Reviews written by registered user
|239 reviews in total|
Sometimes things need to keep away from the 'big screen'. And this is
one of those instances where cartoon is better as cartoon in 30 minute
segments rather than a 90 minute CGI. Just like with the movie
Garfield, the movie doesn't do anybody justice.
I guess the creators thought it would be cute for the Chipmunks to sing lots of popular music numbers created within the last 10 years. But I found nothing amusing with the destruction of songs I knew. Nor did I really feel there was any character development between Dave and his love interest. And where were the Chipettes?
The plot was corny and unbelievable. Somehow for the Chipmunks to attain such success rather quickly is just Hollywood interpreting life in an highly unrealistic way. Not only that, but it felt too superficial and boring. I wish kids would watch something else than this waste of time. "F"
After watching the classic cult film from the late 70s, one would think
this 'sequel' would try to emulate it in some degree. Boy would they be
wrong. Not only is the plot totally different, but the only thing they
seemed to keep was a chick named "Debbie" and that they are
cheerleaders. Well, I guess they were cheerleaders.
This film is totally devoid of a plot. Somehow some chicks die, including Debbie. And somehow Debbie goes to Hell. You can forget there being anything else worth understanding. They do dress in cheer outfits, but it seems to only be an excuse to waste time between sex scenes.
I don't think "Dallas" was ever mentioned. And the cheerleading was just awful. The cheerleaders looked more real in the original cult classic.
And besides Kina Kai, were there any non-Caucasians involved in ANY scene? Talk about lack of diversity. Even the original from the 70s was more diverse than this plastic android movie with all its fake acting and fake sounding lines. Not worth watching for any movie goer of any audience. "F"
I really had a lot of patience for this movie to get going. I sat there
for over 20 minutes, in between the bad and displaced classical music,
to see the plot between the characters. And nothing. The sound quality
was just awful throughout and that was only the first of the major
Sure, the fort of Jamestown was accurate, but I hardly think those peoples spoke in parables and poems the entire time. The dialogue was about as misplaced as the latest Australian version of "MacBeth", with Shakespearan language and modern scenery and weapons. Getting to the point, the dialogue was unreal in a bad way.
I don't remember ever reading about Captain Smith having such a fancy sword for such an average man at the time. I wish it was more straight forward with real dialogue so the audience could get into it. The director did a much better job in Saving Private Ryan. But this was a waste of time. Thin Red Line wasn't too much better than this, but at least it was better.
Overall, its unfortunate that this is the only movie with historical Jamestown shown in it. "F"
Maybe this is every man's dream? To have a one night drunken fling with
your fiancé's cousin? Or so you think. Turns out, it becomes a headache
to keep it concealed for long.
Enter panties left at the scene of the crime and everything just snowballs. From enraged police officers to wearing a wire for the FBI to bust such an officer, the movie takes one problem and turns it into multiple ones for the main character.
Like many 90s films of this genre, however, this one also has a happy ending. Sort of. But this one is unique that it has two love triangles in one. But I guess I am happy everybody else was happy.
Overall, the laughs were fairly good. So if you have a little time to kill, this will do the trick. "C+"
How could I best express my feelings about this movie: hideous? a
headache? lack of coherent writing? plain stupidity? Try all of the
above for this travesty. And that just for the direction.
Story? Well I guess there is a story. Two dumb blondes look for a job after they crash a plane into a golf course. They are mistaken for a 'world renounced assassin' (sarcasm) and are 'hired' by two 'mobsters'. One thinks "taking him out" means a date, and the other gets the minor actor she dreams of. And of course, the turtle reserve for the farting turtle, that they build with the casino winnings.
Sounds likes all this could be funny? Guess again. They try to make it funny, but its not. Filming sequences aren't well done. I've seen better filming in Hong Kong movies. Visuals are average for a late 80s film. But the problem is that its a 2007 movie.
Not worth my time to ever watch this again. It still doesn't beat Danny Glover's "Out" movie from the early 80s as the worst movie of all time, but then again that film is in a class of its own. "F"
Strange, this movie was funnier than I thought it would be. For a movie
filled with 80s clichés, this wasn't bad. Of course, it brought out a
lot of 80s style things, but some were out of place.
To begin with, there were a few things that came out in the 80s that were post-1986 that somehow Kennedy's character (Justin) was familiar with. In the deleted scenes, the extended night club scene uses some anachronisms.
Despite those flaws, its funny to see Jamie Kennedy act like a 12 year old in a 32 year old body. Especially when Kennedy discovers women and the internet. He becomes confused about the issue and tries to emulate the beginning of an adult movie in completely wrong situations.
Of course, Kennedy learning how to please a woman via Hector was disturbing. I don't want to see that again. But it was for comedy.
Overall, its a good movie. It has its goofs and problems, but it is quite funny at times. So have at it, unless you born after the 80s. If that is the case, you might not understand the movie. "B"
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
There was no 'story box' in this film, but there certainly was a
mystery - a mystery surrounding who was the killer. But not just that,
but was there a killer. And the main witness was a woman who's vision
wasn't great and was a new recipient of a cornea transplant.
Throughout the viewer has to question whether there actually is a killer. You might suspect the doctor for good reason. Maybe one of the cops as well. The writers certainly keeps you in long enough to discover who the killer is and if the formerly blind woman actually saw him or her.
Overall, its a fairly good movie. Not too thrilling, but enough to watch again someday. "B-"
I will have to view this film again to see how the story really comes
across. Because it sure was a mess to follow throughout the entire
movie. However its Seagal, and Seagal films are never much for great
stories. Some of them have been OK, but not great.
Seagal, the action star that would be mistaken for a less fat John Goodman, is hired by a billionaire to kidnap a French embassy official. Then he get betrayed by somebody in the CIA, co-operating with arms dealers. His friend is killed and the widow is kidnapped to force Seagal's hand. So chubby Seagal gets off his butt and fights.
The story is convoluted and mixed up. Sometimes Segal comes across with a good voice, then he reverts to his 'whisper speak' and you have to turn up the volume to hear him. (That was a huge problem if you have ever watched "Flight of Fury (2007)").
Overall, the acting is decent, the story almost un-followable, and the action is good. Seagal gets to go his 'karate chop' and break urinals. So it was entertaining. Worth a look. "B-"
I enjoyed the other Grindhouse movie that was released, but I did not
go for this thing. Not only was it not fun, it wasn't even good action.
Yes, the monster-like humans were supposed to be funny in a strange way. Instead, they hammed it up as much as they could just to get a few cheap laughs. I like cheap laughs, but this was corny.
The M4 carbine rifle, somehow, acted like a second eye with razor sharp precision. Add to the corny deaths and the "missing scene" part of the movie and I was ready to stop there. But I watched until the bitter end with the corny ending.
1 out of 2 films isn't bad I guess. better luck next time.
Ah, we all know Mr. Cage too well. Afer all, who else would be better
in bringing down a bunch of hardened criminals on a plane or finding
buried treasure? Certainly not Tom Hanks, although maybe Johnny Depp.
Cage is the son of several generations of treasure hunters. And he wants to capture all the world's best items, including things hidden by the Founding Fathers of the USA. So he, with a couple of dimwitted guys and a nice 30-something woman, they steal the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, the idea in reality is a little crazy. But for this movie, it does work. The Masons, like all treasure theories, are involved in hiding such a treasure. And Cage has to fend off a former partner to get his hands on the gold.
I certainly know the movie is fake in the regard of history conspiracy theories. But was entertaining, unlike 300.
So overall, not bad. "B"
|Page 1 of 24:||          |