Reviews written by registered user
tony-clifton

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

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
24 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Born to Race (2011) (V)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A movie for car geeks, 14 September 2012
7/10

.. and that's not a bad thing. Most car movies out there are entertainment-only movies for the general audience, so they are full of hammy dialog, hammy acting, hammy directing and inaccuracies about cars.

This is fairly accurate about cars (not perfect, but not outrageous either), has some hammy dialog but the acting and directing are quite competent compared with the Fast and the Furious.

I highly recommend this film for lovers of cars and drag racing in particular. It's also good to see street racers take it to the track like they should; although there are scenes of irresponsible driving, those scenes don't go well for the main character and the movie leads the audience morally in the right direction: to the track.

"Rome" (2005)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
The Best Series ever Made!, 10 October 2007
10/10

Among my 3 most favourite TV series: Firefly, Band of Brothers and Rome, Rome stands alone as the perfect TV series and the only series my Wife and I have had marathon viewing sessions until 5am in the morning (an amazing feat for my Wife who gets bored easily and is a morning person!).

Although it is a sexually and violently explicit show, far more than my usual taste, it is strangely appropriate and doesn't seem gratuitous - much like the violence in Saving Private Ryan. In fact it was a fascinating look into Roman life, so accurate in feel that I felt that I was living in Rome. I especially liked that the drama cut across all levels of society so one felt that they were gifted with a time machine to see for the first time what ancient Rome was like. For that experience I am grateful!

5 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
contrived!, 8 August 2006
5/10

There were some good moments to this movie, such as the scenery and the acting between the actors. In that sense this movie is excellent. However, the last scene with the father and son is contrived - the typical ending to this kind of movie where one cannot think of a better ending! I guess my problem with it, is because writers feel a movie has to end that way just to make you "think about it" - a sort of induced trauma. Furthermore it doesn't make any sense why the authorities would have thought to bring the son to the father in the first place.

In short, although I liked the movie I felt the ending was forced and I don't think a contrived ending with induced sentimentality deserves the high recognition it's received thus far. 5/10

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Classic cult hit, 28 June 2006
7/10

This movie is a classic, right up there with Office Space, Dumb and Dumber and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Wonderful movie that everyone with a healthy sense of humour should see!

What is refreshing to see is people being people. I know people exactly like Harold and Kumar - they are very real people, and it's sad that this movie is a "satire" when it's really the norm. America should learn that race doesn't matter - it's a person's culture that matters. A person's culture determine's his behaviour. All I see are some American stoners. I do not see a "Korean" and an "Indian".

I think one of the reasons why people find this movie so entertaining is precisely because these racial stereotypes are broken, and people are surprised that a movie that doesn't have anglo-saxon-centric actors can in fact be hugely entertaining.

Saw II (2005)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
See Saw 2 (but see Saw too before you see Saw 2), 3 November 2005
10/10

This Halloween see Saw 2 but see Saw before you see Saw 2 to understand what you saw. Not see-saw, but see Saw before you see Saw 2. If you saw Saw too, you must see Saw 2 to see the conclusion of what you saw. If you already saw Saw 2, then go see Saw too to make sense of Saw 2. So when you're out next to see a movie, see Saw 2 – not see-saw 2 but see Saw 2, but not before you see Saw.

What I saw in Saw 2 was different to when I saw Saw. Although we see Jigsaw who we see in Saw too return to Saw 2, what we see is a psychotic sequel superior to Saw and scarier too. If you loved seeing Saw, you would love to see the Saw sequel: Saw 2

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The funniest movie ever made!!!, 16 January 2005
10/10

Absolutely hilarious. You must see this movie. The lines are great, the situations are funny. Totally enjoyable. Nothing more to say!! 10/10.

There were so many great scenes, it's hard to mention a top one, but some of my favourites include the Stonehenge concert, and the concert where one of them gets stuck in the capsule. Everything was done so realistically it's like War of the Worlds with a rock band. Rob Reiner and the Cast are geniuses. It wouldn't have worked without perfect acting, and thankfully everyone's acting was spot on and utterly believable.

I love this movie!

Superb! But what's with all the "1" ratings?, 19 December 2003
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After I voted, I saw with amazement a number of people who voted "1". What's up with that? I reserve "1" for a really bad movie like "Hard Target" - acclaimed movies with tremendous epic value like any of the Lord of the Rings movies do not deserve a "1". If you don't like the genre - then that's not the fault of the film. Neither is it the fault of the film if you don't like the battles. Movies should be judged based on what the director was trying to achieve, and in that respect - how does Return of the King deserve a "1"??

The only reason I can think of, is some people are losers who have nothing better to do, or can't stand Return of the King out-ranking "The Godfather" or some other corny reason. Grow up kiddies!

Anyway - back to the movie. I thought the movie was breathtaking! It certainly is an apt finale to a wonderful trilogy. Unlike others - I didn't find the film dragged on too long, and the length was respectful to the essence of Tolkien's story.

*minor spoiler*

The only thing I was wondering is: why didn't Frodo just ride on one of those Eagles straight into Mordor from the beginning in the first place? Then it occurred to me: the Eagle would stand out flying into Mordor, and would have set off too many alarms. Also, it appeared when the eye looks at you, you become paralyzed - so I guess the Eagles would have been affected by that.

*end spoiler*

Anyway - the wait has not ended for me. The "real" trilogy is the extended DVD set and until the extended Return of the King comes out, the journey has not really ended yet for me. Boo hoo.

(man did I wait 2 whole years before I saw the end?? I bet none of you thought you could have waited that long!!)

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Stop comparing the trilogy to Star Wars - the idea is LUDICROUS!, 19 December 2003
10/10

1) the Lord of the Rings was written in the 1950s 2) George Lucas is a huge fan of Tolkien 3) George Lucas likes the Lord of the Rings so much, he made a clone movie (good pun right?) called "Willow" - remember? 4) a lot of the themes and plot elements of the Star Wars trilogy are in fact BASED on the the Lord of the Rings: a) old teacher "dies" in first movie but doesn't really b) second installment ends in a cliff-hanger (the original "Two Towers" novel ends in a big cliff-hanger") c) last installment surrounds the "Return" of something - I mean COME ON - Return of the Jedi:Return of the King!!!

So to compare the two series is ridiculous, especially by some who think Star Wars is actually better! To think that is to insult Tolkien and his influence he had over George Lucas.

By the way The Return of the King rocks! I will give a more detailed review later.

4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Deus Ex Macchina, 28 November 2003
1/10

Deus Ex Macchina - or "God in the machine", a term used by the Greeks to describe an overly contrived script.

This movie, along with its pathetic first movie is a great big joke. The fact that so many people cannot see how bad the story line is, is testament to how low standards of story-telling have fallen.

How pathetic it was for HP to suddenly and conveniently win the battle at the end of the first movie by touching someone's face - and the lame-o explanation given is "it was a mother's love" - WHAT?

As if the weak "Independence Day" type ending of the first movie was not bad enough, the second one ends even worse - a stupid bird flies in at the last minute to destroy the big bad snake! WHAT? Independence Day - "Secret Weapon" all over again!

Also - what a total ripoff Dobby was to Gollum. For crying out loud, I think it was too much of a coincidence that a giant spider is in the second book of The Lord of the Rings - and surprise surprise, a giant spider in the second book of HP. Gollum betrays his master, Dobby betrays his. Both are similar looking, wearing tattered clothing - or for pete's sake.

Oh how the standards have fallen.

1/10 - and the 1 is for the special effects.

20 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
An amazing collection of LIES, 31 October 2003
1/10

BFC is quite simply the greatest collection of lies ever to be put together by a so-called "journalist". Whilst I initially enjoyed and even believed the propaganda spouted by Moore, I came to do more research into his claims and found almost all of them to be distortions of the truth.

Some examples: 1) Charlton Heston did not go conduct a pro-gun rally in Flint - it was a political rally, and it was held 8 months after the killing - not 48 hours later as the movie portrays.

2) Moore claims the Lockheed-Martin plant in Columbine makes bombs, when all it does is make weather satellite rockets. They are transported at night-time because the convoy is so long it would disrupt traffic.

3) when Moore presents the photograph of the killed girl to Heston, it's clear that the scene was staged, since the camera was showing Moore's back - and then showing his face - and from the scene it is obvious that there was no second camera. Moore later says in an interview on TV that there were two cameras which is clearly a lie, judging by the footage on the film.

4) the plaque at the bottom of the B-52 does not applaud the bombing of innocent civilians as the BFC proclaims. It is proclaiming the downing of a MiG fighter plane, which was considered VERY difficult to do for the cumbersome B-52.

5) Moore portrays Marilyn Manson, named after a serial killer Charles Manson as a "good guy", with almost "intelligent" ideas. But in actuality Manson's ideas are equally as simplistic. To think that children are more influenced by geopolitics that they know nothing about, than by a pop icon is delusional. Clinton was fighting to prevent genocide in Kosovo, and Moore mentions that more bombs were dropped on that day than any other day of the war - as if the children somehow knew that at the time and were subconsciously motivated to kill children as a result! Records of the Columbine killer's diaries on the other hand show them admiring Hitler and Darwinism and that they formed their killer instincts from their belief in Evolution and Natural Selection - beliefs which the USA fought against in Kosovo.

-- I could go on, but by now it should be clear just how much of a liar and a distorter of truth Moore is. For more information you can go to bowlingfortruth dot com, as I have found that site to be the most factual in debunking Moore's outrageous claims.


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]