Reviews written by registered user
mro9539367

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

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Look, the guy who says this fillm lacks credibility is wrong, 26 January 2003
8/10



If you actually read the book by Robert Ludlum, enjoy it, then take a step back from it consider two things.

1) Thia book was written years ago, in 1980

2)Carlos Ilyich Ramirez, aka Carlos the Jackal - was still at large in 1980. He is not now, as he was jailed by French Authorities, once again, many years ago.

You cannot take a theme that was resolved in real life and superimpose it into fiction and expect your audience to respect the work. As Carlos was the central theme of all three books(The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum-all excellent by the way), it is both painfully obvious and decididly necessary to change the central theme of the film to reflect the secondary theme of the book, IE what National Secrets could this Rogue Agent/CIA Assasin impart to the wrong people/Government if coersed, bribed or whatever.

My opinion is aside from the obvious and necessary meandering from the Carlos angle, the film is a decent and effective attempt at bringing the thrust of Bournes struggle to find who and what he is, whilst avoiding shadowy hitmen at every juncture.

You simply cannot take a 500-600 page book written in 1980(as a techno/espionage thriller), leave it entirely intact and have it still appeal to a mass market.

I went into this movie with an open mind, as I usually do, and whilst I would have liked to see more depth to Clive Owens and the other assains characters, and more explaination behind the purpose of 'Treadstone 71', I feel this is still a movie to enjoy, so I recommend you give it a shot.

By the numbers and predictable, but not too bad., 11 December 2002



There is nothing new in this film, and every cliche is mapped to infinity, yet you still get the feeling that more thought went into this than any number of Hollywood slash'em'up's. I don't class this film as a horror per se, as the actual werewolves are so hooky you never see them in full light(yes I know its at night, I mean by lamp, torch, room light, etc).

They even remind you of the crappy Buffy The Vampire Slayer werewolf. But hey, I'm not really a fan of the genre and don't think there actually are any scary films made nowadays(making you jump does not make a horror movie, its a cheap trick, nothing more)

That said, watch this film if you just want to switch off and have a laugh. Its better than a lot of the crud out there that makes a profit on the main screens.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
God, you people are fools..., 28 November 2002
8/10



I am a critic at the best of times, and I appreciate a film on its merit and on faults likewise. I can appreciate that yes, this film is formulaic and unoriginal(I.E. taking the prophetic 'witch' character from 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' et al, but are people that blind that they cannot see entertainment in its most basic form?

For F**** sake, this is an enjoyable and well choreographed movie, something that harks back to the 80's and before, the Conan type of film, innocent in its projections, and its demands, on the viewer.

Can you not see that this is not The Mummy 3? Yes, its a prequel, but I personally find it a vast improvement on the ghastly Mummy 2(returns)(which was poor), and by that token, disenfranchise it from the series, even though there are many crew and writers that serves all three films.

Personally I find this the logical and natutral next step in the (different) progress of the Mummy films. There is clearly no further room for any more Arnold Vosloo Mummy movies as he now has no further reason for being re-incarnated after 'she' disowned him at the end of "The Mummy Returns", a film I found to be tired and boring)so early in the series, too). (the airship, in 1920/30's? Turbo powered? Pigmy mummys? Rubbish!!!

To me, The Scorpion King is a natural and enjoyable rout to follow in the series. Despite the criticism, Dwayne Johnson IS a good enough actor and those of you who disagree are blinded by the fact that Brendan Fraser is not in it(and he sure won't be in any future sequel/prequel!).

The Thing (1982)
Classic film, suspense just creeps out of the cold.., 30 September 2002
9/10



I think this film is a remake of a 1950's classic, but can't find the relevant reference.

As it is, John Carpenter turns in a masterful effort of chilling, riveting cinema, that still roots me to my seat after countless viewings. He even does the soundtrack which ably compliments the feeling of claustraphobia the Antartic Survey team feel at finding an intruder amongst their midst.. Recommended viewing for any film-goer who likes to be gripped to the edge of their seat.

WrestleMania X8 (2002) (TV)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Look, I was there, and it was a lot better than on the TV.., 10 August 2002
9/10



Those of you that stated the event was average, yes in context, for the companies showcase event, it was. The LAW(Toronto wrestling radio show, EXCELLENT!) slagged it off too, but to actually be there was awesome!

I defy anyone watching on TV to get into context the message JR and The King Jerry Lawler were trying to convey. The crowd hated The Rock that night, because the HULKSTER was back!

His first PPV match in 9odd years (forget the previous months cameo appearance), and the noise was deafening. Jr tried to cover the Rocky booes saying it was a bypartisan crowd, but JR had to tell him to realise that this was history right there. And it was. On a usual day I'm a Rock fan, but EVERYONE hated him night, and he won in spirit if not in actuality.

Those of you who didn't attend or watch live will never hear those boo's again as the WWF(now E) doctored the footage on the released video and DVD releases of WMX8 to tone down the boos and 'Rocky sucks' chants.

The rest of the PPV was average, but an average Wrestlemania still blows any other federations product right out of the water.

And now, in August 2002, theres been a heluva lot more crap fly out of the WWE creative machine since WMX8 so lets not slag this off too much, hey.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
In simple terms, its cheesy., 5 August 2002
7/10



Having said that, its a good flip-turn on the stereotypical mysoginst western that characterises females as madams, tarts and helpless damsels in distress.

Credited as being Russell Crowes' Hollywood launchpad(post breakout film 'Romper Stomper'), all the cast seem to enjoy their roles, performing them with gusto, notably Gene Hackman - The original evil caricature.

Would reccomend this film to anyone looking for a modern take(complete with whizzing cameras and flashy trickshots) on an old film genre.

A vast imporovement on the turgid kiddie flick EPISODE I, 22 May 2002
8/10



I really got into this film, despite its almost 3 hour length. Similarily with Episode 5, The Empire Strikes Back, this film bridges the storyline of a trilogy, oozing a darker, edgier tone.

Lucas clearly has woken up to the fact that the majority of SW fans are not kids(even if they were first time around) and thus do not want a kids' film. The action and violence are increased accordingly, and all that remains id for Jar-Jar to be brutally murdered in Episode III.

Wonderful ending sequence, lasts upwards of 20 minutes , and this definately makes the film stand out. The dialogue still sucks to high hell sadly. Lucas sadly has not let his betters take care of this area, ignoring Harrison Fords advice of 25 years ago.

Overall I would recommend this film.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Utterly rubbish in every way., 3 December 2001
2/10



Unfortunatley it took me a long time to realise that Espisode I: The Phantom Menace was poor, poor beyong all imaginable parameters.

I still hav e trouble accepting just how bad it really is.

i owe a lot to George Lucas, he provided me with 3 superb films that allowed me to wonder and imagine at the world as I grew up. Indeed, Star Wars-released a year before I was born-was a film I watched every day for 2 years(according to my parents)

What I can't understand is how someone with such vision and ability has created something with no discernable heart, soul, emotion or cohesiveness.

I can't imagine why Rick McCallum was allowed to oversea such a mishmash of stilted, mishmassed, children orientated rubbish. The appeal of the original trilogy is that it appealed across the ages, wheras this celluloid is merely a mis-matched collection of graphics against live action footage, and sadly the much heralded CGI graphics will look ropey in 10 years time.

Jar-Jar Binks was apparantly added as a nod to kids, but who cares when the whole film is aimed at children from 5-11. Binks is embarrassing, crude, and even the live actors can manage to meet eye contact.

The sad thing is that I STILL try to watch this film in an attempt to make it appeal to me. It does not happen. Darth Maul was the only redeeming feature, yet he is already dead.

One sadly must put the blame at the door of George Lucas. He arrogantly expects people to wait 20+ years for follow up masterpieces, yet glaringly fails to deliver. I thought the man was a genius, yet he actually appears to be the first Direstor/Creator/Whatever who wants to replace actors with CGI, thus undermining what all his previous efforts were built upon.

I can only hope for improvement with Episode II: Attack of the Clones, but somehow, with so much to be drawn from it(the Mandalorian Battles/Clone wars, Padme/Anakin angles, MAce Windu, etc, etc) I don't think so. Even Ewoks were more palatable to this

Maybe I'm wrong. Prove me wrong. Don't ever make me cringe watching any STAR WARS.

Gladiator (2000)
A great action movie, but underneath a powerful story.., 16 November 2001
8/10



The film is well made, well acted and a fantastically fluid yarn. I have seen this film over ten times, yet still feel an overwhelming sense of sadness and discomfort after doing so.

That is why I cannot consolidate or agree with lines like "edge of your seat fun". Lets face it, the guys son is murdered, his wife is raped and butchered, both are burned. The hero gives up a life of comfort as a General in the Legion over his principles and beliefs, and this is how he is repayed?

Almost everyone in the film end up dead, there are long scenes of dreamscapes and wind rushed grass, yet still I find myself drawn to this story.

Whether its Crowes masterful performance(aided ably by a skilled cast), or Scott's knowing direction, the film strikes me as a classic-now, and for years to come, albeit a depressive one.

MCR