Reviews written by registered user

7 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Iron Man 3 (2013)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
To campy, to many plot holes, this isn't Iron Man, 28 October 2013

Iron Man is back in the third installment of the Iron Man series, unfortunately following brawl in The Avengers he fell back into another universe. This new universe is filled with poor writing, a crappy story, and hokey characters. I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man and Iron Man 2, when I saw that Jon Favreau would not be directing the third installment, I became extremely wary about the direction of Iron Man. I cannot believe that they gave a 200 million dollar movie to a relatively inexperienced Shane Black. I further cannot believe that they read the script and signed off on it. They really need to run this stuff by Joss Wheden, as he is really the spearhead of all the Avengers. Shane Black should never direct or write an action movie ever again.

Get ready for lame jokes, childish humor, hokey sentiments, and poor action sequences. Also there are so many plot holes, it will drive you insane. Robert Downey Jr. plays a Tony Starkesque character named conveniently named Tony Stark, except this version of Tony Stark has lost his charm and is no longer the "Bad-ass" Jon Favreau created. As I do not except this piece of trash as a true Iron Man film, I'll just refer to the character "Tony Stark" as Robert Downey Jr.

So Robert Downey Jr starts the film off narrating about a lame party he was at in Switzerland in 1999, he briefly meets some guy (Guy Pierce) and snubs him, he also sleeps with a young scientist who's not really serious about her work. Then it's present time, he's suffering in a relationship with Gwyneth Paltrow (Potts), he spends his time building random suits (big plot hole, why suits he'll never wear) instead of with her. During this time attacks start happening, it's very obvious who's behind them, the director doesn't even try to hide it. Big stuff starts happening, SHIELD and the Avengers do nothing and aren't even mentioned even though everyone in the film talks non-stop about them (nother big plot hole). So Robert Downey Jr, has to save the world, from super-humans who are a cross between Wolverine and Human Tourch (Fan 4).

Overall, this movie just made me angry, it is NOT an Iron Man film. I hope that in The Avengers: Age of Ultron they have Tony Stark wake up from a coma and completely disregard this movie as a figment of Tony Stark's imagination.

7 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
A Very Underrated Film, 5 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you watch this movie with the lights on, expect a big budget production, and like happy endings, I guarantee you won't like this movie.

This is a film that was well written and well directed, especially for the budget it was produced at. Having a low budget the director needs to decide between poor CGI or decent live action. Obviously Ti West went with decent live action, adding psychological situations to spice it up.

They still make them like they used to. If Hitchcock could have seen this movie he would have been impressed. This is a movie that if it was made in the 1900's it would be regarded as a classic horror film. In fact this movie bears a striking resemblance to the 1944 movie 'The Uninvited'( minus the "happy" ending.

In conclusion this movie is one that is underrated due to the fact that most audiences have forgotten how to watch a true horror movie mainly because all the special effects of this generation.

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Poorly crafted script, crappy acting, 18 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I guess i went into this movie with high expectations. As far as the storyline goes, this movie is about an upper-middle class "Emo" kid who is depressed because he couldn't get a girl, then he goes to a mental hospital helps people out, figure out his problems and then everything is fine. It's your classic feel good movie, but it lacks realness, I would guess that the writers only connection to psychology was a college course they were required to take. Not only did i detest the writing, I also felt the acting was horrendous, with the exceptions of Zach Galifianakis and Jeremy Davies. I think they spent too much money casting Zach and then "cheaped" out on casting for the characters Craig and Noelle. I also felt there was a lack of chemistry with Craig and Noelle, it's like the whole thing was phony. Overall, if you do decide this, go in with low expectations. You'll either find it more enjoying or you'll see where I'm coming from.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Good, Not great, but underrated, 21 September 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Not to be mistaken with Battle of Los Angeles, a mock-buster movie that was only used to scrounge profits off Battle Los Angeles (notice the only difference is the "of"), this movie i feel has led to Battle Los Angeles' low ratings.

I agree that this movie is slightly unoriginal in that it is basically a rip-off of Independence Day. But more historically all three movies mentioned are inspired by the Great Los Angeles Air Raid of 1942.

If we compare a day in the life of a soldier involved in the Great Los Angeles Air Raid of 1942. The beginning of Battle Los Angeles would start to make sense, during the Air Raid there was mass confusion, no one knew what to look for or what to shoot at, there was hardly a debriefing.

Overall I felt that this movie was very well directed and created; it seemed very realistic and provides that normal sci-fi morale that man will survive even against great odds. Though I do think that this movie could have been written better, it has those dull sad/dumb moments every major sci-fi movie has, but then again it is more than obvious that sci-fi isn't for everyone, so elements like those are necessary to keep a viewer's interest.

The well received TV series Falling Skies fits easily into the same universe.

Memento (2000)
6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Overrated, but still good, 9 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went into this movie with high expectations and found it to be good, but by no means great. I think that this movie would have been better if it were shorter, about 50 minutes. Within 30 minutes I had figured pretty much everything about the movie, who's bad who's good, what's happening now and what's gonna happen next, predictable. In fact I was bored for the rest of the movie, it was not suspenseful and not thrilling. The good things that this movie did have going for it was excellent directing and a slightly confusing turn of events from one scene to the next, but again after the first 30 minutes it became very predictable. It was pretty unique, though i have seen a few movies that begin with the end first and work backwards. This is also done in Seinfeld, in the episode titled "The Betrayal," which came out two years before. Overall, it is a movie worth seeing, though it is highly overrated.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Little brats make movies terrible, 5 August 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In my opinion i feel that one of the reasons movie remakes are not as great as the original is because they include children in the story line, especially little annoying/bratty ones. Jacob is very annoying throughout the whole movie, he constantly makes snotty remarks and seems to ruin the movie. I also felt this way about the new "War of the Worlds", i think that a much better movie could be made if they took out the children. Other than that the movie seemed to have great effects and Keanu Reeves seemed to fit the part of the alien.

If you enjoyed the new "War of the World," i would recommend this family movie to you, but if you want a truly a good Suspense Sci-Fi movie, then this movie is not for you. I rented this movie off Redbox for $1, and i would not pay any more to see this movie.

Christian's are smug?, 4 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Justin is 27 years old and a preacher. How much does he know about the bible? How many times has he read the bible? He is unordained it is unclear how much he knows about scripture. He seems like a nice guy, but I personally don't want some young guy preaching to me about life when he himself has not fully lived it. He is every reason all other religions find Christian's smug. He comes off as a homeless crack addict when he approaches people on the street. In fact about 20 min in he starts talking to some guy on the street about getting "saved" and the guy told him that he was brainwashed, which seems a very accurate description of Justin. The main idea that Justin conveys is "JESUS wants you to suffer for him." Overall, i feel that if you want to see a movie about some guy babbling on about his twisted untrained and non Bible related views, than this is the movie for you.