Reviews written by registered user
tdh57

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

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Conspiracy (2008)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Lots of sheep in these reviews, 12 January 2013
8/10

This film seems to be a combination of two earlier films; Bad Day at Black Rock, and First Blood. In fact several scenes are practically identical frame for frame. A little originality in those particular scenes would've been better. But no biggie.

The story heads down its own path when descriptions of what the USA has been doing in (and after) every war we've been stuck in since WWII. We go in, destroy everything in sight, eventually get out, then send in the same companies to rebuild they mess they made. The brave men and women who gave their lives mean absolutely nothing except a way for those companies to get rich. It's been a national disgrace for decades. This film brings that corruption to light, but judging by many of these reviews those traitorous companies are also stacking reviews in their favor. It's actually quite funny. Even a blind man could see it.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
So so at best, 6 January 2013
3/10

It's hard to believe Steve McQueen turned down the roll of Sundance in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid simply because he would have been billed second behind Paul Newman. Oh the enormous egos of Hollywood. Instead, he accepted this film which is rather forgettable judging by the lack of reviews on IMDb.

He constantly fought with the director, walked off the set, and even demanded the director be fired from the project. The studio refused. Ego somewhat back in check Steve finished the film.

It's a simple coming of age story based on the Pulitzer prize winning novel by William Faulkner. Plenty of character actors do their best to carry the load but it's ruined by McQueen's constant overacting.

A couple of highlights were the early score by John Williams and the excellent photography, but neither were enough to give this anything better than a so-so rating. Best to read the book instead.

Ablaze (2001)
For once I agree, 2 January 2013
1/10

As with politics, vacation destinations, television shows and a multitude of other things that the majority usually go for, I don't generally agree with many movie reviews on IMDb. But for once I do. This movie doesn't even try to be good.

Right out of the gate they steal a 10-minute scene frame-for-frame from Striking Distance. I don't mean it's a similar car chase, it's the actual chase from the Bruce Willis movie shot in 1993. Ablaze is a blatant rip off of other films from start to finish.

Not worth investing a single minute with let alone the 90 minutes they steal from your life. But at least they're consistent; all they do is steal from something else to put this drivel together. Avoid this mess at all costs.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
This is a masterpiece?, 9 September 2012
2/10

Many consider Raging Bull to be Martin Scorsese's masterpiece. Granted, he made some excellent films during his long career, boosted numerous actors to stardom, and made piles of money. But calling this mess a masterpiece is cheapening the word in every sense.

As with many Scorsese films the subject matter is extremely interesting, but in no time at all turns into a tiring bore. Good Lord, how many times must we be forced to watch a long drawn-out scene with De Niro's character screaming, yelling and slapping his wife around to realize he's not very trusting and has a shaky home life? Okay, we get it, enough already!

The main thing I want in any movie is to be entertained, but Raging Bull didn't even come close.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Very Entertaining, 4 May 2012
9/10

Some of my favorite people in real life are the quirky ones. They're what make life interesting rather than one gigantic bore. That's the main reason I love this film and can watch it over and over without getting tired of it. It's a rare film that can do that to me.

There are few characters, if any, of what most folks would call "normal" in this movie. Every character is quirky in one way or another. Even characters who only have a line or two then are never seen again are quirky in their own little way. That is taking a gamble by the director and sometimes fails, but it works to a tee here.

Read the list for the well known actors names and some not so well known, but one thing is continuous throughout the film; they all had a ball making it. What a pity it has so few fans.

J. Edgar (2011)
0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Too Much Gimmickery, 5 April 2012
5/10

While I found the story fascinating, the writing, acting, score and settings nearly perfect, why oh why does Clint Eastwood feel at this stage of his long career he needs to resort to lame gimmicks? Case in point; virtually every scene is shot in shadows. Not just dark, but so dark you can't make out half the face. More movies are doing such nonsense lately for God knows why. Playing follow the leader in Hollywood makes little sense if the leader is screwed up.

Another example is all those flashbacks. Mr. Eastwood appeared to be attempting to give the audience whiplash. Of course biographies require going back in time, but multiple flashbacks followed by immediate flash forwards followed by what seemed to be several flash sideways all within a few minutes is extremely distracting to the viewer. And this goes on throughout the entire film.

This could very easily have been a masterpiece, but much as I admire his work, Director Eastwood spends far too much time here saying, "look at me," instead of saying watch my film.

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Did I miss something?, 16 February 2012
3/10

Having watched this mess of a film some years back and seeing so many positive reviews on here I decided to watch again thinking maybe I missed something. Nope. Didn't miss a thing. Great actors and a great director don't necessarily make a great movie. This is a springboard for all of them to move on to better projects, nothing more.

Every film and/or book must have characters you care about. Well, at least one character. But I couldn't manage to give a hoot about a single character during the entire movie. Not one.

And what's with so much music? Scorsese didn't seem to know whether he wanted to make a movie with a story or merely throw a non-ending series of songs together. The final result was nothing but a jumbled mess.

At least all the actors and director went on to produce much better works.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Waste of nature, 17 January 2012
1/10

This mess is drivel from start to finish. The movie makers couldn't seem to decide whether they wanted a drama, documentary, music video, comedy, travel adventure, nature hike or anything else. As a result they failed miserably on all counts.

The cast of young actors did the best they could with what they had to work with, but unfortunately they didn't have much at all. And what's with the idiotic narration from one of them when he's obviously a year or two older than when the rest of the film was shot? Was that another attempt at being artistic?

I'll agree the premise was decent; a nature buff takes a bunch of city kids on the vacation of a lifetime. But the result is nothing but a waste of time and nature. Thumbs way down.