Reviews written by registered user

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

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

22 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
Bad .., 22 March 2008

hell yeah. Doesn't get much worse than this: yet it wasn't bad, bad.

Would never recommend anyone watch this one. But having watched it and having voted awful (for it was that), I didn't finish watching this feeling I'd wasted time -and I did finish watching it all because I knew there had to be something cool at the end of this. There wasn't. At least there wasn't for me. Apparently there was for many others. Suppose too, as others have described this, I can agree in bits and pieces. And the movie was all bits and pieces.

Acting, great. Story, could have been great? Script in small pieces, fine, overall, a mess. Did everyone involved in writing and directing this get mind seizures and forget where they were going with it, probably?

I'll end my comments the same way.

If I make no sense and you like that maybe you'll like the movie. If you find my comments too weird then you should probably pick something else, something a bit sane, to watch.

Nightmare (2007) (TV)
8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Wow .. didn't know it was made for TV, 28 February 2008

I thought this was a decent sized budget movie. Well acted, great SFX, sound and presentation. I'll have to check who wrote, directed and edited this but I doubt these were anything but vets. Suppose it's the best TV movie I've seen.

That aside, I had two movies that deal with Sleep Paralysis on my list of want to watch movies but I suffer from it quite severe and it's a chronic problem so I waited until now to watch this one, the first for me. Admit it freaked me out a bit. Had my heart hammering away with the pulsing .. well, none of that, I'll not spoil anything. You can watch it yourself. Lately I haven't been catching breaks on movie quality but I can recommend this one as well worth the watch. Worth the time spent watching which seems rare these last few months. If I never post a comment here again (28FEB08, 1619) I shouldn't have watched it. Otherwise, until next time, enjoy.

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Quick comment, 26 February 2008

on this one. If Atonement can be even made. If No Country For Old Men can win awards, than this was a great movie. Drop that and this movie was good. I wouldn't recommend heading to a theatre for something like this but then I wouldn't recommend even watching the former two movies. I would encourage a rental of this one. I was more than surprised that the acting was so solid. I can't quite say what it was about this one but it had an independent body while delivering a higher budget soul. For those that have written reviews instead of adding comments here, thanks, but please do suspend belief when doing so; you're watching fiction. Not all fiction meets all film school 101 criteria (in fact, for your type of people, do rent Dead Poets Society and pay attention to what Robin William's character teaches then come back and re-write your reviews). For the rest of you pondering watching this one, again, this didn't meet the 101 but it was entertaining. And I generally detest anything low budget _and_ anything with knives a'slashing away.

10 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Count the votes before counting this anything but real bad, 25 February 2008

I just wasted two hours of my life watching nothing. Had I known who's movie it was I would have known better than to have gone near it. Only film school wannabe movie -oh, excuse me, film makers and those with life time Achievement awards in following could love anything the Coen siblings had a hand in. They should be plugged. I will not touch and spoil the movie for anyone who honestly thinks they have anything to gain by watching this atrocity, just had to say something and count my (wish I could vote 0) vote here. I suppose given the writer's strike something like this was all there was made to win this years awards. Voter's and critics on strike just now? Not here. Before you waste money and tome on this do take note of the tens of thousands of IMDb users who've voted this horrible. Just counting those who rate this 1 and 2, the fanboy-10-voters have been outweighed.

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Added to my all-time favourites collection, 1 February 2008

Others have laid out this movie, the characters, its origins and have, deservedly or not, compared it to (too) many other movies so read those for pithy, proper, emotional, annoyingly word-of-the-day, look at me I took a matchbook course in filmography and various other styles of reviews.

I'll only add that I thought cast and crew (with extra mention of casting direction) deserve a combined award for making such a special movie happen. And that:

I think the only thing I'd consider changing is to have added a little more time to the movie to flesh out the characters interaction. A little more on the extended family, perhaps? Maybe some artistic technique to fill in the evolution from probational placement to pre-climax could have been added? I felt like something was missing and it may have been either of those things. Of course that's only my opinion and it may have been something only I noticed. It did not stop me from falling in love with both the story unfolding and with the main characters.

One of those rare stories I wished to remain behind with.

The Nines (2007)
13 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
I've asked myself this before, 27 January 2008

how do these horrible movies actually get made.

Bad writing. Gibberish. Someones acid trip therapy diary? A mess of an arrangement. No, flipping and slipping doesn't change the fact that you edited this into trash. This is what happens when someone writes using an auto spell and grammar checkers and expects it to come out 'proper'? Suppose you have an auto film editor going.

The acting was tops. I'm thinking all the good movies have already been made and all the re-tellings have been told.

It's award time too, and nothing this year is worthy compared to last .. compared to most any.

Art is dead. This is trash. Folks, if someone pays you to watch this you're being jacked. I regret wasting time writing this.

8 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
This is not about sex., 25 January 2008

I don't see how anyone saw this as only sex. Sexually charged. Sex as a goal. The emotions of sex. All those but not 'just' sex. Relationships. Couples pushing limits. Rules we have for each other that maybe are not that. Maybe nature breeds into us what we will and will not accept -or maybe it's only culture. Tough to say much more without spoiling. I'll agree the dialog, especially near the beginning was rookie. Crude. Trying to shock and instead sounding like 11-year old's trying out new words. But somewhere in there it became what it needed to be to make this an interesting movie. No problem recommending this one. Decide for yourself what it's about. Maybe it's quite different for each. Suggestion: unless you're willing to put your own relationship out there for scrutiny you maybe don't want to watch this with a girl/boyfriend. Better an opposite sex friend that you are not in a sexual or emotional relationship with.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Is anyone or anything what it seems?, 29 December 2007

Not passing up commenting on this very underrated movie. I came here looking to see what others loved about it and found they hadn't loved it. I can't find fault with the story, acting, direction or editing. The sex appeal of both leads was raw, natural, as if the story was written for and around them. A reviewer here mentioned "depth and beauty" and I totally agree with that assessment. The story itself was original enough that, even though I'd read reviews and read the tag-line, it took me by surprise. And it's not often a movie does that to me. I loved the soundtrack, visual effects and emotion. This was one I did not want to end. Other than having been wonderfully entertained by "The Invisible" I'll try to take from it that I may not fully know those I think I know and those I've dismissed from my life may well offer, or already quietly give to, the world much more than I ever imagined.

6 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Script better suited to weekly television, 21 August 2007

Sequels that retain the core original cast have a potential for, if not better than, as good as. This film was neither.

High School Musical 2 was bad piece of work. The sequel to a brilliant first film is a story already told in that first film. Creativity swept into a black whole. Or under the viewer's rug. The movie appeared to begin with a plot but the storytellers wandered away from it. Attention to the story was sacrificed to fit in an extra song or two. An extra hat.

The soundtrack did not match the heat level reached and set in the original film. The song-writing was good. The singers fine. Upbeat. Performing with passion. But the bond between a song and a scene -the one that makes music memorable- is missing. The choreographed dancing was as brilliant as in the first film. Lot's of energy. Lot's of talent with the cast and crew in that area. For what they had to work with, the acting was fine. Simply no fireworks.

The musical mixing near the film's end was shameful. A mess. And then the story was over. On a stage. And then it wasn't. A horrible idea to add a bad second ending.

High School Musical 1 was collectible. High School Musical 2 was forgettable.