Reviews written by registered user
amanfigo

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

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Best Comedy TV Show ever, 23 February 2004

Now, in Spain this is one of the Comedys TV Shows ever. Cruz y Raya's humor is very fresh and never it become old... These humorists can transform the worst comic script in a amusing, hilarious scene. In my opinion, not only Jose and Juan (Cruz y Raya) are great, all their crew do a great work. Although the time passes, I will always remember all of their characters like (Bartolo, Juan De Dios, Superblasa....) and all of their famous quotes.

Spider-Man (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Spider-Man is alive!!!, 23 February 2004
9/10

This is the best comic book movie ever (with X2)... Sam Raimi does a great adventure/action movie, with a wonderful script with a big special effects and a perfect cast. Sam Raimi's experience, in doing movies, get a movie with a strong narrative, doing that the public don't get bored in all of the movie lenght.

The script picks great moments of the comic book like the Spiderman genesis or the final fight between Spidey & GG (a flick of the Green Goblin's Last Stand comic). Regarding many changes about of the original comic (organical webshooters or the new Green Goblin costume), on the contrary that the comic book fans, They don't mind me and I think are good for modernize the movie.

About the cast, I have to say that Tobey Maguire is a great actor and is the perfect Spider-Man (Tobey for Spider-Man, is the same that Hugh Jackman for Wolverine or Christopher Reeve for Superman) now I can't see another actor as Spidey if he isn't Tobey, this boy have a great future. Willem Dafoe is a incredible Green Goblin, he is a frightening villain (like Jack Nicholson as the Joker). Kirsten Dunst also is good as MJ (although Mary Jane, in the movie, seems more Gwen Stacy than MJ). And the rest of the principal cast (James Franco, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson and J.K. Simmons) are very good with regard to their roles.

The special effects are a great attractiveness of the movie and are incredibly good, when Spidey and GG are CGI is like they were alive... yes, I said GREEN GOBLIN & SPIDER-MAN ARE ALIVE.. THAT'S INCREDIBLE!!!

In my opinion, Spider-Man is great movie, and it don't have anything to envy to other movies like Superman, Batman, X-Men or the Crow. 8/10

Men In Black 2 are as amusing and pleasant as the first part., 15 March 2003
7/10

For some people that this sequel repeats the same formula that made that Men In Black 1 were successful, it seems that it is not very original, but this movie has given the public what wanted: but of the same, more Men In Black, only with the variant that this movie has more action, more special effects, more characters... in summary it takes the same thing that Men In Black 1 but more enlarged in the whole aspects. The main characters change papers in this second movie, in the first agent K is the expert and agent J the beginner, but in second film it is on the contrary the agent J has to return the memory to the agent K and to put it a day on the new mission of the MIB but J sometimes acts as a beginner. Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are impeccable again in their roles but Will Smith has won mainly in comic protagonism this time thanks to Frank the dog, I have liked a lot that gives him more protagonism. It is a pain that Linda Fiorentino didn't repeat as agent MIB but it is compensated with the election of Lara Flynn Boyle like bad girl and Rosario Dawson like the "sentimental" partner of J, Lara has made a good work but of Rosario Dawson has been a little more irregular. I didn't like at all to see Johnny Knoxville like the typical fool bad boy, but it went good see again (repeating papers) Rip Torn and the histrionic Tony Shalhoub.

Perhaps the position of the script of this movie is not as original as that of the previous one but this it is able to entertain and to make laugh more even than the first movie of the Men In Black. Lastly, to say that the special effects have improved enough, mainly that of the worm of the meter.

A providential movie..., 7 March 2003
8/10

An incommensurable movie that shows the brilliant work of the director Milos Forman together with Jim Carrey's sublime interpretation they transform Man on the moon into one of the best biographical movies that have seen together with A beautiful mind. Forman and Carrey show us the life of the comic Andy Kaufman, a person of which you don't know when he is acting and when he is not. The movie has an excellent script that frames the life of Kaufman and a great direction of the director of Amadeus. In this movie, next to The Truman show, Jim Carrey demonstrates that he can carry out serious papers and interpreting them in an excellent way, also to highlight the good one to make of the actor Danny of Vito like George Shapiro and even that of Courtney Love like the wife of Kaufman (although this girl doesn't walk very guessed right in the world of the cinema). Also voucher the pain to mention the excellent sound band (mainly REM and to their two songs Man on the moon and The great beyond).

A movie for people that he likes to see good cinema and for Jim's followers Carrey, they won't come out disappointed with this movie.

Good work of Dabaront and Carrey, 28 February 2003
7/10

The cinema director Frank Dabaront shows us (another time) his talent to direct movies like he already made with Shawshank Redemption. I have liked most of the things of this film: good atmosphere (similar atmosphere to that of Shawshank Redemption), good music, good direction, Jim Carrey's titanic intervention and also Martin Landau's human intervention that almost made me cry of the very that Landau made it. The only thing that I find difficult of believing of this movie is the script that seems too surrealist (Carrey falls of a bridge, he loses the memory and in a town they take it as a hero of war....). In spite of everything it is it a good movie and it clears us some the most commercial cinema in Hollywood.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Funny supernatural comedy, 14 February 2003
5/10

Delirious and histrionic but at the same time amusing and funny comedy about angeles and demons that if at the same time we join it with something of Rock (Ozzy forever) and a speaking dog very nerve, we are among the last of the best movies in Adam Sandler and making us forget of pathetic his movies as for example The WaterBoy. The movien cannot maybe win an Oscar but in Little Nicky what counts is the supernatural entertainment that proposes this comedy and all its characters, except that of Patricia Arquette that makes a painful performance (this character is also the typical one of the one that the main character falls in love). Amusing Film for who he likes the entertainment cinema, This movie doesn't have nothing else that this: to pass a good time.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Adaptation not completely bad but neither faithful to the original, 13 February 2003
4/10

The idea of making a movie on the character of cartoons the Inspector Gadget didn't seem completely bad and it could be quite amusing... but at the end the movie is a true entertainment (for the children) but it is not completely original to the series, the blame has it the script and certain characterizations of some characters. Matthew Broderick didn't make a bad performance like the Inspector Gadget. Michelle Trachtenberg neither was not well completely as Penny, the Inspector Gadget's niece. Although Brain the dog instead of having been a real dog could have been a dog made with CGI effects like in Scooby-Doo, I believe that it had been this way more similar to the cartoon character.

In the movie he/she is finally seen the face to the Dr. Claw but Ruppert Everett it was not the most suitable to make of the Inspector's eternal enemy Gadget, it was not a good performance certainly. We also see that the Inspector's boss appears Gadget that, contrarily to the cartoons, it doesn't trust the Inspector Gadget when carrying out the missions. We also see that the Inspector Gadget's car speak and it is also aesthetically contrary to the car of the series of cartoons. It is not very well the character of the mayoress of Riverton, besides a painful performance it seems that the character is a little stupid. Separated, in the movie they have been allowed to incorporate a new character (the doctor Brenda Bradford), of which the Inspector falls in love Gadget, so that the main character doesn't seem a group of screws and nuts but rather he is a human being, the idea it is not bad but I eat we already know it is a typical element of Disney in his movies. In short that the movie is amusing, the children can love it but to some that they loved the series of cartoons he/she can feel enough defrauded with the movie.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Adaptation not completely bad but neither faithful to the original, 13 February 2003
4/10

The idea of making a movie on the character of cartoons the Inspector Gadget didn't seem completely bad and it could be quite amusing... but at the end the movie is a true entertainment (for the children) but it is not completely original to the series, the blame has it the script and certain characterizations of some characters. Matthew Broderick didn't make a bad performance like the Inspector Gadget. Michelle Trachtenberg neither was not well completely as Penny, the Inspector Gadget's niece. Although Brain the dog instead of having been a real dog could have been a dog made with CGI effects like in Scooby-Doo, I believe that it had been this way more similar to the cartoon character.

In the movie we can finally see him the face to the Dr. Claw, but Ruppert Everett was not the most suitable actor to make of the Inspector Gadget's eternal enemy, it was not a good performance certainly. We also see that the Inspector's boss appears Gadget that, contrarily to the cartoons, it doesn't trust the Inspector Gadget when carrying out the missions. We also see that the Inspector Gadget's car speak and it is also aesthetically contrary to the car of the series of cartoons. It is not very well the character of the mayoress of Riverton, besides a painful performance it seems that the character is a little stupid. Separated, in the movie they have been allowed to incorporate a new character (the doctor Brenda Bradford), of which the Inspector falls in love Gadget, so that the main character doesn't seem a group of screws and nuts but rather he is a human being, the idea it is not bad but I eat we already know it is a typical element of Disney in his movies. In short that the movie is amusing, the children can love it but to some that they loved the series of cartoons they can feel enough defrauded with the movie.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Good movie but..., 12 February 2003
6/10

The movie of anime based on the popular saga of video games Fatal Fury it is a good adaptation although it doesn't end up putting on to the height of Street Fighter: The Animated Movie. I like enough the movie although I had preferred that it had been based on some of the parts of the video game and that they had not been invented a new adventure that it is taken out of the series of Saint Seya, but even so they guessed right in the new characters of the history (The Gaudemus and company) and they even reflected faithfully the 4 main characters (the Bogard Brothers, Joe and Mai) that are the same ideas that I had of them like in the video games. The pity is that some characters of the saga that some appear in the movie making a " cameo " (Billy Kane, Jubei Yamada, Richard Myer, Geese...), they don't have the protagonism that I would like them to have like in the saga. It is also missed that characters like Blue Mary or Ryuji Yamazaki doesn't appear in the movie. It was not bad idea to leave the movie open to a second part like leave when Billy Kane speaks with his master Howard when it is training. It is not a bad movie, it is a great movie with the main characters of Fatal Fury, but the pity is that the history was not centered in some concrete video game of Fatal Fury.

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Amazing thriller, 12 February 2003
7/10

The movie of Stephan Elliot is a strange thriller that begins with the "crazy" spy pursuing a dangerous criminal and it finishes being as her bodyguard which cannot admit him the love that feels toward her. Good movie that, with an excellent script, he/she tries to get us the attention about the loves Platonists, of what would happen if we are not able to make it front and what happens when we act too much late. For a lot of people this movie is bad, but I believe that Eye of the Beholder apart from entertainment takes an important message transforming to this movie into the best adaptation of the book of Marc Behm.

Great work of the managing Stephan Elliot and a good interpretation of Ashley Judd. Ewan McGregor makes a great paper main character demonstrating that he is a great actor and that he knows how to make many more things apart from being the young Obi-Wan Kenobi.


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