Reviews written by registered user

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Zombieland (2009)
6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Boring, 16 January 2010

It was total waste of my time.


The movie tries to be comedy, horror and action at once. As a result, it fails miserably. I become bored in 5 minutes, because of lack of "horror", good jokes or actions.

The Good:

0) Nothing. It is totally average, nothing astonishing. There was a pretty solid work on decorations, the acting wasn't awful, but there was nothing to catch eye and make me enjoy the movie.

The Bad:

0) Little character development.

1) Extremely unrealistic handgun handling in certain scenes. You can't hit something shooting like that.

2) No "Horror" feeling. There is nothing scary about it. Things just happen, and looks like nobody really cares.

3) Nothing funny. There were some attempts to make a joke, but they all failed.

4) Unrealistic characters. Most personalities are pretty weak.

5) No drama at all.

6) Appearance of certain star for no reason.

7) The story reminds "left 4 dead" video game too much.

8) Zombie makeup wasn't really convincing, although I've seen worse.

9) Weak plot.

Bottom line: It is obvious that some good cash was invested, there is some quality (so it doesn't look like trash slasher or something), but this movie just doesn't offer anything interesting.

It is really bad that they are already making the sequel.

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Clearly it is not for me, 11 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Watched it, didn't enjoy it. To me it looked like a waste of time.

The Good:

1) Have a few good jokes in the movie.

2) Relatively high quality CG.

The Bad:

1) Predictable plot. It many places it is obvious what will happen in say, next 15..30 minutes, and it is possible to correctly guess key events at the end of the movie.

2) There are less than 5 good jokes in the movie.

3) Nearly no character development - only main character change a little, others remain unchanged.

4) Unrealistic character development and behavior. Not really logical story. Weak plot.

5) In some scenes it almost look like creators were running either out of time or out of budget - while some scenes are interesting, and filled with many objects and different characters, most of the other scenes use pretty bland sets that doesn't look "alive" (In my opinion) enough. In fact with exception of one or two scenes nearly every set looks more like decoration, than a something even remotely realistic.

6) Absolutely horrible design of giant butterfly at the end.

Bottom line: Someone obviously had too much cash to spent. This movie could be much better. There are maybe 2 or 3 good jokes that could make me smile a bit, but story weak and predictable, and the movie doesn't offer enough in graphic department to watch it only because of graphics or CG.

Aladdin (1992)
1 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
I think video game was better., 8 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I become familiar with "Alladin" because of Video Game and TV series - I saw the game first, then I saw the TV series, and many years later I finally decided to watch original movie. Honestly, expected much more from this movie, and I still think that overall video game was more interesting (it was my childhood's favorite). Anyway...


1) Has 2 or 3 REALLY great songs and musical performances associated with them. "Prince ALI" song was spectacular. "Arabian nights" was also pretty good, everything else wasn't really interesting.


1) The movie heavily uses 3D graphic and CGs. "Cave of Wonders" was definitely a 3D animation, same goes for the magic carpet in certain scenes, lava wave, etc. Also it looks like many character were digitally shaded - the shade gradient is way too smooth and just doesn't look right. This looks very bad and out of place. I would prefer hand-drawn animations. For example, modern "Hellsing" OVA (the one that is made in 2006) has superior drawing quality, even though it still uses CG from time to time.

2) Very naive, weak plot. Once again, there is a "power of love that overcomes everything", couple of banal morality lessons, and a lot of dancing and singing for no reason. Sure, there is a one or two good musical scenes, but other than that overall it looks pretty silly. No real character development, no deep questions, no philosophy, etc. In "Wonderful Days", "Tonami no Totoro" plot was deeper.

3) Quality of animation wasn't really impressive. Sure, characters have fluid movements, there are some nice backgrounds, but there are not enough details on them.

4) Voices aren't really great and feel a bit out of place. For example, in "Corpse Bride" voices were much more fitting.

Bottom line: Probably good movie for young kids, or for the people that value musical scenes in the movies (because some music is really nice).

Not the best pick if you go for animation quality. If you want cool animation, you would probably have to pick something way older. The very first episode of tom and jerry ("Puss gets the boot") is superior to this movie.

Bad choice if you want something with a deep story.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
good and bad at same time, 26 November 2009

The movie is both good and horrible at same time.

The Good: It has a lot of absolutely hilarious moments and scenes. Many of them of those involve "Dory" character, which also has excellent voice acting. There are a lot of places where you will laugh (well, unless you have absolutely no sense of humor).

The Bad: The parts that aren't funny are extremely weak. Plot and characters involve a lot of clichés, characters have nearly no personality (perhaps with exception of "Dory" fish), they don't really develop much. All scenes that are supposed to bring any emotional impact(or to be tragic) simply doesn't work and feel unnatural, often they feel "out of place". I had to skip certain moments because they were extremely boring to me and I felt like I saw something similar before.

Summary: There is only one truly memorable and interesting character in this movie: the "Dory" fish. "Dory" certainly looks better than both "protagonists" (father and son), mostly because of excellent voice acting. Besides "Dory" it is hard to miss certain little girl (because of music theme and associated funny scene) that appears on screen for a short time. There are many funny moments, but outside of them movie offer very little. Overall it is much weaker than "Up"/"Wall-E" (which were released several years later) and may be on par with Ratatoille. Graphically movie isn't bad, but isn't impressive either, and I could swear I saw texture filtration artifacts or poor bump-mapping work in two places, although I'm not completely sure about it. Animation is perfect as always, but it doesn't save you from weak parts in the story.

So if you want few laughs and don't mind mediocre story - this is for you. If you want "deep" story, you can skip this movie.

Up (2009)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Perfect., 19 November 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a masterpiece. This is the best animated film I've ever seen so far (surpasses "The Incredibles", "Ratatoille", "Cars" and probably even "WALL-E"). There is nothing to complain about - great acting, story, voice and music.

The only problem I had with this movie is that in several places it is incredibly, insanely sad. It is certainly not a comedy (although it has a lot good funny moments), and probably is better suitable for adult audience. It is the 3rd movie that ever made me cry (and believe me, I'm not a "soft" person, but rather cynical guy that doesn't care much for other people), and the first one that managed to make me cry during first 15 minutes.

It is touching, it is perfectly done, but I still wished that things turned out better, straight from the beginning, and main characters fulfilled their dream together. But in the movie, things happen differently. In a sense, this is realistic.

9 (2009/I)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Good visuals, but weak story, 19 November 2009

I watched it, and I can't say I fully enjoyed it. Can't say I want my time back, but I certainly could spend my time better.

This movie has nice visuals, but seriously lacks depth. Characters are extremely weak and some of them have no personality. Their acting is full of clichés (multiple gasps at certain moments, "don't go there", "we must help", etc), there is no character development. At many times I had a feeling that characters act illogically/unrealistically. Movie tries to be dramatic, but fails. The ending doesn't feel right (although it can be called a happy ending), and could be different, possibly better, more fantastic. I can think about at least one way it could be more entertaining. Overall, when characters don't talk to each other, the movie is good. When they start talking it is really bad, and hard to watch without cringe, because dialogs are mediocre, and acting (both voice and non-voice) could use improvement.

I must admit, that despite what one of other posters said, movie does explain what happened. The details are just scattered a bit across the movie.

Anyway, if you want only good visuals, this is a movie for you, and kids might enjoy it (not sure if it is fully suitable for small kids). If you want solid work with good script and acting, then "Corpse Bride", "The Incredibles", "Ratatoille", "Toy Story", "Resident Evil: Degeneration" (even though it is not a kids' movie), "Wall-E", "Coralaine" or Pixar's animated short called "Presto" will be much better choice - they are all superior to this movie in terms of acting and story quality. And for true depth there is "Ghost in the Shell"/"Ghost in the shell 2".

5 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Maybe it was worth watching in 1982, 7 August 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I decided to watch this movie, I hoped to see something similar to John Carpetner's "The Thing" or (if I'm lucky) Clive Barker's "Hellraiser" - in terms of quality, not gore/sfx. Unfortunately "Poltergeist" doesn't offer something that good.

My main complaint is that characters are poorly portrayed: For example, you could easily remove "older daughter"(Dana) character from the story and no one would notice - she had nearly no lines, and you can't really tell anything about her - the only thing you'll know that she might have a boyfriend, and that's all. Even her personality is enigma. Same thing goes with other 3 main characters - it almost looks like as if their main purpose was to scream sometimes. Sure, Diana and Steve has some dialogs where pieces of their background pops up, but even after that they doesn't make any sense. There are many people that literally work as an element of backdrop, adding little to the story. Take Steve's boss for example - this guy is supposed to be business shark or something (after all, he is responsible for all problems), but he doesn't even look like a bad guy, because he doesn't have any character portrayed - he drops few occasional remarks, seems to care about having Steve as employee, but that is all. You don't know if he is obsessed with money or something - the movie doesn't tell you.

There are also a lot of problems with the story and directing. The story leaves a lot of things unexplained (which isn't bad in some cases), but doesn't provide any clues to make your own explanation. Instead of adding elements of mystery, a lot of things doesn't make any sense. For example, why ghosts attacked only after the storm if the house was standing on the graveyard all that time? Why people that dug up the pool didn't find any corpses? Who is that "dark presence"? And why ghosts came back after that "psychic" character told as that "this house is clean"? Why did ghosts attack Steve's family instead of going after his boss (who is responsible)? And why did ghosts destroyed the house? And why they didn't kill the family right away instead of playing with chairs? There are a lot of questions like that, and they don't have reasonable explanation.

Directing is very inconsistent. Beginning of the movie looks reasonable enough, and even has some good scenes (for example, when Steve sees moving chair - looks great). Once "paranormal investigators" arrive, the movie looks pathetic - because characters act unnatural, especially at the moment when that small "clairvoyant" character starts explaining what is going on - at that moment there are five people silently listening (looks extremely unnatural), and director's attempt to add atmosphere by playing music in background only ruins scene further. The problem is that the dialog of "psychic" character at that point is extremely weak. For example: "for her it simply is another child. To us ... it is the beast", at that point we see horrified face of Diane Freeling with tears. For me her reaction doesn't match the words, and looks like overreacting. Because of this the whole explanation scene looks pathetic and might provoke occasional laugh at best, but won't make you feel horror of situation. Also there are certain annoying clichés in that part of the movie (like "two people kiss in the beam of light before one of them goes into dangerous situation"), and several pitiful attempts to make me feel compassion (I'm not heartless, you just have to try harder and avoid clichés).

Last 30 minutes looks like another movie directed by different person. Suddenly we see main heroine in the bath (no nudity, but it still looks pretty strange compared to previous hour of the movie), there are suddenly a lot of corpses in coffins popping out of ground, action, destruction, although movie could have ended several minutes ago (remember that "psychic" said "this house is clean"?). Although those last minutes look much better than the rest of the movie (at least I wasn't bored to death anymore at that point), they look too different, and doesn't match the mood of other parts of the movie.

And there is another problem. Movie was released in 1982, so ghosts and moving furniture alone wouldn't work for modern generation that is used to shooting all kind of unholy abominations in computer games (including moving furniture and Lucifer himself). I had only one cheap scare during the whole movie (the second scene with the clown). Right now "Poltergeist" will be probably scary for kids, or people that are not into video games or horror movies. Movies like already mentioned "The Thing" and "Hellraiser" still "work" for people not because they have astonishing special effects or gore, but because they offer unusual story, nice world, good mystery, great characters, they are solid and because of this they are still enjoyable. In "Poltergeist", however, I did not find anything like that. Maybe it had good special effects back in 1982, but right now it has nothing else to offer. Not for me, at least. Of course, there are many movies that are much worse than "Poltergeist", but I'd still prefer to watch something better.

Doom (2005)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A disappointment (contain spoilers), 26 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've watched this movie quite some time ago, and for me this this was a complete disappointment, since I loved Doom (1,2, not Doom 3, which in my opinion was fault) as a game. The main part of Doom as a game was a Hell Portal, which doesn't exist in a movie. Since there is no hell portal, there is no hellish reality, no demonic invasion and all movie is reduced to shooting mutated creatures (that just look similar to Doom 3 monsters, but except that, have nothing to do with the game world) in a bunch of closed rooms. I personally believe that hell portal concept that was in original Doom - with the possibility of an endless hordes of demons invading earth - is scarier or more apocalyptic that mutated or biologically-engineered creatures.

As a game, i believe, Doom (1,2) had a potential of being a material for a great movie - the game had a wonderful atmosphere of being alone with no place to run, no place to hide, and no hope for help - just you and your enemies, somewhere far from home, and the only choice is either to fight or die. That was the right "Doom" atmosphere, and unfortunately, this atmosphere didn't make it into neither Doom 3 nor Doom: the movie. The film I saw was not scary, and was barely interesting (although in last minutes it become better).

I'm giving to movie a "3", not "1" because movie was not a complete fault. All could have been worse (see "Postal" movie for an example on how to totally spoil game idea). Also, it was interesting to see Doom 3 props in a movie (some of equipment is very nicely copied from those used in game) it is shame, thought, that BFG looks different. The final battle was somewhat interesting to see.

The mentions of Carmack causes a smile for split-second, but nothing more. The "3D action" scene, to my taste - is a really bad joke, since the main hellishly-demonic concept was thrown out. Also there are not enough enemies for that scene to be truly "Doom"-like. I still remember places in original Doom (1,2) where a dozen (or twenty) of imps attacks you at once just to be wiped out with a single BFG shot (*Sigh*). After that any scene with monsters in "Doom the movie" is just boring.

I also suspect that filmmakers didn't really love game and didn't play or complete whole game series. It looks like the scenery was written based on only a brief Doom 3 impression. Why else they could have thrown hell portal and demons away just to replace them with biological monsters?

Conclusion: If you are a Doom 1,2 game fan - do not watch this video, it has hardly something to do with the game and you'll be probably disappointed with it. If you liked Doom 3 then you *might* like this movie, although differences with the game story will still surprise you. If you've never played Doom as a game, or didn't like it as a game, there is a chance that you'll like this movie, since it is not totally awful, it just not what the game was about.