Reviews written by registered user

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

7 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Awful. One of the worst movies ever. Would've been a good movie if it weren't chopped up and marketed wrong., 19 October 2011

A shoddily made "horror flick" that's actually a bad mash-up of romance and psychological thriller. I wonder how anybody's career survived this dud.

Dumb college kids go to a Goth party. A girl and her ex-boyfriend make out in an 'innocent' way. Her boyfriend gets ticked off, she gets her friends into a car accident, and the movie borrows from "Vanilla Sky", "Jacob's Ladder", and "Romeo and Juliet" (its supposed source of inspiration). Is the chick hallucinating? Is all this trouble she's going through really happening? Who cares?

Rumor has it, the script was good. Looks awfully messy to me. Either that, or some insidiously haphazard editing made it so that nothing made sense, just for the sake of a PG-13 rating. The "restored" Killer Cut which offered "MOAR 53X!!1!!! MOAR BLOOD AND GOAR!!!!1!! MOAR TERROR!!!1!!1!!!" still didn't bring any clarity. A marketing fail on Artisan Entertainment's part, the same studio which promoted "The Ninth Gate" as an action movie. Enough about that. This is anemic in terms of entertainment value, lacking chemistry, thrills, or even any unintentional humor. None of the younger actors could even act their way out of being a human centipede. With a rather hackneyed twist in an ending that took forever to reach, it's finally placed the final nail in its coffin. Just to add more suffering, you have to go through a lame soundtrack and the least consistent score ever heard. I mean, music you would hear during "Half-Life 2" incorporated into a 'scary, intense' chase scene in a swimming pool complex? No, that does not go there. Don't get me started on those main titles! And I thought "Chained" (a similarly bad film, only from Australia) was bad.

However, the only saving grace this film seems to have from it rotting along with the sparkly vampires and fake-CG pups is... Luke Wilson, as the sensitive priest dude. He was alright, doing the best he could with this material. The visual aspect, rancid as it is in the club, is only worth looking at in the reality and dream scenes.

Since there is nothing that can redeem this botched-up travesty, "Soul Survivors" is a disaster in every sense of the word. It delivers... a middle finger to horror fans looking for something simple or spooky, a steaming pile of crap to the psychological thriller lovers, and virtually nothing for there to appeal to everyone else. This is indeed one of the worst films I've laid my eyes upon.

Now, it's time for me to rinse them out so I could eliminate the burn that this travesty has cursed me with.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Not the Masterpiece Critics Claimed it to Be!, 4 April 2011

An oilman's quest for the American dream that spans 30 years slowly turns into a bad ego trip in this loose adaptation of Upton Sinclair's "Oil!". Paul Thomas Anderson's usually a master storyteller, and a great director, too. However, he doesn't quite do as well this time around, and the film doesn't live up to the critical hype, therefore making it overrated. Some moments work, others just... drag, rendering the viewer as to not give a crap what's going on. On the bright side, Daniel Day-Lewis does an over-the-top performance that ultimately won him another Oscar, its look fits the period, the music is stirring, and there's some intense parts. But, as a whole, it doesn't satisfy, give us a big payoff for spending 2 1/2 hours watching this, or bother to be more entertaining. It's a relatively tough film to watch, but you don't feel rewarded for doing so. You don't have to sit through this film to understand the nature of greedy people like Daniel Plainview; you might have somebody in your family like that. If not, just watch better movies about their rises and their falls.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Excellent thriller, 3 July 2010

Featuring a talented cast with the likes of Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law (in an outstanding performance), and Cate Blanchett, this adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel is like a Hitchcockian film for a modern generation, despite taking place in 1958, but can also be a stand-alone thriller. Through the viewpoint of the title character played by Damon, we also see the journey of a sociopath who believes that he finds happiness by assuming the identity of someone else and relishing in that person's lifestyle. The film's aided by breathtaking photography shot on location in Italy, a fascinating yet haunting score (including the jazz), some suspense, romantic intrigue (even the unrestrained homoerotic undertones), a top-notch script, and direction that helps increase interest due to the way the late Anthony Minghella made it. However, at times, the film seems slow and sluggish, and one wishes that Jude Law had more screen time. Also, it's just that the film's ending could've been altered, to make it more satisfying.

Thirst (2010/I) (V)
13 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
This film is diagnosed with Horriblathermia., 3 July 2010

Despite relying on atmosphere rather than blood and gore, this film does not quench my thirst for a good horror/suspense movie. There may be fine acting, but the film's prone to horriblathermia: Stage 1 - poor characterization; Stage 2 - bland chemistry; Stage 3 - its inability to scare or create feelings of unease; Stage 4 - complete boredom (this is also known as the stage in where there's no hope for this movie now); Stage 5 - predictable ending. The music failed to make it any better. Instead of trying to find a plot (or watch this movie), actually hike through the desert, but bring a lot more water than the idiots in this film did (They only brought 2 bottles, which wasn't very smart).

4 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Lawrence of Arabia is not a classic, 30 May 2010

There's good acting, good cinematography, and good music, but it's just too long, boring, and painful to watch! It's nowhere near as epic as Lord of the Rings, but it's only considered "epic" because of the fact that there was no film like this back then, and the fact that the director was so ambitious and wanted to cram in all this crap that this movie accumulated the length of 4 hours to do so. It's also too slow that the first part (2 and a half hours!!!) felt like 5 hours. I stopped watching it right then since it drives me mad. I'd have to say, despite everyone seeming to love this, that for a modern viewer, like me, this is a tough movie to get through. Movie buffs who are into older movies will like this though.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Hands down, the BEST movie of the 1990's!!!, 30 May 2010

This film works so well on many levels : as a comedy, a touching drama, a romance, a kaleidoscopic look at suburban America, a tale of souls lost in the boredom of life, and a parable about the beauty of life. Kevin Spacey turns in a terrific performance as does Annette Bening, and same goes for the other members of the cast(Wes Bentley as Ricky, Thora Birch as the daughter, and Allison Janney and Chris Cooper as Ricky's mom and dad, respectively). The score by Thomas Newman is very emotional, and the cinematography is masterful. Also, Alan Ball's biting screenplay goes well hand-in-hand with Sam Mendes' "Midas touch". YOU MUST SEE IT! It could, perhaps, change your perceptions of film (and your life).

Magnolia (1999)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
One of the better movies of 1999, 30 May 2010

Much like the Right Stuff, this movie is flawed, but great. It has the best ensemble cast you'd ask for, delivering great performances(that's true with Tom Cruise); 9 story lines that converge into 1 major one very well; multiple themes, the most prevalent ones being chance and coincidence and the Exodus 8:2 references; emotion, humor, and beauty all around; its ability to build tension, especially towards the middle of the movie; its great choice of visuals in the set design and cinematography departments; its masterful direction and storytelling by P.T. Anderson; and its ability to run smoothly or not feel long despite its 3-hour runtime. The problem with it is that the "Worm" storyline isn't resolved, and some scenes are slow. I thought that the more memorable scenes (towards the end) were weird but pretty awesome. It's an interesting film, which isn't surprising, seeing as 1999 had many interesting films to offer.