114 Reviews
Sort by:
Unconvincing and dull, at least for someone whose country's been part of the war.
4 September 2013
Summary says it all. If you're someone whose actually been affected by the war, it's just not convincing. The movie is really, no offense, it's not intended, American. It's like every other 'wanna be serious' Hollywood movie that you can smell a mile off.

Travolta is awful in the movie. His accent is completely wrong which is particularly noticeable in the parts where he speaks Serbian - it's just terrible. I mean, if they wanted him to speak a language other than his own, at least they could've done a better job in finding a decent dialect coach for those few sentences he used.

De Niro does a decent job, like always, but it's really not significant given the quality of the movie it self.

The war in Bosnia & Herzegovina was bloody and I have no problems with the story-line, but when an outsider does a movie on the subject, it's just obviously fake. Like Angelina Jolie's directorial debut, In The Land Of Blood And Honey, intentions of people involved were clearly noble, but they just don't really completely understand what it was like to make a movie on it - that's why they use dumb dialog and a bunch of a-thousand-times- seen-before-things to cover the holes, which clearly doesn't work!

It's not boring and it can be easily used as a time waster, but... Just not good!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Refreshing, even though we've seen it all before a thousand times!
18 April 2012
There is one thing that almost every movie about rebellious young people has - those young people are always intellectuals and super talented for something that they don't necessarily want to do! What Will Hunting was in math, George is in art.

I don't know what else to say about the movie, really. It's fun, never boring, the actors fit their roles, it's well played, directing's fine, writing is fine and so on. What i mind about it is that it offers nothing new. It's Good Will Hunting all over again. Hundreds of movies were made obviously influenced by it, but none as good of course. The Art Of Getting By is just one of those movies that will definitely be lost in line among the rest of them. In a couple of months, even now when i think of it, no one will remember it. It's fun and worth a watch, but that's about it. Nothing memorable or special about it.

I'd much rather go with Good Will Hunting, it's much better. But if you've already seen G.W.H. and you want something similar, this might be the best choice for you. But don't hope for anything more than a good replica.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So bad... Even worse than Skyline!
3 April 2012
I did not expect to be this disappointed! Not that i expected a lot, just a bit more than this. This's easily the worst movie i've seen this year and one of the worst ever on my list, and it's a long list. Every single thing that usually you might find bad and irritating about a movie is all put in this one. It's like they tried to make it as bad as they possibly could. What were they thinking? I'm not buying it that they thought this might be worth a while. Who would make this? To watch it, it's an hour or two of your life, to make it, it's months. Terrible!

If Emile Hirsch is reading this, How do you get from Into The Wild and Milk, even The Girl Next Door, to this??? Even Speed Racer was three times as good - and just putting Speed Racer and the word 'good' in the same sentence to make my point, makes it's point by it self!

And where did the budget go? Visuals are few and awful an it took like 30 million to make the movie! Not that it's a big budget, but still... For that money everything should've been better. Way better! A terrible movie!
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cowboy and Indians + Super intelligent alien race without a tiny bit of intelligence = A lot of entertainment followed by a whole lot of stupidity.
21 November 2011
Cowboys And Aliens is a science fiction/action movie about, as simply as it sounds and is, cowboys and aliens. Sure, there is a somewhat tragic story as well, but who cares. That is the formula they made it on, anyway. Unfortunately, but...

There is one thing i never got about alien movies that are meant to be like big spectacles. How is it possible for a super intelligent alien species to be that stupid? I mean, supposedly they have this super advanced technology, but without surveillance cameras or anything of any kind that could warn them of danger approaching or help them spot the enemy. They don't even have any cloths. Not to mention that they act like dogs in battle. And that's an insult for the dogs. I mean, no strategy, no nothing. I'd expect something a bit more intelligent from someone who's supposed to be super intelligent. Dogs can at least sneak on you. I highly doubt it that anyone capable of thinking would just run out in the rain of bullets for some cowboys and Indians with no technology what-so-ever to shoot them. It's just stupid. Also, one would think that their ship will be highly equipped with all sorts of weapons and devices unknown to the man, but no. Instead, their ship looks like a cave or something. And i just can't buy it that they look like these giant monsters covered in saliva with no cloths of any kind and so on... And that's supposed to be the race that conquered a couple of planets on their way to earth. ... But that can't conquer a bunch of stupid cowboys and Indians even though they can take like ten bullets before they're killed. Yeah, right. I'm buying it.

There is a whole lot of things about this movie that make no sense and that are just irritating and stupid, but where it does work, and works best, is entertainment. It's never boring or heavy to watch and the characters, even though seen a thousand times before, are more than bearable. I only wish they were funnier occasionally. And the acting is fine, too. Harrison Ford would be the star of the crew, but as far as acting alone goes, no one was above average.

The one thing that is a bit disappointing and that shouldn't be are visuals. I just expected them to be better. Perhaps it's because of the terrible alien design, they look a lot more like demons than aliens, but they should've been better.

The movie works well on purely entertaining level, but if you're looking for anything more, and i mean anything, don't expect to get it from this film.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Piranha 3D (2010)
Not good enough. Not even for what was expected!
2 November 2011
It's so weird when you have to complain about a movie being unintelligent even when the movie was meant to be unintelligent. Unfortunately, that happens a lot.

Piranha 3D is a mess of a movie that is literally based on a whole bunch of good looking bodies being chopped to pieces. I wish i could say more about it, but that's it. To be honest, those good looking bodies are among the only thing's good about the movie. The visuals suck, the music is in no way entertaining or memorable, they could've at least throw in some rock'n'roll to make it a bit more attractive, cinematography is, as it always is these days with this type of film, music video like, and the directing is terrible.

When you have a horror film that's not scary, it's like having a comedy that's not funny, or an action movie without any action in it. Horrors these days always try to make your stomach sick and stuff, but quite quickly, in the last ten years, seeing a man eaten to death by a bunch of piranhas became no scarier than watching Anaconda eat Jon Voight. Only Anaconda is a better movie!

Not that i mind dumb movies, but you gotta make sure they're entertaining. And a tiny bit of something unpredictable could help. Oh yeah, ------SPOILER-------, i expected a sex scene and it never came! That was really unpredictable! Great storytelling! There are only three things that saved this film from being a total flop. Those are: good looking bodies, actors that can be tolerated and the fact that as dumb as it is, it's smart enough not to take it self seriously.

Piranha 3D is the kind of movie that's not boring, but that's not entertaining enough either. And when you make a movie about a bunch of piranhas eating people, the one thing that can and should be very good about it if you want it to work is entertainment!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Prosjaci i sinovi (1971– )
More than a masterpiece!
22 October 2011
Great story about a man called Matan who is a very intelligent cheater. The story basically follows him and in a way his family as well, from when he was just a child until he reaches the old age. That is the most simple way to describe. In reality it's much more complicated and with a lot more to it.

The show is brilliant in both drama and comedy, like many Yugoslavian TV series were. It's quite often sad and tragic, but it never loses that comedic touch. This is truly one of the funniest television series ever. Not just in former Yugoslavia, but all around the world. I've never seen anything as funny as this. There were some television series that i was maybe more fond of, but i've never seen something quite as funny as this.

Rade Serbedzija, an amazing actor who has his share of fame and respect in the world as well, is playing the title role, Matan. Matan is, as i already said, a cheater. A cheater in every way you can be a cheater. But what's more fascinating than anything about this series is it's characters. Not what they do, but who they are and how they think. How primitive they are, but still so likable. Vrdoljak did all he could with Prosjaci i Sinovi, and it is truly the crown of his career.

I don't know if there is a subtitled version of the series out there, but if there isn't, there sure should be. To those of you who don't understand Croatian, or Serbian, find it and watch it. You will not regret it! Simply amazing! I guess incredible would be the best word!
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Yojimbo (1961)
Whether you're an average viewer or a movie buff, Yoyimbo will not leave you disappointed.
18 October 2011
The first thing that the leading character in Yojinbo sees as he arrives in an unknown city is a dog with a human hand in his mouth. It's clear from the very beginning what kind of place it is - lonely and violent. One could easily replace it for one of the cities we're used to see in American westerns. A long dirty road with houses, saloons and shops on both sides. An image of post-apocalypse in a civilized world.

The main character, best known simply as Samurai, is played by one of Kurosawa's favorites, Toshiro Mifune. Here he is a man with certain skills that allow him to be someone both sides would like to have on their side. Someone they're ready to pay a lot of money to have him on their side. He knows it and plans to use it. The trouble comes when a gunslinger comes to town. He is far more suspicious and much more feared than others. The Samurai is not too worried with him at first, as he knows he is a better killer, but he underestimates how things can easily turn out to be completely different from what he expected if only someone would rock the boat a bit. ------- ''''SPOILER'''' ------ And the person who eventually does it turns out to be he him self, his empathy, to be exact.

Yojimbo is a very complexed story presented more as an action movie than a historical drama like some other Kurosawa's work including Seven Samurai and even something newer like Kagemusha, Ran etc. However, that does not make it less important or worse. To contrary, it's one of Kurosawa's most entertaining movies with a lot more hiding under the surface. I'd definitely recommend it to everyone. Whether you're an average viewer or a movie buff, this is definitely a movie that has the quality to please both.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Nice family movie.
12 October 2011
Mr. Popper's Penguins is as dumb as a movie can get. I mean, it's really idiotic and a big nonsense of a movie. A guy get's a whole lot of penguins from his dead father and he decides to keep them and make his wonderful apartment look like a zoo. These kind of movies are made nowhere else, but America. The thing that i mind the most about these kind of movies is that they always try to make me believe like there is some sense in all of it and like it's the right thing to do. Of course, penguins aside, you gotta have a father who's neglecting his children trying to make a career for him self and so on.... There is also an ex girlfriend/wife who he still loves.... etc....

As much of a nonsense as it is, even though i usually hate this kind of movies and even though i have every reason to hate this one too, i still enjoyed it quite a lot. It's not really the kind of movie that you'll be taking seriously or that you'll remember twenty years from now, and if you do it will be because of Jim Carrey and nothing else, but it is a movie that you could/should be entertained by and that might make you feel a bit better. This is what i like to call A Time Waster. It's also a nice family movie. Not also, but just is. It is a family movie, i can't see what else. Your kid's, if you have any, will most definitely like it. It has that feel good vibe that really puts a smile on your face whether you like it or not. The best time to watch it would probably be around Christmas, though. Or, now that i'm thinking about it, Summer if you wish it was Christmas or winter.

Jim Carrey is charismatic like he usually is, though, his performance is somewhat average. I didn't like the scene near the end of the movie where he does the slow motion stuff. It really brings you back to reality and reminds you that you're watching a Jim Carrey movie, and than you ask your self, where is Ace Ventura? I'd rather see him than some penguins!

It's an entertaining and very lovable movie. Pure nonsense, but a nice family film that will definitely not bore you, no matter how dumb it may(is) be.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Armageddon (1998)
A propaganda movie i can't help but like! I feel guilty for it, but...
4 October 2011
I feel a bit disappointed in my self for liking this movie, since it's one of the biggest propaganda pictures of the last twenty years, but i just can't help it. It's a non stop action flick that puts a few A-listers and some best of the best B-listers in some very interesting situations happening in outer space.

Directing and cinematography are music video like, as they always are in a Michael Bay movie, but music makes up for all of it. Aerosmith at it's best. Also, editing is quite good. The entire movie is well crafted and it's so hard not to like it weather you agree or disagree with some of the statements it presents. And writing, no matter how unoriginal it is, really takes the best from dumb science fiction movies and does a good job at putting it all together. Armaggedon is a big pile of overused Hollywood stuff, but the writer did a very good job with it and for that the movie is never boring or irritating in any way. And yeah, like i said, this is one of the biggest American Propaganda films of the last twenty years, but with all it's qualities i just can't help but love it. Even if those qualities are nowhere near to being original or fresh.

As for the acting, the actors do quite good with their roles. Yes, even Ben Afleck. But the star of the film is still, as he is in any movie he's ever been in, Bruce Willis. He just looks natural in these bad guy with a heart of gold kind of roles. All the others did quite good as well, but like i said, Bruce really stands out. Even in a cast that's filled with good and popular names.

American propaganda, yes! American propaganda at it's best, yes! I love it even though i hate all it stands for. Well, not all of it, but... I have nothing against patriotism, but i do have everything against movies that put one nation, America, in the savior of the world part and put it above everyone else. But i guess they tried to cover it up with a good hearted crazy Russian guy so i'll be forgiving this time and just enjoy the movie as interesting as it is, no matter what it's flaws are. And yes, you heard me right, the Russian guy is actually a good guy instead of a terrorist or anything like it. And he wants to come back to his Mother Russia as a hero! :)
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Green Lantern (2011)
Minimally entertaining for it's genre! A slow time waster.
2 October 2011
If information from Wikipedia is correct, Green Lantern was made for two hundred million dollars. I wont go on saying how it's exaggerated and how a whole bunch of actually good movies, you know, the ones with good script, could've been made with it, but i will say that the final result was not even close to being worthy of such money invested in it. Not in any way, including one concerning visuals. While at times the effects really looked amazing, i've seen movies with smaller budgets that look as good if not even better.

It was quite obvious from the very beginning that the men who were making this movie were not taking it seriously. That stands especially for writers. And when i say seriously, i don't mean something like a whole lot of drama or psychological stuff in a movie about a guy who puts a ring on his finger and turns green, but some intelligence can never really hurt a movie. You don't have to make it smart, but at least you can do since you have so much possibilities with such an enormous amount of money is not make it dumb.

The bright side of the movie is that sometimes the visuals really do look amazing, but even the most spectacular scenes don't look all that impressive because of the highly uninteresting music. Not for one second was i scared, had an adrenaline rush or anything like it. And suspense is something you really need to make movies like this one work.

Also, the main character, Hal Jordan a.k.a Green Lantern, is a lot more like some sort of a funny sidekick kinda character than the bad-ass he's supposed to be. And by the way, the jokes are terrible. I never laughed. Maybe once and that is questionable because i do not remember it.

Peter Sarsgaard does well with his role, as he always does, even though it's not the kind of role that anyone will notice no matter how well it was played. And reasonably so. Mark Strong did a good job as well, but the same thing i mentioned about Peter S. stands for him too. Ryan Reynolds was playing the same role he always plays, so it's more up to you weather you like him or not to decide how good or bad his performance was. I personally don't dislike him, nor really like him, so i'm gonna say it was fine. And Blake Lively wasn't irritating. I'll leave her acting abilities for someone else to comment on.

Some people told me that they were bored by the movie. I disagree. I didn't find it boring, but rather minimally entertaining for it's genre and budget capabilities. Not good, not worth a watch, but i guess you wont feel too sorry for your self if you do.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Descent (2005)
It might be because i wasn't in the mood for a horror film when i was watching it, but i didn't find it that scary!
18 September 2011
A small group of friends get trapped in an unknown cave and encounters some monsters that are something like vampires only without all the sunlight and biting and stuff, and now they have to find their way out. That's pretty much all that the movie's about. There is some tragic background story and stuff, but it really doesn't matter.

From the moment the movie started, even though i read some good reviews, i really didn't think it will be any good. A, caves became like the biggest horror cliché in this last decade, B, when the entire story is set in a cave there is really not a lot of things that the movie can be about other than people trying to find their way out, and C, there's been far too many movies in the last couple of years about people trying to find their way out. We've seen that kind of stuff over and over again in movies like The Cave, even Pandorum and even some new ones like Sanctum and so on....

But even though i got tired of these kind of movies, considering all the good reviews it got, i decided to give it a shot anyway. And like i said in the summary, maybe it's because i just didn't feel like watching this movie at the time, but i just didn't find it that scary. Not scary at all, actually. There are certain scenes that got a bit out of me, but that's about it. It uses the same formula as any horror movie. Sudden appearances, light going on and off and so on... Since the reviews were so good, i at least expected it to be a bit fresh and innovative. It wasn't. Like i mentioned earlier, when the entire story is set in a cave there is really not a lot of things that the movie can be about other than people trying to find their way out.

And the ending is missed. When there is only a few of you left, i wont say how many because i don't wanna spoil anything, i don't think it would be a good idea to do what certain somebody did at the end of this movie. It would be completely illogical and no matter how crazy a person might be i highly doubt it that anyone would do it given the circumstances.

And why do certain characters, one or two, have no problems killing a whole lot of monsters through out the movie, but than at the ending they have trouble with killing only one, for instance?!? That's one of many irritating things(clichés) about The Descent.

It's not boring or dreadful, it has some fun, but there is really nothing more to it at my opinion. Just another horror film with nothing new to offer.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The one and only reason i'm giving it a five is because Clash Of The Titans, which is five times worse, has a higher rating!
4 September 2011
I don't know why it's so widely accepted by filmmakers, but a Conan movie must start with his family being slaughtered. This, of course, has nothing to do with the original Conan. By original i mean on Robert E. Howard's stories and not on Millius' 1982 movie adaptation. This Conan movie, like 1982 version, starts with his village being destroyed, all his loved one's killed, and young Conan surviving and becoming a strong warrior searching for vengeance.

For a long time i've been waiting for new Conan to be made. I was kinda hoping that whoever ends up making it will take it seriously and not just try to make a money making franchise, which they tried to do, but failed since the movie didn't do good at the box office. A lot of directors, producers and writers have been attached to the project over the years, but none of them sticked with it which shows who even considered making this movie. It surely wasn't someone who had any sort of passion for it. Except, maybe and probably, the passion for money only. And don't get me wrong, it's common sense that no one will invest into something that he/she thinks won't bring the profit. But just because you're trying to make money doesn't mean you shouldn't be trying to make a good movie also. If Conan one day finds it self in the right hands, i'm sure it'll be a good movie and a money maker, both. Unfortunately for us fans, and as it seems for them too, this time around it wasn't either of those things.

When i first heard that the same person that directed Pathfinder, Marcus Nispel, is set to direct new Conan my hopes and general enthusiasm went quite low. Though, i remained hopeful that miracle will happen. In vein, unfortunately. I also wasn't excited about Sean Hood writing it. This was a disaster formula all around. Than i read SH's blog where he wrote how he's a good writer but that the studios always change scripts from good to terrible because they think they'll make more money that way. This gave me some of my hope back but, whether it's the studios or just him writing a bad script, i came back to reality as soon as the movie started, in one of the dumbest first fifteen minutes i've ever seen. I won't say too much, but let's say that there is a super dumb baby delivering scene and than some other stupid scenes including young Conan...!

Than, of course, after several actors were considered and even set for the part, Jason Momoa was cast as the most famous Barbarian of all times. This was, like many things about the whole project, disappointing. I thought he's way better than anyone who's been speculated to take the role so far, but still not the right choice. I've seen him in some TV series and figured he can't act. Of all the things about this movie, i never thought that he'll be the one to prove me wrong. Glad he did. He's nothing like the trailer suggests. He's not this wooden, rusty voiced, irritating guy. Instead, he does a very good job. Well, i wouldn't go too far so i'll just say that he's definitely not what i thought he'll be and i wouldn't be mad if he played the role again. There isn't really a lot of acting in a Conan movie, but he has his ways with the sword. Like i said, he's much better than the trailer suggests and my excitement could be coming because i thought he'll be terrible, but still, i think he did a good job and wouldn't mind seeing him again.

The only two things that could be called good about the whole movie are action and violence. Visuals are average, music decent, but far from being more, cinematography too plastic and fantasy like, and so on.. There is one cool, barbaric nose fingering scene and a couple of cool action sequences, but that's about it. Also, i think the entire picture went to hell in the last 30 minutes. The ending location and the ending it self are just awful. The entire picture was literally moved from sand beaches and stuff to a Mordor like sewer.

Another bad thing is that the entire movie is extremely predictable. It was expected to be, but did they really have to put every cliché they could find in it?! And the last fight sucked hard. Fights, that is. Choreography was fine through out, but they messed it up badly with the most important part! The most important part as far as action choreography goes, anyways. Which the entire movie is made off, actually. Fights, fights and some more fights. I wouldn't even mind the fact that i knew from the very beginning that a woman will fight a woman, and that a man will fight a man, but when you make something the ultimate destination of the entire movie and your leading character, which is Conan fighting Khalar and so on, you can at least make something spectacular out of it.

And why is Conan constantly stabbing his sword in the ground? Scene after scene after scene... At the end of every fight he stabs his sword in the ground. Or holds it up high. Can anyone tell me why? Can't he just put it on his back or something? Or anything, but stab it in the ground?!?

Like it says in the summery, i'm giving it five only because Clash Of The Titans, which is five times worse, has a higher rating. Usually i'd probably give it a four. Wouldn't recommend it, but it's not boring. Expect nothing and you'll get something, expect something and you'll be disappointed!

2.5 / 6
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stake Land (2010)
They really did the best they could out of this budget! Only it's more of a zombie movie than a vampire movie!!!
28 August 2011
Considering the attention that some vampire movies like Twilight get, this one's well worth a watch. It went more or less unnoticed with the audience which is not completely clear why to me when movies like Daybreakers do quite well and are no better than this one is. Not to mention that this is a low budget movie that really makes the best of all the resources available. You'd almost confuse it for a big budget film.

They really made the best out of almost everything, locations especially. Logically thinking, one would think that the director would use a lot of close ups to avoid big shots, but every location we've seen in this movie is shot entirely and it is beyond me how they got all those sets to look the way they looked with a budget this small. Sure, you can find an abandoned building or something, but everything is so detailed that you almost think that they went to some war zone to shoot this movie.

The story follows Mister, a vampire killer, and Martin, a kid who's parent's been killed by vampires and is now taken under the Mister's wing. The movie is basically a road movie with a lot of vampires and cults and stuff. Very soon into the movie you understand that this will be an entertaining movie and that it's not meant to be anything else and nothing more. It's not The Road of the vampire genre, it's more like Mad Max or The Book Of Eli of the vampire genre - and that's pretty obvious from the very beginning. The movie is filled with bars, cars, little communities trying to restore the civilization and so on.... You know, the usual stuff?! Speaking of cars and stuff, some things in the movie are never made clear and are not even logical. Like for instance, where do they get all that gas in this terrible, washed up, wasted post-apocalyptic world?! The story refuses to trouble it self with those kind of questions. Like i said, it's Mad Max of the genre, not The Road!

Performances are good in general, only the characters are sometimes a bit overdone. Also, as the movie get's closer and closer to the ending it get's more and more clichéd which really doesn't do it any good. I won't say how so that i wouldn't spoil anything, but i will say that it includes a skinhead. Directing is good, but what really stands out is cinematography. It's really the best thing about the whole movie. Also, it's mostly shot in natural light which makes it even better.

One of a few things that i didn't like about the movie is that action is too constant. Scene after scene after scene.... Always shooting, stabbing, fighting and so on... It really takes a bit of excitement from those scenes that would usually be much more exciting. And another thing is that i'd rather categorize this movie as a zombie flick. These vampires really don't look or act like vampires are supposed to. They are much more like zombies. Something similar was done with vampires and werewolves in Dylan Dog: Dead Of Night. Not that that movie wouldn't suck anyway, but vampires and werewolves should not look the same. Just like vampires and zombies should not look the same as well.

There is a lot of scenes in which Mister explains the vampires and how to kill them and everything. I mean seriously, don't you think Martin already knows that since the two of them have been traveling together for God knows how long!??!! I found those parts to be completely unnecessary and nothing more than a lame attempt to make vampires look a bit more original. Well, guess what? - Vampires are not original. Vampire movies have been made for almost a century now and there is no way that vampires, or zombies, or werewolves will ever be original. However, a good story and screenplay do make the movie fresh no matter who or what it's about. Example, Interview With a Vampire. Vampires are still Vampires. They come out at night, sun-light kills them, they bite people and drink their blood, they're immortal, etc. But what they did with that movie is that they made some very complicated characters backed up by a very interesting story that had it's own unique way of looking at vampires. This movie would've worked a lot better if it was a zombie movie and not a vampire movie, which it's really not. But all in all, it's still entertaining and worth seeing it.

Oh. and the movie would've done well without Martin's narration. It's unnecessary. But still.... Entertaining!!!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Thor (2011)
Fails with certain things, but still highly entertaining!
16 August 2011
First thing i need to say is that i'm not very familiar with Thor as a character. I heard of the comic books and everything, but i've never actually read one. With that being said, i can't say whether the movie is faithful to it's original material, but i can say that as a movie it works. It's got that fine line between science fiction and fantasy that in a way makes it stand out from all the other 'SUPER-HERO' movies i've seen. I like all the mythology behind it and all the interesting perspectives of looking at, or at least comparing science to magic. And even though i think that the beginning is too sword and sorcery like as far as the dialogue goes, the rest of the movie works fine in that matter. There are even some good jokes made of it when Thor comes to earth.

As surprising and admirable as it is that Kenneth Branagh, who is considered a highly artistic director, directed this movie, i must say that i think that it was the wrong choice. I just don't think he has an eye for action or for a spectacle as some directors like Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer and Zack Snyder do. I'm not saying that directing is bad, i just think that certain action sequences could've been done way more exciting and simply more cool, which would fit this kind of movie. However, i also think that he brought some goods to the movie as well. And also, now that i think of it, i'm not so surprised that he decided to direct this movie. It has that Shakespearean quality about it. All the family like friendship's and family relationships and betrayals, which were quite predictable by the way, give this movie that tragic undertone which Shakespeares work always had.

That is one of the main problem's i had with the movie, it's too predictable and certain things just don't work and are very poorly done. Like for instance, the relationship between Thor and Jane. It happens so quickly and so structurally bad that it's barely noticeable. Don't be surprised if by the end of the movie you ask your self, when did these two fall in love!?! The two characters were not given enough time with each other, or they did even too much but none of it being a romantic time, and even though they were seeing each other through out the movie i never, not once, had a feeling that they took it to another level or that they were even about to. Well, the camp fire scene near the end looked like they were about to, but guess what, they didn't! Another thing i didn't like is that the only character in the entire movie that is somewhat characterized is Thor. All the other characters are completely ignored and barely anything that happens has anything to do with them. That stands especially for characters from earth.

I'd recommend the movie, but with a note that if the things i mentioned were done better, the movie would've been a lot better. Very interesting and entertaining, but....
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Beaver (2011)
Acting is amazing all around, especially Gibson's, but the script fails at certain levels that are really important for this kind of story.
8 August 2011
The Beaver is the story of Walter Black, a hopelessly depressed individual who finds the way out in a puppet that speaks for him. He finds a beaver puppet in a dumpster and decides to take it with him to the hotel room where he get's drunk and tries to commit a suicide. After the first attempt fails he climbs on the edge of the balcony and is about to jump, but than, all the sudden, the beaver speaks out and brings him to his senses. The idea, as simple and dull as it may sound, is actually quite good and interesting when you think about it. Unforunatelly, the script lacks a great deal in structure and character development which is ultimately why the movie is not nearly as good as it could've and should've been.

Jennifer Lawrence and Anthon Yelchin are both brilliant in the movie and a big talent is really visible in their performances. Unfortunately, while Yelchin is obviously very, very talented, i just can't see the leading man in him. His charisma is, i think, really not on the same level with his talent. However, that being said, i do not doubt it that both of them are gonna be Academy Award winners one day. Jennifer Lawrence is already almost there. With one nomination behind her, the second one is surely gonna come. And i think that one day, with the right choice of roles, she could even be Hollywood's best leading lady. She definitely has what it takes for it.

However, all the good performances in this movie really fall to water compared to the one of Mel Gibson. I don't know if he's acting or is it him self in the movie, and honestly i don't care. All i know is that he's brilliant. If only the character had more to offer, i'm sure the role would be remembered for a long, long time. But even though the movie fails at certain levels, Gibson's performance was definitely worthy of a much larger recognition. If you ask me, the reason he wasn't at the Oscars this year, if not as a winner than definitely as a nominee, is the fresh new scandal that happened in his life. And that's, i think, unfair because he is an actor and he should be judged as an actor and not as a human being. In fact, i don't think anyone can judge him as a human being since none of us knows him like one. The only way we (the audience), and the critics, can know him is as an actor. As Mad Max, William Wallace, Walter Black and so on.... As far as this role goes, at my opinion, he was definitely robbed of all the recognition he well deserved for the portrayal of Walter Black. An amazing performance that was unfairly overlooked by the Academy's voters.

The weakest link as far as the acting goes is, and i can't believe i'm actually saying this, Jodie Foster. It could be because she was busy working as a director on the movie, but her performance, even though good, is really not on the same level as those of Yelchin and Lawrence, and needless to say, as the one of Mel Gibson. Another thing i felt was very weak is the score. Well, it's not bad, it's good. It just doesn't fit this film. It's too melodic and.... Italian. I just don't think it's right for this kind of story. The score that this movie desperately needed should've been something like the one from American Beauty. That would fit great! Slow, sad, tragic... It would've been great!

I really wish the script was longer. And simply because you can't build so many complicated characters in ninety pages. Not convincingly anyway. And especially in a movie like this one which was supposed to be a deep story that deals with a very important subject. What i really like about the movie is the feeling of a solution circling around all the time, but staying unreachable to everyone. Like for example, Walter's wife showing him pictures of their family back when everyone was happy hoping that he'll see some hope or inspiration in it.... and so on... which he fails at doing. That could've been a real good description of the state he, and the depressed people in general, are usually in. But, once again, the script fails terribly in structure and it prevents it's character's from going in whatever direction they were supposed to go. Truth be told, i don't think it's the writer's fault so much as it is Hollywood's. Producer's rarely allow the movie to be a piece of art these day's, even when some movies like this one are meant to be just it. I wouldn't be surprised if the first draft was way better than the one they made the movie on.

To conclude my review, i wasn't bored, but i was definitely not blown away either. The only thing that was great about the movie is acting. Gibson's especially. Maybe it's because i had really high hopes for this movie, but i was a bit disappointed. It's a good movie, but i expected it to be great!!!! It's definitely worth a watch, but i wouldn't put my hopes into being left speechless.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dumb humor rarely works these day's and especially when you tend to be serious as well!
8 August 2011
Too stupid to be funny or serious is probably the best way to describe this movie. Low, clichéd and highly overused humor combined with some childish drama is just not working anymore. It never did, actually! I constantly felt like the movie was trying to be something like Dazed & Confused when it was actually very, very, very far away from being anything like it. I Love You, Beth Cooper is about a guy who uses his graduation speech to finally declare his love to his long time crush. And his entire school and some other people. Now, if any of you people who are about to graduate is thinking of doing something like this, i got one word for you, don't!!!! Not only will you be embarrassed, but also the girl or the guy you like/love and probably everyone else in the audience just by listening to you making an idiot out of your self.

The movie is constantly switching tones from being 'funny?' to being overly dramatic and even philosophical. Needles to say that none of those thing's work in this movie. I haven't read the book, but if it's true that this adaptation is actually faithful to the original material than i'm not planning to either.

While Hayden Panettiere somehow manages to stay nonirritating and even showcases some talent, the guy who played the leading guy (Paul Rust) is definitely a miscast not only for this movie, but any other too. He is just as irritating as a person can get! That's probably why no one knows what happened to his character in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds!

I won't say a lot about the supporting characters because none of them, not even the leading ones, are actually characters. They're all more like names used to fill the void. Actually, the only role i liked in the entire movie was Denis' father who was obviously a copy of Jim's father in American Pie (played by Euegen Levy). I guess movie borrows a bit from everything, but fails horribly at putting it all together.

I'm not sure if there was at least one scene in this entire movie that made me laugh. But even if there was, it surely wasn't funny enough to remember it, anyway. They tried a lot of thing's with this film. Drama, comedy, adventure.... But, unfortunately for whoever made this movie and for whoever's seen it, not everyone is Richard Linklater and this movie is for sure not even close to being anything like Dazed & Confused, which is what it tried to be. Unfunny, unoriginal, and so on............... Not good!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Predictable, boring, dumb and with visual's that are bad for the eighties. Well, early nineties.
28 July 2011
Dylan Dog: Dead Of Night is as far from the actual Dylan Dog as a movie based on it can actually be. I read somewhere that this was not supposed to be a Dylan Dog movie, but that the title was put during the production to get some marketing. If it's true, than it's no surprise. But truth or not, that doesn't change the fact that the movie would suck anyway.


While the comic book's are something of a horror written like movie noir with some elements of comedy, this is just a dumb movie that tries to mix action and horror genre with comedy and fails at all three disastrously. Also, it need's to be mentioned that some of the most important character's from the comic book's are not even in it. In the matter of fact, there is Dylan Dog and that's it. And not to mention that Dylan's character in this film is nothing like Dylan in the comic books. This guy is more like Rambo off steroids with a teenagers personality. And while all those flaws could even somehow be accepted if it wasn't a Dylan Dog movie, the fact that every scene is there for only one purpose and that is to lead to another dumb, action packed sequence, and that the dialog is so stupid that a child can say 'it's obviously written', all of it together just makes it too bad to be bearable. There are plenty of movies out there that are bad adaptations and that are plain simply bad movies, but they at least tend to have something to offer. Something like a brainless entertainment. This one can't offer anything. Not even that. It's boring and dumb, it's trash. And just for the record, werewolves and vampires are not supposed to look the same. And when the entire movie is about someone trying to bring back to life a super powerful monster, make sure that the monster is actually powerful instead of just knowing some karate and having wings and horns.


And the cinematography... Oh God. Let's just say that if i had a son, and if i bought him a cheap indie camera, and if i would give him a set of lights, he'd make it look better. Actually, forget that last part. He wouldn't need a set of lights. And i don't know who directed this, but he should stop directing.


Dylan Dog: Dead Of Night is a predictable, boring and dumb movie with terrible acting all around, that has nothing to do with it's title. No matter what you do, make sure you avoid watching it. Especially if you are a fan of the comic books.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Realistic, Blue Valentine like dialog would give a lot more to it, but it's still very good.
22 June 2011
Noah Naumbach has an excellent way of portraying divorce in a way like it's a war between two sides and all other's included are like forced to choose sides - as younger son chooses mother's and an older one father's. I was particularly found of those parts that show us how the whole thing affects the children mentally, especially the younger one.

The entire movie is shot with a hand-held camera, wouldn't be surprised if all the lightning was more or less natural, which gives a sort of realism to it. I think the major part in that is the lighting. I've seen hundred's of independent films that were shot on a smaller budget with a terrible camera and the image looks ten times better than on this one. That's probably because director wanted to keep this depressing, monotone, everyday life tone in it. And it worked very well, i think.

One thing i didn't like about the movie was the dialog. I liked how the mother call's them chicken and stuff, but at times the dialog sounded like planned. Like one sentence was there only to lead to another or to reach a certain point. That would be fine if it was a thriller or an action film, but it definitely takes a lot from a movie like this one. That's also probably why the intellectual parent's don't sound that intellectual.

As it get's closer to the end some thing's come out and the children begin to see two sides of the medal. That's one other part i'd like to see a bit different. I felt like the younger son was a bit absent and like the story was getting too focused on the older one. But all in all, the movie works very good on almost all levels and these things should definitely not stop you from watching it.

A very good movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Water (I) (2005)
If the writer kept the simplicity of this beautiful story untouched, it would've been a lot better. But it's good anyway.
20 June 2011
Water starts by some wonderful shots introducing us to a young girl who's parent's send her away to live with the widows because she became a widow her self because a husband she's never seen, possibly doesn't even remember she's married, died. From than on the story goes slowly introducing some new characters, some good some bad, and the world these widows live in. A great scene is, i think, when the little girl is sitting with other widows, listening to some kind of a preacher, and innocently asks 'Where do male widows go after their wives die''?! Other's are, of course, in shock and start mumbling madly while the preacher seems more irritated because he's not allowed to finish the prayer. The entire movie is filled with these kind of scenes that send some sort of message, but, unfortunately, sometimes it seems a little forced.

The storyline is very unusual in it's simplicity. However, i had a feeling like the director, writer actually, tried to get rid of the simplicity which may well be the thing that took a lot from the movie. As it get's closer to the end it get's more and more complicated with all the puzzles coming together and all of the sudden it no longer seems like a movie that's about these poor women living as isolated from society as possible, hoping to go to heaven for it one day.

One of the main mistakes by the writer is that the first half goes slowly and takes it's time, while the other half seems to be happening way too fast and ruins the structure of the whole movie. Falling in love happens way to quickly, sadness of the Kalyani that makes her do what she did later on is not well portrayed, probably because the writer, instead of giving some more time to developing the characters decided to put some other things in it instead, and the leading character, Chuyia, somehow seemed like she was supposed to be a supporting character. I felt like she was used more like a story mechanism, something that keeps it going rather than someone that's in the middle of everything.

The biggest asset of this film, besides a beautiful storyline, is cinematography. It's amazing. Wide shots are all over the place during the entire movie but, unlike in some movies, it never bores you or makes it repetitive. An amazing job and even though it could be argued weather the movie should've been Oscar nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, there is no question that it should've been nominated for best cinematography. This, i must say, happens a lot. If the movie is not popular and widely recognized, it's in most cases never nominated for anything. It's very sad because there is so many movies with great music, cinematography and so on and it's not being recognized because the Academy doesn't care.

Acting is fine all around, but who really shines here is the young actress Sarala who plays Chuyia, the lead character. She owns the screen through out. Great performance and she should've gotten more credit for it.

All in all, the movie is good and eye melting, but i can't help the feeling that, like with many movies, it could've been done better. But once again, the story is beautiful and cinematography is amazing, and for that alone it's worth watching!!! Not that it's not worth watching anyway but those are really the spotlights in this movie!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good, but could've been better with someone else directing.
4 June 2011
The main problem with this movie is that it's not compelling enough. Now, i don't know if the book has the same problem because i never read it, but i'd like to see a movie like this in the hands of someone like, if he was still alive, David Lean or maybe even someone new(ER) like Darren Aronofsky, Rob Marshall, Ron Howard or Sam Mendes. I know, they are very different directors and how can they even be in the same sentence, but i just think that they'd all do a good job. I can see everyone of them directing this movie. But don't get me wrong, Francis Lawrence is not a bad director. As far as the shots go everything is in place and he brought some good stuff from the actors too. There are some very good performances in the film. Especially by Christoph Waltz. However, i think that he didn't bring the best from the scenes that were meant to be intriguing and emotional, such as (----- MINOR SPOILER -----) the one where Jacob asks Marlena to come with him, to jump off the train. It looks so ordinary and unimportant. It should've been longer and a short slow motion between the two of them wouldn't hurt. Also the scene where Jacob is washing the elephant's wound and so on...


The writing is fine, i don't know about is it a good adaptation or not, but the film is structurally well done. The only thing missing, at my opinion, is the length. It should've been longer. It's a period drama, nothing under two and something hours works that well, i think. But than it's possible that the producers had something to do with that!


Christoph Waltz was, as i mentioned above, great. But Rob Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon should be mentioned too as they both bring good performances. Reese already has her place among the Elite Acting Talent's and Rob is getting there. I won't mention Twilight because i think it sucks, but he definitely proves him self to be a good actor and not just, what many think he is, a pretty face. He did that with Remember Me as well.


It's a good movie. Once again, i think it could've been better with a different director but it works fine like this too. It's not exactly a masterpiece but it's definitely good.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The critics took it to hard on it! Take it for what it is and you'll be surprised how lovable it can be, i promise!
4 June 2011
Since the first time i saw Dazed And Confused i was waiting for a movie that will show the eighties era as convincingly and as funny as that movie did. Than i saw a trailer for Take Me Home Tonight, and ever since i was dying to see it. Unfortunately, i don't live in the USA so i didn't have the opportunity 'till now. It took a while since it came to the cinemas here. In the meantime i read a lot of comments from critics, bashing the movie for not being as funny and as original as it was intended to be. And you know what, they were right. It's not nearly as funny as i thought it'll be and it's not nearly as original as i hoped it will be, but still i simply loved it. It's a feel good movie that's got a few bright moments and a cast that's simply excellent for this film. It's just one of those movies that makes you jealous of the good time the character's were in.


Teresa Palmer and Topher Grace have a great chemistry and it worked so well in this movie. The two of them really carried the whole movie. Also, Topher's sidekick works great as well, which is weird, because these days it's such a cliché to have one in movies.


Directing is fine though could've been more eighties like and the screenplay is very clichéd and not what i expected, but still quite interesting and time wasting. That is, funny! The movie is not as nearly as good as Dazed And Confused or even Fast Times At Ridgemont High but it's still a fair eighties comedy, and i think the critics went way too hard on it! I had a good time! And if you love eighties comedies i think you'll like it too. It's not exactly at the top of the genre but still very enjoyable!
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Game of Thrones (2011– )
Some characters are not well casted, but the book(s) is/are adapted quite faithfully. An amazing TV series. Watch under any cost!
1 June 2011
I was very excited but still quite skeptical when i found out that they're gonna adapt one of my favorite books. Book series that is, but Game Of Thrones is my favorite in the series so far. I'm an amateur screenwriter and one day i came to an idea of trying to adapt something since i've already written a couple of original screenplays. I wanted a high task and i wanted it to be a fantasy so i looked for the best fantasy on the internet and everyone said that this is it. And they were right. I read Lord Of The Rings, which is/are amazing, but this is something special and very different from anything i've ever read. All the characters are so well done, the storyline is so interesting with a whole bunch of unexpected twists, and so on... You don't even have a feeling that it's a fantasy while you're reading it. Anyway, it didn't take me long to read the book and understand that it can't be adapted. Into a movie, that is. So i gave up on adaptation, but i continued with reading the series and all i can say is i can't wait for the fifth book!


As for the TV series, the book is more or less quite faithfully adapted. Of course, some parts are missing, some unimportant characters thrown out, most of the characters, especially young ones, a lot older than in the books and certain parts a bit changed, though they all still have the same ending, but that was to be expected. The book(s) is/are obviously a lot better, but the TV adaptation is still great. Brilliant. Amazing. Not as amazing as the book(s) but still....


Certain actors, i must say, really don't fit their roles. Such as Jon Snow, Joffrey Lannister, Theon Greyjoy, Catelyn Stark and even Cersei i'd say, but what can you do. It shouldn't mind to those who didn't read the books. Characters that are well casted are, i think, Eddard Stark, Tyrion Lannister, Arya Stark, Brann Stark, Daenerys Targaryen, Khal Drogo, Tywin Lannister, Gregor Clegane,... There is much more of those who are not good for their roles but most of them are supporting characters so i wont mention them a lot, but the point is that casting should've been done a lot better. Joffrey, for instance, is supposed to be a very pretty kid with full lips an the actor looks like Dennis The Menace with thin lips and the most evil eyes i've ever seen. Really not good for his part even though his character is evil. Jon Snow is supposed to look way younger than the actor who plays him is, just like Sansa Stark and so on. But i guess i can go over those things since the series are really great and i'm just happy that the book(s) are being adapted in the first place.


Watch this series. They are great. Like The Godfather set in a fantasy medieval world. The Sopranos with swords and even better. My recommendation to everyone. And i just wanna say that i'm glad they didn't cut the nudity and brutality out of the series. That would really ruin everything since the books are pretty unmerciful toward it's characters and the story in general. 10 out of 10!!!!
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Limitless (I) (2011)
Could've been a lot better with this premise!
25 May 2011
I liked the idea of a drug that makes your entire brain work. Though, i'd rather make it just a tiny part because with all, if we'd use all of our brain, we could probably move buildings and stuff... Or so they say.


I think it would've been way better if the entire thing was taken more seriously. I mean, the guy makes more mistakes than any regular guy probably would. And he's doing it while he's on this drug. For instance, this is just a tiny ---------------SPOILER---------------, don't you think that a guy as smart as he is when he's on that drug would make sure that the door of his sanctuary, where he wants no one to be able to break in, are made of steel?! There is also the part where he drives very fast and risky which i highly doubt a guy this smart would do, and so on........ This movie should have never been an action movie. This was supposed to be some crazy, super intelligent film written by Charlie Kaufman or someone such. Than it would be great i think. I mean, i never read the novel so i don't know if the movie is much different, but if it's not, even though it's highly entertaining, that would mean that the plot is really waisted.


Bradley Cooper was all right, i guess. I just couldn't escape the impression that he was uninterested. As weird and stupid as that might sound, that was just the impression i had. An Robert De Niro was... Well, what to say? He couldn't be bad if he tried to. Cinematography was okay, at times too Britney Spears Music Video like, but eye grabbing at times, as well.


It was an interesting movie, very fun to watch, but nothing more than a popcorn flick. Unfortunately, because i think the story was good enough to make a lot more out of it. But still, if you want something to kill your time and even think about, i'd definitely recommend this. Good!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fun! I don't know why i gave it a 6 but.... Like i said, fun!
21 May 2011
I Am Number Four is basically just one of those teenage flicks who's goal is to get as many teenagers as possible to fall in love with the leading actor and go see the movie five times because of him. That worked with Twilight, but with this one.... I don't know! Pattinson is not that good looking either, but this guy is just way too usual to be noticed.


The story is about a guy from another planet running away from some other guys from another planet that are trying to kill him. He is accompanied by Timothy Olyphant who i once considered charismatic before he started making bad movies. That is, he was never making good movies in the first place, but he was in a good television series and he did a part in a not so bad romantic comedy called The Girl Next Door that fit him perfectly. As for Teresa Palmer, i'm not sure about her acting skills, but she has her way on the screen. As far as presence goes, anyway. Unfortunately, her role sucks and she only has like ten minutes in the whole movie. That's what usually happens to women in Hollywood when they're not playing someone's love interest, i guess.


And as for CGI, man it sucks. I don't even see the point of monsters in this film. They just ruin it even more. Especially the part where ((((SPOILER-SPOILER-SPOILER)))) that little dog transforms into a gigantic rottweiler/bulldog! If their plan with that was a comedic effect than they certainly did it right!


Directing is fine. Nothing spectacular, but action sequences were well done and not shaky. All the shots, or most at least, were done without any unnecessary shaky camera technique and it looked good. If there only wasn't for those dumb out of space guns all of it would've looked much better! Generally speaking.


I don't have to mention dumb writing that consists, from storyline to dialogue, of pretty much any cliché out there. Bad, but than again, if not taken seriously it's good enough for what it is. The movie is fun to watch and never boring, and that's why i gave it a six. In difference to Twilight, which tries to be serious but is ultimately dumb and boring, writing in this one is decent! And the movie it self! It is what it is, which is a dumb teenage flick with some Star Trek makeup about some blonde guy and so on... If you liked Twilight you will definitely like this. Than again, if you liked Twilight you'll probably like anything so... Haha... Just kidding. Though, i do think that!


With no expectations comes no disappointment, i guess! Fun. but nothing more!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Skyline (2010)
As an aspiring filmmaker sometimes i get really frustrated that people that get a budget waste it on something as bad as this movie is.
22 January 2011
It's been year's since i've seen a movie this bad and it will be, hopefully, many year's to come before i do again. Everything about this movie is awful. Directing, acting, cinematography, and writing in particular - all bad. It's like playing a bad Video Game. I'm not sure how old the writer is, but a lonely kid who's childhood goes by while he's spending most of his time playing Video Games wouldn't write something this bad. Don't misunderstand me, i like Video Games. I'm just making an example of someone who had or has no life except for the Video Games because, in my mind, only such person could write something as bad and as dumb as this. Not that there is no smart games. There is, only this guy wasn't playing them.

As an aspiring filmmaker, sometimes i get really frustrated and angry when i see how people that get their chance, that get a budget, decide to waste it completely. So many good science fiction scripts out there and some, i won't say idiot('s), decides to budget this one.


--- SPOILER ---

My favorite character, i must say, would be the fat guy. He is completely dedicated to living and he will do anything to survive. He even mentions to another guy that he must be strong, that he must do everything to survive, this is war and so on, and than, with the first sign of trouble, he tries to kill him self. And eventually, sort of, succeeds. Yeah, a real survival instinct!



There are plenty of illogical and dumb scenes in this movie so no point in mentioning more of them. I mean, there is plenty of dumb, illogical scenes in Terminator too, but it's still a good movie. The problem with this one is that it's not! And the ending... My God that was bad!

All in all, don't waste your money renting it or your time downloading it because it's not worth it!!!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.