Reviews written by registered user

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

Getting There (2002) (V)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
These girls are so beautiful..., 23 May 2004

... but so talentless!!

They sucked when they were young, they suck now.

This movie is irritating, badly made on a technical level, hasn't a story, über-bad acting, is silly beyond belief and so politically correct it makes you want to vomit.

Maybe some day they will be able to 'act' in a good movie, but I don't think we'll live to see that day!

Worst thing I can say about this : I thought Britney Spears' Crossroads was better and less irritating. How about that?

Avoid this at all cost.

Dead Dog (2001)
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Totally different movie from what I expected it would be..., 27 January 2004

I bought this movie, because the company released it on DVD in a totally different way than it should be. The title was changed in "The Dog Killer" and everything was made to look as if this were to be a psychological, dark and tense thriller about a couple whose dog is run over and the guy who did it was going to pay for it, kind of Fatal Attraction or something like that.

Instead, we have some kind of character study (maybe like some of Robert Altman's movies). The movie begins with Tom and Perri losing their driver by a hit-and-runner who is tricked by Tom in believing they have met some time ago. A drunken Henry, who killed the dog, is then thrown out of the car by Tom who then proceeds to...

The image stops with Henry lying on the ground and from a distance the car with Tom standing still. Then we cut away and the character study starts. It isn't a revenge thriller anymore, but we get to learn the different characters. Tom and Perri, Henry and his wife (who's quite unhappy with their marriage), Perri's co-worker (who has the hots for her, but is still in a relationship with Laine, a friend) and the cop who's out to investigate. The plot about the dog killer who's about to pay for his crimes takes a backseat and we learn about these people. It actually becomes almost redundant if Tom actually ran over Henry in the end or if it were someone else. It just isn't the main importance for the director.

An amusing movie which puts a lot of things in a short running time, this surely isn't bad, but it was just that I expected something totally different from what I've seen.

So let us conclude : this isn't a thriller, this is tragic comedy/drama about people whose life gets turned upside down after a traumatic event triggered it all (the dog getting killed of course).

17 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Moronic, 25 December 2003

Maybe in the US of A, other things are important, but in Europe, "acting", "realism" and "moving" are terms that usually are applied when we speak of a quality show.

In 7th Heaven, the acting is horrible, no real people would act like this (maybe only morons) and the situations are sometimes so sentimental and petty, it makes me embarrassed.

I can understand for these people to perform in this, they are bad actors, except for Catherine Hicks, she used to be someone with movies like "Child's Play" on her CV. That little blond guy plays, sorry to say, one of the most irritating characters ever! I mean, who would like to be a friend of him?

Conclusion : this show is horrible and for people who read Dutch : "de stroop druipt er echt vanaf, zo onnozel"

5 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Full House Revisited, 21 April 2003

This is, like Full House, a show about a divorced man who lives with his daughters and his father and encounters all kind of funny situations.

HAHAHA, I'm laughing already!!

Now for how this show turns out in reality : this is the kind of moralistic show without any decent funny situations that I really can't watch without getting frustrated. I know that not every show can be like The Simpsons or Married With Children, but couldn't they do better than re-using the "Full House" format? I mean, Bob Saget plays the exact same role!!! And he and the rest of the actors are as funny as in that previous show : totally not. This is not the way it goes in real families. Or is the American lifestyle that hypocrite and unrealistic?

It stuns me that this kind of tripe still gets made when much better shows like "Grounded For Life" shows how it should be done. But no!! Let's make another Full House, because people liked it so much!! Well, watching this junk embarrasses me, completely. Acting, directing, writing,... all for nothing I can say. I hope this show will appear in the garbage bin very soon!!

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
potential ruined by atrocious movie, 3 January 2003

I'm not a enthusiast of romantic movies, but even I can see when a romantic movie is good or when it's a loser.

this one is way beyond a loser because of 1 thing : everything in this movie (let it be the story, the acting, the images) feel so forced and clichéd that it becomes more of a parody of a romantic movie than a romantic movie on its own. What Richard Gere did in this piece of junk, I don't know!! Last night I was thinking how The Mothman Prohpecies could be better, but I was only thinking how this movie could have been ever made!!

Seriously, Joan Chen, who appeared in Twin Peaks, shouldn't be allowed to direct or use a camera. Romantic movies should be intimate, not ridiculous like this piece of absolute crap. Avoid at all cost!!

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
amusing, very hard action movie with an acceptable Dolph, 5 December 2002

As being an adaption of a comic, I cannot judge if the movie is faithful to it. But as the movie on its own, it certainly is amusing. It's quite hard (and gory) for being a big screen movie, and I like that. Bad guys are hard, merciless people who need to be treated the same way as they do to others, they need to be punished. So then it's normally that this movie isn't going to be for kids.

While the action is quite good, there isn't an original story of Oscar-winning acting, though Lundgren and the rest of the cast do not fail, certainly not in comparison with other performances in action movies. The settings of the movie are equal to the action : dark and grim, just what it needs.

Of course, you know from the beginning that The Punisher and the inspector will live on until the end, but even this predictability doesn't prevent you from having fun with this.

This is entertainment as I like it : it's fast, it's full of action and it's not to complicated. Everyone likes a beautiful, moving movie in a while, but not all the time and that's when this kind of flick comes to mind. Grab a beer with some friends and enjoy it.


Interface (1985)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
good idea marred by horrible execution, 24 November 2002

When I picked up this movie, it sure had a cool cover. And it was a second-hand cassette that I could buy for a price the same as renting it. So I thought that I could never be screwed buying it. I was quite wrong, I must say.

To begin with something positive, the idea of the movie is quite good. A society of students uses their computer skills to kill off degenerates in the society. For me, that's an idea that have could been used to make an entertaining movie. But director Andy Anderson has chosen the very wrong way and tried to make a mixture between SF and some kind of buddy comedy. The 2 main characters (John Davies & Lauren Lane) try to be funny, but they don't succeed, resulting in a irritated viewer. Also, a young Lou Diamond Phillips in the first 5 minutes of this film. The budget is also very low, but that didn't bother me.

I will even say that many low budget movies are better then those big budget special effects movies Hollywood likes to churn out. But again, the idea of this movie was good enough to make a great movie, but no cigar. Anderson would later make the great Detention (if you believe the comments this movie gets on IMDB), but this sure isn't a great debut for him.

Was this movie made by someone like Jim Wynorski (who made entertaining movies of The Lost Island and Chopping Mall), it would have be nice, easy entertainment. Had David Cronenberg been the director, he would have made a neat, little but intelligent SF/horror flick with some shocking effects. But Andy Anderson made it and this is the result. And you already know what I think about it.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
funny idea turned into great show, 10 October 2002

Recently the first season of this show has started on the Belgian quality network.

I say quality network because this show is quality. The voices and characters are funny, the idea of a man who has a human relation with God and the devil (God and the devil are shown as 2 ordinary guys doing their job) is very funny.

I have read how the show has been cancelled very quick in the USA. The show certainly isn't blasfemous, it's very lighthearted. It sadly shows how quality programs aren't always recognized. And that's a pity.

is this flick worth your attention?, 27 August 2002

yes, but don't expect a masterpiece. like most italian zombie flicks, everything is bad here (the makeup for the faces are just halloween masks, the gore isn't as good as it could be, the acting and story... euh, there isn't much to none) but like many bad italian zombie flicks, it's pretty entertaining and interesting.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
a different turn for the series, 4 August 2002

I am a big fan of horror movies and if you are, then you actually can't ignore the Hellraiser series. The original (which was based on the novel of the director, Clive Barker) was an original and frightening tale about hell, demons and the confrontation with these things by people. After this, there was a sequel made, which stood up fairly against the original, but didn't have the same quality, but it kept the same atmosphere and grim look of the original. The third and forth edition were actually Pinhead-based slashers. These movies were entertaining on their own (everybody likes to see a slasher movie once in a while), but it was obvious that these movies didn't reach the same level of quality as the 2 first. Well, the first thing you say then when you see that there is a fifth installment in the making "How more downhill can you go if they went already pretty far??"

This is what a lot of people said if you read the reviews on this page, but i'm glad to say that they are quite wrong. A lot of people seem to have a problem with the fact that during this movie, there are very little scenes with the Cenobites and , of course, Pinhead. These people seem to forget that in the original the actual screen time for these Cenobites is also quite short, 10-15 minutes. In this movie, you have quite the same amount of time, only there are other Cenobites here then in the previous 4 (only Pinhead returns, for 2-3 minutes, but these minutes are quite effective).

This movie (and his director) also wants to take the known elements (Lemarchand's configuration, Cenobites,...) and use it to make a more psychological horror movie. OK, maybe this doesn't succeed in every way, but it takes courage to try to make something different and , especially, again taking the level of quality back to the level set by the first 2. Also, this doesn't succeed (the atmosphere of the first 2 is never matched), but if your honest, you can give Hellraiser : Inferno the number 3 because it is actually the 3rd best of the series.

I can assure you : the movie stands very good on it's own and it contains solid performances from the cast, not exceptional but good enough. The story itself builds up quite nicely and the gore is better and more frightening then in most horror flicks these days. And the idea of the movie (Lemarchand's configuration takes the person who opens it to his own personal hell) is not that bad.

You can't go wrong with this. And for the ones who still think that the 3rd and 4th installment are better, they can wait for number 6, which i think will pick up the line of number 4, acting like 5 doesn't exist. And that's something that Scott Derrickson's brave attempt here doesn't deserve.

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