Reviews written by registered user

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Daredevil (2003)
Very good, but should be longer., 17 February 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

May include spoilers.Daredevil is a very good superhero movie but it could do with being a bit longer. I say this because it seems that we do not learn much about some of the main characters. For example, the Kingpin, I'd say, is only on screen for about 20 minutes, Bullseye doesn't have much to do until the last half hour of the movie (that goes for Elektra aswell) and Matt Murdock is only Daredevil for about 15 minutes in the first hour. The characters really needed to be expanded on - we don't hear much about Daredevils "I'm the good-guy" conflict with himself. And finally for the bad points, there needs to be more fight scenes between Daredevil and Bullseye & Kingpin (betwwen them they share about 3 fights). But other than that, the film is brilliant. The action is great, its dark, the diolog isn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be and in my eyes, its as good as Spider-man (but in a completley different way). You can, however, see where the film takes a tiny, tiny bit of inspiration from Batman (the final confrontation between Daredevil and Bullseye being in a church and the final confrontation between Batman and The Joker being in a cathedral). Ben Affleck is great as Daredevil, Michael Clarke Duncan is fantastic as Kingpin (and looks the part despit his comic book counterpart being white), Colin Farrel is perfect as Bullseye and as for Jennifer Garner (who I feared would be in too much of the movie), I just wish she was in it a lot more - she both looks and plays Elektra brilliantly. Overall, worth the £4.50 I paid to see it. 8 out of 10.

Slightly different, but it's still Bond!, 13 December 2002

Die Another Day is great for the first hour (approx), but when Bond goes to the Ice Palace, it becomes "good".It is here that the story gets a bit squashed - lot happens in a short amount of time (including the traditional Bond car chase). After that, the film is great again. The final battle is very good but could do with a little less Halle Berry. But, to be fair to her, she was a lot less anoying than I feared she would be.Another thing I was a little weary of was the invisible car but, again, I didn't find it that bad. I respect Lee Tamahori's style of direction and his slightly different approach to a Bond film but towards the end of the movie, he gets a little carried away with the "bullet-time/Matrix style" movements. In the big picture, it's still a Bond movie and doesn't, by any means, ruin the series. James Bond WILL Return!!!

15 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
What a load of rubbish!, 3 November 2002

Considering this was made AFTER the original Casper, the effects are a lot worse. The acting is diabolical and the story is terrible. The only thing that is any good in this film is James Earl Jones' voice. I do understand that this is SUPPOSED to be a kids movie but for very little kids it might be a little scary and for very big kids, they'll have a field day ripping into this movie. Enough said I think.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Good film but a little short., 1 November 2002

This version of the THE TIME MACHINE is good but a little short. It doesn't drift too far away from the original story and the scenes that are added are very good. However, by the end of the movie, you can't help but want it to be a little bit longer - it definitly needs a few more time travelling scenes.But the time traveling we do see is fantastic and the effects are great. Also absent from the film is the part, in the book, when the Time Traveller travels forward in time and witnesses, pretty much, the end of the world. Overall, a great film which is just as good as the 1960 version.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
All you need to know, 15 September 2002

The only thing really terrible in this film is the Spice Girls. Other than them, the film as actually O.K. Maybe it would be a lot better if it was based on a fictional pop group. Also, like most films made in the late sixties, it represents the period in which it was made in.

2002's Answer to Empire strikes back., 20 May 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The force is definatly with this film. The only bad thing that can be said about Attack of the Clones is that some of the scenes seem a bit rushed. You can understand why though. Episode II had to show Anakin Skywalker's first steps towards the Dark side, show his ever growing love for Padme Amidala and show the beginnings of the clone war referred to in A New Hope. Attack of the Clones is literally none stop action with a great plot.

Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his padawan learner, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) are assigned by the Jedi council to protect Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) after an attempt on her life is made by an unknown personnal. When Padme - now a senator - gos back to her home planet of Naboo, Anakin gos with her as her bodyguard while Obi-Wan investigates into the murder attempt. Both he and a the Jedi are in for some surprises. Although I thought that Phantom Manace was a very good film, Attack of the Clones is loads better than it. Any gaps left empty in Episode I are filled in Episode II. The relationship between Obi-Wan and Anakin is a lot more intersting than that of Qui-Gon Ginn and Obi-Wan in Phantom Menace. Wheras Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan were always very serious, Obi-Wan and Anakin are always sharing sarcasm. George Lucas packs as much as he can into Attack of the Clones, but be warned. Like Empire Strikes Back, Attack of the Clones doesn't really end. It seems to have - like Empire- a "TO BE CONTINUED" ending. SPOILER ALERT MAY FOLLOW. In Episode III we still have yet to see the birth of Luke and Leia, the wipe-out of the Jedi, Anakins full tranfer to the Dark Side, Senator Palpatine to be revealed as Darth Sideous (later to become Empororer Palpatine)and that long awaited duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan which ends in the demise of Anakin, and the birth of the Darth Vador we all know. Personnally, I think that in Episode III , Padme will be pregnant before Anakin turns to the Dark side but won't give birth until aferwards. Everyone will know of Luke's birth, even Anakin. Leia, on the other hand, will only be revealed by Padme later on to Obi-Wan who will then hand her over to Senator Bail Organa (Jimmy Smits). Meanwhile, Palpatine will give his prophecy of Luke being the actual chosen one to Anakin. Anakin will be instructed to take Luke and train him in the ways of the Dark Side. Anakin, however, will not be able to take Luke as Obi-Wan will have already handed the new born baby over to Anakin's step-brother, Owen Lars. Anakin's frustration will lead him on to kill Padme who has not told him of the wherabouts of Luke. Obi-Wan is too late to save Padme and realizes that in order to protect Luke and Leia, he must kill Anakin. I wonder if all this WILL ACTUALLY happen in Episode III, but for now we have an excellent Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
My view on the film, 18 May 2002

Batman Returns is one of the best sequels I have ever seen. Like the original Batman, Batman Returns provides Bat-fans everywhere with what they want in a Batman film. It is a very original sequel and doesn't copy the first film in any way (unlike Batman & Robin which just seemed like a not so good re-make of Batman Forever). Michael Keaton, once again, plays Batman brilliantly and , once again, the only thing letting him down is his look. He just doesn't look like Batman, plus, I think Batman should be at least six foot whereas Michael Keaton is under six foot. Danny DeVito is great as The penguin and Michelle Pfieffer is purrrr-fect as Catwoman. Batman Returns, quite simply, is great!

Batman (1989)
My view on the film., 17 May 2002

This is, quite simply, the best Batman film of them all (Batman Returns just losing out). Its dark and gives fans what they want to see in a Batman film. Tim Burton was the perfect choice to direct and Michael Keaton, although he may not have looked right for the part, acts the part of The Dark Knight brilliantly. Jack Nicholson plays The Joker fantasticly and Danny Elfman's definitive score plays no small part in the movie's excellence. A must-see film for everyone.