Reviews written by registered user

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

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

The A-Team (2010)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Missing the A-Team vibe, 24 July 2013

Who hasn't grown up with the original A-Team. Even if you are, like me, born after the air date of the last episode. Reruns are even shown to this day. The popularity of the show in the 80's was sky high.

This movie therefor had pretty big shoes to fill. The movie begins totally uncompromisable when Hannibal and B.A. meet for the first time. For a minute (or more like ten) I was afraid they changed the background story for no apparent reason. Luckily the movie reveals itself to be set before the TV show. The background stays the same with the exception of the war (in which they are convicted for a crime they didn't commit) which has been updated to a more recent war.

The original series had a happy feel to it. The movie is a lot more grimy and shifted towards a more traditional action movie. It essentially takes away what set the A-Team apart from the rest of the action genre. The biggest loss was the "build a tank from duck tape three pieces of wire and a piece of candy scene." I remember sitting in front of the TV and enjoying these contraptions they build the most, not having it in the movie just is wrong in my opinion.

On the plus side this A-Team learned to shoot in those thirtyish years since the original show, it always bothered me that an elite team of soldiers couldn't even hit a car from point blank. In this movie people actually get shot. Yeah.

This movie also is a good action brainless action movie on itself, for me it's just that I'm missing the A-Team vibe of the original.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not bad but lacks the depth of the books, 6 December 2012

The trailer of this movie made me want to read the books and I'm glad I read those first. The movie has the overall plot but lacks the details and depth of the books. And damn those are important.

The movie stays right at the surface of the plot and cannot give the viewer the same emotional and cognitive involvement that the books have. I almost cried for some deaths in the book while it didn't even register in the movie.

I also feel that that the film lacks gore and desperation. I am not much of a horror fan or even an action fan but the whole premise of the story is that the games are awful and to bring that across on the screen you need more gore then the bit of blood they show.

I won't say that the movie is awful as so many have done before me. It is good enough, it just doesn't reach the depth of the books. The only reason therefor to watch this movie is because you cannot read the books.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Does what a teen movie needs to do., 2 August 2011

OK as I said this is a teen movie so it needs to have hot girls, show enough skin, have stupid (in the good way) humor and be anti authority. This movie has it all. It isn't the best in it's respective genre but it is good enough to keep you entertained.

The negative (or positive you decide) of this movie is that it leans a little heavy on the tits and ass and sometimes neglects the other elements of the movie. Don't believe me look at the box shots, they just look like a cheap porn.

The only thing I don't get is why an exclusive girl and boy school would be build so close to each other and have that level of interaction it kinda beats the point of having a separated school in the first place. I guess it feeds into the male fantasy or something.

"Tosh.0" (2009)
16 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
Tosh.O: lame humor, old jokes and (sometimes) funny internet clips, 24 May 2011

Daniel Tosh is the new Bob Saget and no that wasn't a compliment. I have tried watching this show on several occasions because there was nothing else on TV but quite frankly, I'd rather watch paint dry.

The show uses pretty much the same formula as America's funniest home video's. So you take some clips make a lame voice over for it and talk it all together with more lame humor. What was quite entertaining in the 90's is now old and stale. The core of the show (showing funny clips) is, in essence, still good but the humor definitely needs a update into the 10's

The clips themselves are sometimes funny and sometimes they are not. The voice over for them ranges from old jokes to downright unfunny. I really don't know why they air this show.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Good enough movie for it's time, 17 May 2011

Sci-fi movies don't age well. What was plausible only a few decades ago seems funny now (can you imagine the mass hysteria that was caused by a radio broadcast of "war of the worlds" today?). So if you want to watch this movie be sure to let go of your 21st century knowledge and view it like it's 1968. If you want to know about it's looks and feel just imagine the thunder birds with real people and... GREEN SLIME!

It's a fun movie that shows what the 60's where about. The women are sexy and can do little more then scream and look helpless. The men are all robust and react without fear. People are confident in the future of space travel and believe it is only a matter of time before many manned space stations will be in earth's orbit. And unfortunately it also shows that the apartheid was not over yet as shown by the all-white crew.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Somebody should have told em that to shoot a sequel you need a new script, 17 May 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is a sequel to "without a paddle" from 2004 which was a good movie for some brainless fun you sometimes need. This movie is exactly the same, no really. (So good for some brainless fun)

Okay there are a few differences: instead of three friends there are two and a guy who joins in (which makes three), Instead of a six-pack they bring two kegs, instead of a bear there are squirrels (no really...), instead of a canoe there is a raft and instead of two criminal hillbillies it are two convicts.

but for the rest? there is the waterfall, the drifted apart friendship and quest they set out on, two hippie girls in a tree house,a river and the lot. the makers of this movie where extremely lazy, so lazy in fact that they used the exact same script twice. If you saw the first movie there is no need to see this one as well.

shame on the makers of this movie!

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
low expectations weren't low enough, 10 May 2011

First off I didn't watch the entire movie. I had enough after about 45 minutes so it could get extremely funny after that, I doubt it however.

When I saw the trailer for this movie on TV I thought it was a "straight to DVD" movie, low budget and made for quick laughs and quicker cash. I was therefor thoroughly surprised, when I came to this site, to learn it had a $65,000,000 dollar budget and grossed $30,000,000 in it's opening weekend.

I say this so you know my mindset, When I tuned in to this I was expecting a bad movie, bad jokes and brainless humor. Nothing could have prepared me for this though. In the time I watched I did not laugh once. The jokes are painfully unfunny and/or have been used so often that any fun has been beaten out of it years ago.

I suggest staying clear of this movie and just rent a movie which offers the same type of humor but which is actually funny.

"Impact" (2008)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Bad science, sure, but still, 14 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK so there are some problems with this movie I'll give you that but still I want to focus on the positives. I give it a 6 out of 10 for those.

1 The acting is okay. For those who don't agree: We had a politician here who made a campaign film, now that was bad acting! 2 It's internationally oriented. For once it is not just the United States who is affected and who magically saves the world. Actually the Europeans and Russians play their part.

3 Even if it is just for a brief moment the Germans and French talked German and French. For the rest of the movie regional accents are heard. Not the whole world speaks American English.

4 It was enjoyable to watch if you don't focus to much on the negatives.

The trouble I had with it are the following: 1 It's scientific basis is as good as a 1950's movie there are a lot of things that don't add up. It's fine for a movie back then but now moviegoers know more and are therefor more demanding on this point. They should have taken a little more care in getting the basics right, even if the higher science doesn't add up.

2 that the US would decide on this without consulting it's international partners (I believe that China, Russia, the EU and others would want a say in that and all hell would break loose if they didn't get a say) this would be the spoilerisch bit, even if I believe anyone would see this coming. 3 that the US president would be stupid enough to prefer the option of the army over the option presented by a large international team of scientists (who are in consensus for once). Especially when the option by the military is considered as counterproductive for years by scientists and administrators for years.

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Unintentionally funny., 28 May 2010

As the movie progresses the plot holes get bigger and bigger. just trying to discover them all just becomes funny. I can't give any away because those would be big spoilers but let's say the film could have ended in 10 minutes if it adhered to real life. If I ever need a drinking game I'll be renting this movie and we'll have fun trying to discover all plot holes. It's a guarantee you'll be drunk way before the credits. I laughed my ass off (so that isn't good for a movie which isn't supposed to be a comedy.)And then there are unintentional movie references like the villain that seems to be from a Bond flick. The "I'm no flight engineer" seems like an unintentional reference to Bones from Star Trek.

8 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
It isn't bad but it isn't NCIS, 25 April 2010

The biggest flaw they made with this show is calling it NCIS. They wanted to cash on the success of the original series and give the show a boost in it's early viewer rating. This was a big mistake. The biggest selling point of the original show isn't the crime solving, their are loads of shows that do that; it isn't the army setting or the combo of the two. The single biggest selling point is the interaction of the characters with each other. It just works so well. Any show with NCIS in it's name gives the expectation of having a Gibs, a Ducky and all the others. In this show the characters work well. But not on the level that NCIS does and so it's a disappointment. If it was given any other name you would have found it entertaining and would have watched it, instead you are now constantly comparing it to the original and it fails that comparison.

My biggest advice: Watch this show first and then watch the original NCIS and you'll probably like em both.

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