Reviews written by registered user

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

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Inaccurate representation of scope, 3 July 2004

I was expecting more from "Gods and Generals" after watching "Gettysburg" six or seven times. I was expecting the movie to, at the minimum, refer to major battles -- namely, Antietam/Sharpsburg and Shiloh. Rather than focusing on the war, the movie was a quote book -- every time some character opened his (mainly only males) mouth, it was a quote. Not natural, not smooth, and definitely not what the Civil War would have seemed like.

The battle scenes were decent but not as elaborate as were those in "Gettysburg." Edelman's score was not nearly as moving either.

I hope the producers and Jeff Shaara can do a better job with the third installment -- if they still proceed to do it.

Definitely an improvement, 30 June 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw Spiderman (SP) (the first one) on my way back from China. Although I had a video screen in front of me (the plane was a 777 of United, if anyone cares), I really didn't find the movie too appealing, and surely did not believe so many people could flock to see it the first time around.

Now enter SP2. Maybe I felt strongly about the movie because I haven't seen a movie in the theater since "The Return of the King," or maybe it's because it's summer and people get more emotional when it's hot out. Either way, it blew me away.

Tobey Maguire deserves a thumbs-up and much applause for making SP into a more believable, human-like character. No more "I can do anything" charisma; Tobey (Peter and SP, too) has become a human. He is down to earth, feels others' emotions, and conveys his own sentiments extremely well. *POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

Several parts of the movie were touching to me -- knowing someone who loses something is heartbreaking, and Tobey conveys those emotions well.

*comments continued*

The movie rolls along quite well and has few if any slow spots. Although not every scene is completely believable and some CG graphics are visible, again, the believability of the movie is much better compared to its predecessor.

On the IMDb scale, I give the movie a 9; on a "four-star" scale, four stars goes to it. Well worth it and definitely deserving of a higher-box office finish than the original.

30 out of 60 people found the following review useful:
Abysmal, 10 April 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Possible spoilers

(But what's to spoil here?)

Sure, Denzel may have won an Oscar. Sure, Hawke may have been nominated for one. But what in the heck were the producers thinking when they filmed this movie?

It might be a commentary on how some police officers do business. That element is good. Playing good cop/bad cop is okay. Washington does a good enough job of it. But the reason the entire "training day" took place as it did isn't introduced for a while. Why, or even IF, Washington's Harris decided to pull the stints he did is unclear. Hawke simply follows him around greedily. Not much to the plot anyhow; the complete disregard to mention what is happening to Harris -- instead of focusing only on Hawke's Hoyt -- makes the movie a dull police flop.

Incredible pacing; incredible emotion, 20 December 2003

*Possible Spoliers*

I'm a big Lord of the Rings afficionado. I love Tolkien's work and was afraid the last big installment -- The Return of the King -- wouldn't be quite the way Tolkien envisioned his work would end. After all, I had heard all the rumors that claimed that Saruman's fate would be avoided in the movie, and of course there wasn't a scouring of the shire. But just as TTT proved to me that Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" had merit, his RotK proved to be an incredible movie, absolutely the best movie I have seen thus far. I'll try to avoid large details and the such -- and I'll definitely try to stay away from "my opinion of this is so and so..." phrases because they don't convey anything. The emotion I felt during the film was that I was part of the film; looking at a theatrical poster today, I just realized how much I felt like I was there with Frodo, Sam, the Fellowship, or even with the Orcs. Sméagol, as usual, has an excellent role, and is definitely a worthy adversary -- and yet, necessity -- the the story line. In any case, the movie was a monumental work of extreme genius, excellent graphics, and perhaps above all else, it engendered raw emotion.

This wasn't a movie where crying came in fits, or at just the end. As early as halfway through the movie, there was applause throughout the theater -- perhaps aggravating to some, but it surely revealed the intensity of the movie. In this regard, much credit should be given to the way Peter Jackson took the plot. Rather than film two separate plotlines, as Tolkien used, or even three (one for Minas Tirith; one for Aragorn and his companions; another for Frodo, Sam, and Sméagol), Jackson decided to blend all the plots together to give a better idea of the flow of time. The way he did present it turned out to be similar to the plot in TTT, and set up the stage for all the emotions to come. They came in one massive, grandiose style conclusion that revealed both the full implications of having carried the ring and the fate of Middle Earth.

I appreciated the film. Of the three, it perhaps best followed Tolkien's words and was arguably the most moving. I thought I had seen the best film in 2002 when I watched TTT -- RotK merely one-upped it, and took the concept of incredible passion to another yet. To the directors, actors, and anyone else who put in seven years of their life to see this own quest done, congratulations. You've done it. For the third time in a row.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Unfortunately..., 3 August 2003

There's really nothing fundamentally "wrong" with the movie. It's got an incredible soundtrack, is filmed well, and the acting is strong. But unfortunately, it's not realistic at all. The state militia never were able to single-handedly turn around the Revolutionary War; Cornwallis' would never make blunders that the movie seemed to emphasize; and... quite frankly, there never was a Mel Gibson playing the role of Benjamin Martin. Each man for his own, sure, but to see the outcome of the war in three hours? A little unusual for a war. To see everyone try to avenge someone else's death? Not quite. Other than the historical inaccuracies, the movie itself is fine. It's an uplifting movie... makes for fun watching.

Better than most claim, 23 July 2003

I have heard that T3 was pretty bad. Therefore, while in Washington, DC, I decided to read the book. It turned out the ending was entirely UNPREDICTABLE, unlike some claimed, and it turned out that the plot was a lot LESS dry than most would blab out. (This is in no means a criticism of others' opinions. I am attempting to state mine.) I enjoyed the movie -- maybe the characters were a little low on fresh ideas, I mean, come on, the plot has been the same for the past two movies now, but the overall message was impeccable. (Basically, what is said at the end of the movie is a strong message.) I enjoyed it. Redundant with older movies? Sure. But this one... gives a new meaning to "hope."

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Weird, but interesting, 30 March 2003

The plot of Kane was evident, but it was slightly monotonous (in my opinion). The prospect of a reporter attempting to find the origins of a mysterious name sounds dull, and seemed to play even duller on the screen. This is one of the movies that can be watched only with a sharp mind -- anything lesser and boredom, then sleep, seems to set in.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Agree with Big Movie Fan, 27 November 2002

I have to agree with Big Movie Fan -- I already wrote in my comments, but everything s/he said, I just couldn't get out (I guess I was in such a state of glorified shock!). In any case, this one did really portray everything I ever thought of Bond. James Bond.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
MY favorite, 23 November 2002

I definitely don't represent everyone out there, but I loved this latest Bond addition. It went back to the Aston Martin family -- I liked the BMW 750i used in "Tomorrow Never Dies," but this one seemed to bring back to life everything I want in a car -- and also took to heart the North Korea/South Korea conflict. In any case, Bond's gadgets, weapon of choice and of course, his girls, all added to what I call the best Bond film ever... but what I say doesn't matter until you decide for yourself.