Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 7 of 10: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]
95 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Funny but stupid, 23 August 2003

Lots of good gags, but the situations are just too stupid to believe. It also has a few new gross-outs to make you want to spit your popcorn out.

Knowing the ending won't make a difference. If you're going to see this, don't let anyone tell you the gags. That and the acting are what pull this movie along.

Gigli (2003)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Definitely one of the better movies of the summer, 4 August 2003

Clever story with far too much focus on the main actors. I can see why Pacino and Walken wanted to do cameos.

I'm betting that the critics took they're opinion of the actors, combined it with the preview, and then rambled on for a page to alleviate their jealous anger that they're not hot, young actors in a great movie. Granted, the last couple movies each has been in have been poorly acted and lacking anything remotely related to a decent story.

This, film, however, doesn't require either to completely carry it. The story and some extremely funny situations that make them seem like they could do comedy (which neither can) kept me interested throughout.

The writer and director deserve a huge amount of credit for coming up with a story that fit both and then letting them more or less be themselves.

Going in, I thought this was just another throw the stars together and collect the bucks movie. Turns out that it's one of the better movies of the summer.

It's one weakness is the ending. Forced, meaningless, and exposing Aflek's and Lopez's acting weaknesses. Fortunately, not long enough to ruin the rest of the film.

In the rest of the film, though, The acting came off naturally. Both essentially being the overly confident, the world revolves around me, characters they probably are in reality, but inside a story that benefits greatly from exactly that.

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Like watching a teen after-school special on a christian TV channel., 21 July 2003

I'm glad I didn't have to pay to see it.

Not much more to say. The few funny moments are rip-offs of movies like American Pie. The rest is like staring at a photo of a corpse with a lot of smiley faces drawn on it. The corpse, however, will be a lot happier than someone who had to watch this movie.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Good homophobic boys., 21 July 2003

Imagine a TV cop show with Matrix-like FX. No more imagination required. If you feel the need to watch more slow-mo car chases and slow motion bullets going through necks and heads, this is your movie.

You would think that if a studio is willing to create a sequel, that the people who made it in the first place would have more say in the story-line and create something meaningful.

So, either the people making this movie have nothing meaningful to say or they're happy just taking the money. A wasted sequel.

Although Lawrence and Smith continue to be funny, it requires a lot more effort on the director's part this time around. Most of the humor involves the anal area in one way or another. The only time it really gets funny is a video scene in a store and a corpse scene. The rest of the time, you might say, requires a bullet in your seat to get you to let out more than a sigh.

O Fantasma (2000)
4 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Very realistic but empty story., 7 July 2003

Great camera work and very realistic in the sights and sounds. But, there's little more to it than that.

Unfortunately, the story goes nowhere and makes absolutely no sense. It's not the actors' faults. The actors do a heroic job. Just that the story is empty. It gets to the point where it turns comic. To the Director's credit, he seems to run with the comic notion at the end. The only real fix is to re-write it.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
The smartest movie of the summer!, 7 July 2003

How's that for irony. The laughs aren't even empty.

I was surprised by this. It's, like, WAY better than the first. After the very disappointing Sweet Home Alabama, I was expecting a soft follow-up that simply catered to pop-culture.

Instead, you may find yourself learning something about politics. Best of all, it doesn't do this by sacrificing the laughs. It's all very well integrated. There's even a clever Wizard of Oz reference very fitting for the wizards behind the curtain in Washington.

Another nice surprise is the soundtrack. Unlike the Charlie's Angels sequel, this film sticks with the same style music as the original.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Unfortunately, not the termination of the series, 3 July 2003

Unless it loses lots of money, which would be a fitting termination. Fortunately I didn't have to pay to see it. No one should.

2 of 10.

Obviously made to capitalize on the Matrix/cyber world popularity that movie companies no doubt see as an opportunity for a quick buck. Besides computers (machines) taking over being an obvious rip off of the Matrix/Animatrix, T3 steals from the Hulk (rebuilding nano-technology) and Men in Black II (sexy woman villain).

You know you're in trouble when a movie starts out ranting about armageddon. When the movie has the technology transforming into the demon-faces from horror 101, it's time to find the exit.

Acting is tolerable, but the scenes and characters are so predictable and cliche that the acting seems the same.

It tries to be funny, but the only people laughing are the people laughing loud at anything, probably paid to attend early movie showings in an attempt to try to excite the audience. If you saw the first 2, you might find some funny spots. More than likely, you'll find the spots that are intended to be serious as funny.

Video FX is nothing new. If you've seen the previous Terminator movies, you've already seen what you're going to see.

Soundtrack is nothing new. If you want the same old Terminator stuff, that's what you'll get. That and some really bad christian pop music.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Charlie's Angels pretend they're in the Matrix., 29 June 2003

5 of 10, and that's probably to kind.

Lots of action and humor, but a story line apparently designed for soldiers, cops, teens, and Homeland Security officials. And not very bright ones at that.

It's great if you want a thrill ride, but that's pretty much all it is. The problem is that the cutaways during the big FX sequences tend to take away the thrill and make it seem ridiculous or fake.

Most of the FX sequences are Matrix-like. The problem, of course, is that they aren't in a virtual world. Then, there's a lot of music mixed to be very loud and club-like. It actually helps to keep the movie moving along (and the audience awake). The mixes are very well done, even making some "music" (corporate pop) that is horrible (can you say Bon Jovi and MC Hammer?) half-way listenable.

The problem with the music is that how does 80s music tie in with a movie paying homage to a 70s show? Or, as the director might try to argue, with the angels growing up period which is set 8-10 years ago. Grunge, industrial metal, hip-hop, trip-hop, electronica, alternative, or female folk music would be believable. Plenty of inconsistencies like that. You get the feeling the people making this movie are trying to re-live their teens, not create a believable teen life for the characters.

Hulk (2003)
Best of the big summer releases of early 2003, 23 June 2003

If I were see Hulk, X2, or Matrix Reloaded again, Hulk would be my pick.

While it may not be up to the standard the first X-men or Spiderman set, it still is far better than many of the comic-book wanna-bes like Daredevil.

After all the talk of the long setup, it's sad to find that the setup is the weakest part and not nearly as long. There could easily be another 5 minutes, and it would help. The pace of the movie is more than fast enough despite the length. Anyway, there is at least one little surprise in the beginning that adds a much needed laugh, though the 5 year olds will miss it.

As for the visual FX, wow. As close to human/creature realism as anything before it, with the possible exception of the Two Towers. More realistic in the naturalness of the movements and integration with the real world (buildings, trees, people, water, etc.). Eight Legged Freaks did a good job of it last year with spiders, but you can get away with a lot more with non-human creatures. That and there were still moments of dimensional displacement (in the old huge creature movies, the points where it's obvious the creature and the other objects, be they buildings, people, etc., were not actually together). In Hulk, nothing like that jumped out at me. The Hulk always seemed as if it were actually with the surroundings and people.

Soundtrack fit in well, nothing forced. Nothing distinctly original or groundbreaking, but enjoyable anyway. The sound FX has a realism in it too. Not too big or loud as is often becoming the case in other movies. The surround sound, like every other big movie, is still lacking. That said, there isn't any sound displacement to make it seem faked.

As for the acting, it fit with the overall comic-book, over-stated sort of feel where everything, including personalities, are exagerrated, like 50s-style characters.

Stevie (2002)
4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Beyond a documentary. A historical document., 20 April 2003

9 of 10

And it provides some answers to what might happen if you went home with a Jerry Springer guest.

A documentary that lacks the polish of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, but provides great insight into parts of the USA and how to raise children. This goes into the history archives. It should become a part high-school history courses.

I had the great fortune of seeing this the same day before I saw Gummo (the two go together so well that if it had been one movie, I'd give it a 10).

The drawbacks? Very little polish. No soundtrack or FX to reinforce important moments.

Even though it may seem like its long, you'll leave the theater wishing there had been more. Although it's raw footage, it's put together well and there aren't blurry or bumpy shots. Because its done in what amount to movie snapshots, its a little hard to get into initially. But that goes away within 15 minutes and you're drawn into the tunnel of Stevie's life and, surprisingly, the life of the film maker.

Page 7 of 10: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [Next]