what is going to come next.

Bill murray delivers a good voice for the fat cat and he's funny on occasion, but everyone else in the cast is basically either a lame sideshow or a character that is so over the top that you can't stand looking at them for more than a few minutes. Oh and one more thing: Odie is supposed to be the dumbest being in the entire universe, and here he is smart.

Even every plot twist and camera zoom-out can be predicted.

On the good side, Garfield is believable and he moves pretty realistically, but against a real backdrop he loses any sympathy we should have for him.

In the end, this is movie is about on the same level as rugrats the movie, superbabies and the muppets. The only reason for renting this thing is to keep your kids quiet, you may stand to watch it with them once, but otherwise I recommend you not put yourself thru it willingly


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]