Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
31 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Better than the first one, 26 February 2017

First let me say that there was nothing that I liked about the first Rocky Horror Picture Show with the exception of Tim Curry whom I adored. The script was horrible, and everything else about the film was amateurish. I say again, with the exception of Tim Curry whose performance was fresh, shocking, exciting and mesmerizing.

I must give credit where credit is due here. SO many people hated this film. This amazes me as everything about the film was stepped up in quality with the exception of the script and, of course, the role of Dr. Frank-N-Furter which could not be out done, but to my utter amazement was a performance matched in fresh, shocking, mesmerizing excitement by Laverne Cox.

I suppose the quality that the original so lacked was the very thing that attracted many of it's fans. I just am not taken by that sort of film. But lets give credit where credit is due. The filmmakers in this latest version did a fabulous job of making this - not really a diamond in the rough - shine, but shine it does.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Worst best picture ever, 5 January 2017

Production value is fabulous. Acting spectacular. But I cannot conceive how anyone in their right mind could conclude that this was the story and script to put all this talent into. This film was so depressing and long I couldn't wait for the end. It had to be FANTASTIC to make up for all the torture the filmmakers put me through. But no. The end came - that was the end wasn't it? I don't know. It didn't seem like an end. IT just seemed like more of the same depression that goes on apparently beyond (thank God) what the viewer gets to see. Holy smokes...what a downer. My conclusion is that I wasted my time and money. I hope that if you go to see this that you have a much better experience than I did.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not so well done remake of a classic, 18 December 2015

"50 Shades of Grey" is a rehashed storyline taken from the beautifully done film, "9 1/2 weeks". I would skip this one and go straight to Micky Rourke and Kim Bassinger in the original version. Every aspect of 9 1/2 weeks is a much richer depiction of the emotional adventure of the S&M lifestyle. The script is much more believable. The scenes are much more varied, artistically crafted and interesting - even fun. And the ending?? While 50 Shades trails off with a whimper, 9 1/2 weeks hits you with a crushingly powerful ending that matches the intensity of the game that is spotlighted in both of these two films. 9 1/2 weeks offers all of this and you get to see why Micky Rourke was known as one of the sexiest men alive.

Star Trek (2009)
6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Loved the Original stuff - hated this, 26 November 2009

I gave it a three because a few of the actors were spot on recreating their characters. Speaking of which, Since when was James T. Kirk a complete a-hole? This version of the character was despicable and in no way heroic. He was a loud, out-of-control jerk that someone should have smacked around - a lot. I kept wishing someone would kill him off.

The original series had heart and soul. This thing had neither. The original did not have mind blowing effects, but instead had mind blowing things to contemplate. AS far as I'm concerned, the franchise has lost the most important part of what was "Star Trek". I guess that's commercialism at it's finest. For me it had very little going for it with the exception of a few fun performances which weren't enough to keep me seated through the entire thing. I walked out.

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Brilliant!!!, 15 March 2009

For the first few minutes I was not following the story very well but the beauty held me captive. The art direction - camera work - graphics held me spellbound. I am not a video game kinda gal, but this film made me see the light. Much of the film is live action - not animated which I was not expecting and a key performance was merely acceptable at best. Others cast members were marvelous. Ricci was at her adorable best. If you enjoy innovation, imagination, creativity outside the box coupled with great action and a lesson worth learning. You should come away from this one glad you ignored the negative hype. If you love that kinda stuff, you will be buying this movie to watch again and again - as I will.

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Best Picture?????? Come on!!!!!!, 30 May 2008

I just don't understand the Academy Awards rating system. This movie was such a drag. I tried really hard to appreciate it, but I couldn't find anything to attach myself to in order to stick with it. Everyone was just so dam weird and unlikeable. I couldn't make it to the end to find out if there was a point to this sad character mess. I didn't want to know how it ended. I made it about 3/4 of the way through by telling myself, "any minute now this is going to turn in to a 'Best Picture of the Year' event". It was so slow and so boring and I wasn't even that impressed with Daniel Day Lewis. He was slow and boring. I think Tom Hanks got a raw deal and for that matter, everything about Charlie Wilson's War was better than this one. Certainly Juno had so much more to offer. What exactly are the members of the academy voting on? Certainly not quality entertainment. Guess I'll have to check out the People's Choice Awards this year.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Couldn't take it!, 14 May 2008

Granted my husband and I are not in the "now" generation anymore, but we like to think that we are not that far from it. This movie made us feel totally gonzo. I got a headache trying to stay focused on the screen. The whip pans and cuts were so extreme and messy that we couldn't take more than 30 minutes of it. We tried fast forwarding to "the good parts" and couldn't find any really. I've heard that lots of people were disappointed in the fact that the monster/alien whatever it was, was never explained. I could have dealt with that if there would have been something worth seeing. We never found that something - but then, like I said, we didn't get past 30 minutes or so before we both reached for the off button on the remote and then our favorite pain relievers.

44 out of 53 people found the following review useful:
Really Enjoyed It, 1 February 2008

Loved the music, the heart and the optimism of the show. The long line of programs that depend on shock, absurdity and the exploitation of emotionally damaged individuals as their source of holding an audience's attention have run the gamit and tanked - for me anyway. This was very refreshing, hopeful and heartwarming. And man, gotta love Jonny Lee Miller's eyes (this is Laura not Phil speaking here). He's got the look. And I can't wait to see the next episode. Man - ten lines - well, I've seen Jonny in several other projects and always felt he was just this far away from making it big. I think Eli Stone could be the vehicle that finally does it for him. Good luck!

Slither (2006)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Horror not usually my bag but this is well put together, 5 January 2007

I am not a big horror flick fan, however, I did very much enjoy Shawn of the Dead and the original Dawn of the Dead. I checked this out when there was nothing else on and was pleasantly surprised. The acting is quite good and the visuals (makeup/effects) impressive. The story, fairly well thought out and written, even has heart. And though I wouldn't call this film a comedy, it certainly had some great lines and amusing characters. Also a plus for me, though kill scenes are graphic, they are not painful gory in a way that would make me turn away. Instead I was intrigued by the technique and imagination of the artists behind them. Nicely put together B picture that is well worth a watch.

Sideways (2004)
10 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Boring, 10 April 2005

I guess if you are a wine expert you can catch the "in humor". I didn't laugh once. I thought this was a comedy. I can't figure what was so smart about it, unless critics, claiming it to be, are suggesting a vast knowledge of the world of wines is passed on to the viewer. That is undeniably true. There was so much information that I did not care to ever know about wines thrust forth in and unending almost torturous stream that I finally punched the DVD off. Maybe the end of the story brought some insightful point to light and I missed out not having been able to make it all the way through the film. But after 2/3 of the movie I just couldn't wait any longer for something interesting to happen.

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]