Reviews written by registered user
Ever Evanovich MacLean

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

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

Two Hands (1999)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
couldn't stop laughing, 25 December 2002

how many different movies was this one made from? hehehheh...but that just makes it funnier. this movie is great. and for those delighted by the offerings of other countries, sheer eye and ear candy.(except, i might add, for the generic aussie hairdo of the girlfriend: bleached blond w two inches of black roots and black eyebrows. but come on, here's got to be more ladies in australia with good hair than bad? {anyone who would like to confirm or deny, be my guest})hey who doesn't like chase scenes, botched bank robberies, twitterpated lads, or ghostly guardians complete with grave mold?

stringy haired narrators,grave mold, and dirt any day!!! my favorites!

"John Doe" (2002)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
any one who compares this with the pretender is a head case., 17 October 2002

i had to comment again when i saw that people were comparing this to the pretender. now i have to say you people are crazy. the character is nowhere near the caliber of michael t weiss' jarod. i did notice one uniform thing: those who compared the two shows cannot spell. how can you trust the opinion of someone who thinks jarod has two r's in it? it purely boggles the mind. but you don't have to be qualified to write a review-- more's the pity.

final words: all you who think this is the "new pretender" go watch every single pretender episode and all the movies like i have and then come back and talk to me.

Gladiator (2000)
commodus--you gotta love him..., 16 October 2002

...i mean come on!! joaquin phoenix!!! from any other actor the character would have been truly evil, but from joaquin we get true evil and still we love him. even a name that i can't help but think "commode" when i hear (now did they choose the name for that reason, the deviants?) the character is still brilliant. he's manipulative and wicked and lost little puppy and just so(bite me!please!)cute. he's the real doomed hero.

final words: joaquin makes this film. without commodus there is no point.

0 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
crap version of good book, 22 September 2002

don't watch this. go read the book. tv cannot do this story justice, what with rating restrictions and all. the best parts of books like I.T.M. lie in being privy to the characters thoughts (and their sex lives as well) which do not translate to screen, and especially not in '87! so give this a pass, and let it rot in peace.

final words: waste of time.

"John Doe" (2002)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
faux noir-- very faux, 21 September 2002

well. interesting i must say. tries to capture the same style that made "now and again" so good but this is not so good. and what is with the faux noir narrative? the premise is nice: a man with knowledge of all the facts in the world can't remember anything about himself. but after seeing the pilot i can honestly say it does nothing for me. absolutely no emotional investment in the character. that is not to say other people won't like it or that it's a total waste. i am still going to watch it in hopes that it gets better. but i won't be crying if it gets canceled.

final words: decent enough in its way but not worth writing home about.

Q: why does heath ledger's character kill himself?, 17 September 2002

A: to keep from stealing any more of billy bob's scenes.

in my opinion, heath is the only cast member who remotely deserved any kind of acclaim for that movie. and in my private alternate universe (those of us with imaginations can do this) sonny shoots hank and gets the girl himself.

final words: you will like this movie if boys don't cry and buffalo 66 are yr type of movie.

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
like a guilty pleasure?, 28 August 2002

i decided to tape this movie without watching it and save it for a rainy day, and did it ever pay off! this is a great movie. now i admire antonia susan's writing, but trying to slog through morpho eugenia (book from which this movie was made) was like a peculiar form of torture-- insect description til i thought i would vomit. never thought i would say this, but the movie is so much better! it has all you could want:great acting{no matter what some people say about patsy kensit, if they hadn't wanted some one with her particular talent she would not have been cast. so there.i bite my thumb at thee.} great costumes, setting, and surprise twist ending--! see this movie.

final words:watch it for the sheer guilty pleasure

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
gutless rehash, 28 July 2002

i was forced to take 5 young cousins to see this at emerald isle over thanksgiving weekend 2001. while it was pretty, it was nothing i hadn't seen before. (i watch quite a lot of fantasy and sci films) i was amazed at how many people thought this was some groundbreaking, startlingly wonderful work. especially how many people told me i should read the book, which i happened to find in a bookcase of the beach house where our extended family was staying. suffice it to say, the whole thing sounded cribbed from roald dahl. this author obviously hardly had an original idea in her life. the entire story is like a cobbled together mishmash of bits of others ideas.

final words: LET'S MAKE MOVIES OF DESERVING BOOKS INSTEAD OF SH**!! and please can somebody make a childrens film where the scary parts are actually scary? don't dumb it down. children are people too.

like a danielle steel novel, 22 July 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


i wanted to see this movie for a number of reasons: the cast- i love cate blanchett, christina ricci, & johnny depp. the setting- i love anything set between 1910-1949. the cinematography- beautiful colors, what can i say. but when i had to wait for 60 out of the movie's 100 minutes before christina and johnny's characters did anything more than make cow's eyes at each other i have to say i was disappointed. i had expected more romance. the love scenes were very nice (that one with the chair-mmm.) but you've seen those movies adapted from books wherein the emphasis lies in being privy to the characters thoughts, which unfortunately don't translate to screen. this movie would have been better as a book. and the ending, my word! how can you go more cheesy than the dad lost his faith in Yaweh and became a famous hollywood musical producer?

final words: if this had been a book, robert (ewan macgregor, in a life less ordinary) would have written it after his first "great american trash novel" starring marilyn and jfk's lovechild.

like a kiddy pool, 6 July 2002

is it just me, or did anyone else notice that the miniseries is called "gormenghast" but is actually the events so to speak of "titus groan"? while i enjoyed it, i was also disappointed as i was expecting it to be much more dark than it was portrayed. the ending was better, especially with the flooding bits. but i must complain on one count at least: why on earth did they film it in those awful candy-colored sets?

final words: the experience was like-- if snow white's stepmother had given a green apple lollipop instead of the viciously delicious real thing.

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