Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
33 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

"Empire" (2005)
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
They got away with this?, 6 September 2010

This is gonna be a short one.

I love historical fiction. I like when they create realistic characters that play a part in a historical figure's life. Rome and Tudors are great examples of this. However this one not only creates a completely unrealistic character/hero that we follow around, it also creates fictitious events and characters that actually existed.

I was excited to hear about a show that was about young Octavius during his life before becoming absolute ruler of Rome and becoming the first true Emperor. Instead we learn about a child who is completely uneducated, lacking any charisma, and lacks any actual wisdom to be a powerful ruler. It's as if they wanted to explain the magnitude of his character by making him garbage in the start and progressing his character. Sorry, but Augustus has his life written about upwards, downwards, starboard to port. He was a great and ruthless man from start to finish.

Aside from the events and characters in history being completely destroyed or missing, the character who we piggyback on, Tyrannus, is a Gladiator who is basically the greatest fighter to ever exist. And you may be excited by hearing that, but if you combine all the fights scenes in the season of this show; it still wouldn't amount to a single fight scene from Rome or Gladiator.

The plot is flushed with historical butchery and massive plot holes. Along with that, you can't seem to find any love for any of the characters and if you have a seventh grade education or higher, you'll be in disbelief that this show actually got aired.

Centurion (2010)
2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Just Enough of Everything, 5 September 2010

Let's get one thing straight with me. I hate action films that revolve around betrayal and/or romance. And because people seem to be horrible at even watching a film, I was completely scared of both of these when watching this film. Without giving anything away, there is everything in this movie and just the right amount of it.

UK Films that go back to 1400 AD and lower are always a treat. They give us their hallmark actors and actresses and we get to see them play, generally the same sort of role they did in their previous films. A nice little change is the Charismatic General, Dominic West, still plays his usual egocentric role, but instead of being the antagonist, he plays quite a lovable hero. His second up, Michael Fassbender who plays a determined and soulful leader, does a grand job to pick up on the other end of the scale. The supporting cast that we meet along the way are perfect for their roles and no one misses a beat.

This movie does have a storyline that does follow pretty accurate to Rome's history. Around the time of Emperor Commodus, best known for being in the movie Gladiator. However for history buffs, we know it was Commodus who began pushing for the island of Brittany. He was also the first 'duke'/'lord' of it as well. But no Emperor is mentioned, just a fun fact. Along with the accurate story-telling the movie does like to center itself around the fence of gore. Visceral Gore. Whoever began perfecting the use of CG-Gore, my hats off to them. Although it's pretty obvious when it's used, it allows for some crazy hack-n-slash effects. Such as cutting someone in half, cutting someone's arm off, cutting off half of someone's head. These sorts of things that make guys fist pump and lesser men cringe. But the gore is not out of bad taste.

- Like all British films that have such gore, it some how comes across as tasteful. I don't know if it's realistic, since I've never seen someone get axed in half, but they definitely shot for the grittiness of hand to hand combat. On that same note, many people I can imagine hated the director-of-photography. Many of the action scenes that involve many mêlées are broken up into almost an animate slide show of people putting the finishing blow on their opponent. Some of us may love it, while others enjoy more of the dramatic fights where swords cling more often than blood is spilled. But I'd like to think some of us are educated and know that is not how it worked back then.

I am going to begin speaking about the ending now. No spoilers, but if you read too far into it you may begin creating your own ending and I'd hate for you to go into this movie thinking you know the ending. -A lot of people didn't like the ending. They felt it was perhaps weak? I don't see it as weak. I see it as probably the best possible ending. I got exactly what I wanted to be honest. I think people go to movies and still expect faeries and unicorns to make everything be alright. But the facts are facts and this movie obeyed them as best as theatrically possible. +End Ending discussion~!

So in conclusion. The movie is amazing. I have to say it's one of the better historical-fiction films I have seen. I think I may like it better than 300; in terms of Greco-Roman history. The movie combines action with just enough character-interaction and drama to keep you interested. Don't expect any twist endings or even any tear jerkers. It's just a good film to watch alone or with some friends. It may even get you interested enough to begin researching the 'rust and iron' age of the Roman Empire.

The Box (2009/I)
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
You're gonna have to dig for depth., 4 September 2010

And by dig, I mean make up something completely absurd. Ever have those friends at the dinner table who come up with some quack excuse on how a simple and often garbage movie should be seen as artful or a great piece for humanity? This should reawaken their gift of gab. Let's take a few solid facts of where this movie came from.

It came from a short story written for Playboy in 1970. It progressed into a teleplay in the mid and late 1970's and then reused again in the 80's reboot of the Twilight Zone. So as you can see, the story was basically made to be 19-25 minutes long plus commercials. Not made to be made into an almost two hour movie. I was actually blown away the movie was listed as breaking 90 minutes. I was confused onto what they could actually produce for such a simple story, even if they had materials to use from at least three different variants.

Now before I continue on any potential tangent on how this movie is lackadaisical in it's attempt to tell any single plot element, I will give it this. It will keep you interested and perhaps even guessing. However the movie starts and ends like a Twilight Episode, but instead of being satisfied; you realize you just watched a fifteen minute plot line being dragged out over 115 minutes worth of eerie plot-development. Which may sound awesome, but really, is the middle of the movie going to outweigh the end? The answer is no. You can maybe have flaws throughout the movie, but if you can't sell it at the end, then what the hell is the point? The movie has major plot holes, I'll let you find them for yourself, but they're their. Many people will also defend this movie by saying it's a scope on human emotions, selfishness, and any other community college notebook found in the desk of a psychology class. But the clear fact is, the movie wasn't even sure what direction it was going to take and any attempt to resolve that was completely dismissed with the ending. And let's get one thing straight. The ending doesn't upset me because it's not how I wished it to end or because I didn't get any answers. It upset me because it made no sense at all. At all. The movie seems to traverse about three major Occult subjects and it doesn't have the common decency to attempt to join them in some fashion to where they should be even introduced.

Now before someone tries to defend this by perhaps it's to be interpreted, that isn't the case. No string of intelligence could take this movie and actually produce some sort of linkage between them all. There isn't even a flow of evidence in this 'mystery/thriller'. It's just a congealed mess of what Richard Kelly's brain is.

And to conclude: Richard Kelly. He made a great little movie that has generated many interesting theories called: Donnie Darko. But that was his only movie that even bounded to a sense of reality and pseudo-fiction. Southland Tales was about nothing and all the other movies he is accredited to writing, he was the actually sole-visionary, so it doesn't really count. So basically, if you want a movie that will pique your interest and maybe jog your mind, then this is it. But wait, let me rephrase. If you're the kind of person like that AND also like a movie that insults any of your theories with a busted ending: this is it.

7 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Harsh reviews? Lighten up kids., 3 July 2010

What makes a movie? There are many answers to this, but on a very low key, let's go watch a weekend movie. A movie has a hero who everyone can love and has some background we can understand, or at the very least keep up with. The hero usually has support, to cover the flanks of any personality traits the hero may have. This is to show the hero is not perfect and he can learn from his supporting crew. And the bad guy(s) are generally someone easy to hate and the movie usually reveals the enemy in a way so you can instantly tell they are no good.

This film does that. So why the 2 stars and lower? I guess the people who watch the cartoon show are butt hurt about something. I can't place it, I have only seen a handful of episodes. But if you spent the money to go see this movie at a midnight viewing or something without doing your research: Like that M. Night is stealing credit for everything. Then the jokes on you - thanks for the cash, idiot.

For those of us who just want a movie to kick back to that has a solid story line, good martial arts, and some amazing effects, then look no further. Allow the Last Airbender to be your whore for the silver screen. I won't go on about the great parts of this film. So I will stick with picking out the flaws.

The flaw is that M. Night is a hack and got to do this film. I was scared of this film since I saw the teaser. M. Night not only tries to pretty much overshadow the people who made the good parts of the movie great, but he pretty much makes it difficult for you to even get a preview of who actually made this film great. Because it wasn't him. M. Night is the bane of this movie. From the slow moving scenes, bad transition shots, and everything else M. Night is great at doing, is what makes this movie seem to drag on at parts.

Casting. Casting was a huge problem for everyone I believe. I mean, he attempted to Asian-up this film by changing the annunciation, but the characters I thought should definitely be Asian, are just a couple of white people surrounded by Inuits and Asians. However, I will admit I was taken aback by who played Zukko, I ended up enjoying him. He was a little campy, but he did his part. Zukko is campy in the cartoon, come on now. I also love who played his uncle. And the Fire Lord himself is an amazing actor. So the Fire Nation side was pretty down pact in my opinion.

Humor. The show is campy. It really is. And M. Night defends the lack of humorous scenes due to the actual mood of the movie and time. The movie didn't even break 2 hours first off. And second, M. Night you retarded hack, it's called Comic Relief. It's not just a great program canceled back in the 90's. Any movie can use Comic Relief. ESPECIALLY A KIDS ACTION FILM! What were there... 2 maybe 3 scenes where you can find yourself smirking in humor? And they all seem to happen at the start of the film. So it's as if when M. Night was spitting all over the original writer's and creator's faces, he forgot he was writing a kids movie 20 minutes in.

ASIDE FROM M. NIGHT EXISTING IN THIS FILM IT'S A GOOD FLICK AND WORTH SEEING ON THE BIG SCREEN! However. Let us all laugh ourselves to death... When in the closing credits, it says nice and big for you: Writer, Director & Producer: M. Night Shamalan. And the REAL writers don't pop up till further into the credits. Oh M. Night, how you are the bane of decent movies.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Story telling at perhaps it's best. And with toys., 27 June 2010

People made huge hype about this movie. I was pretty pumped at the idea of a third one when I heard about it a few years ago. However, as the last months closed I became more and more disinterested as I was reminded how weak the second one was. If you liked the second one, great. So did I, but I certainly dreaded one with the same pacing.

I'd have to say that the only thing I really really disliked, was that the old cast seemed of just died off. I mean, seriously. Etch was in the friggin' first teaser! He's not even in the movie. I honestly felt lost without him. How cool was it to see Etch just scramble around and draw crap perfectly?! Well, not in this movie. Also some key players are also missing. R.C., Speak and Spell, and Boe Pete (Is that how it's spelled?) I didn't like that. The movie, like all the other movies takes us from one setting to another. Forcing the toys to learn some disturbed truth at the new setting and to figure out how to get out. All while trying to earn Andy's love and respect! I am not saying this formula sucks. It's great. It's easy enough for an infant to follow and allows enough entertainment for an adult to actually enjoy. However, the final climax was a bit lacking to me. And I felt like I had been there before.

I am announcing all these bad things, because that's all that matters in a Toy Story review. WE ALL KNOW IT'S WORTH WATCHING! But which one is best? Certainly not this one. Not to me at least. Toy Story has the original charm, it's tough to beat. So tough that I doubt it can be beat. But this one beats the second one easily.

So all in all, this movie is worth viewing in theaters. In fact, if you haven't, then you're simply not a movie go'er. This movie is well worth the time and money and for old school fans it will make you want to watch the first two over and over again and talk about all three movies.

Fighting (2009)
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Channing Tatum proves to be a tool. Again., 15 June 2010

I watched this one a while ago, when it came out on video. Not even sure if this pile made it to Theaters. It really upset me though. That they put Terrence Howard in such a crap film. Because I like Howard, personally. And it seems like anything Channing touches turns to crap. But it's really not his fault, he just needs to find a new line of work.

So Fighting. To really break it down to you, let's say your 3rd grade English teacher gave you a writing assignment with the following elements you needed to include. First: A film that can be accomplished by a crap-shoot actor like Tatum. Second: A film that makes professional fighting look stupid, skilless, and overall a washout. And finally: Make the main character the worst fighter ever, but still victorious in every struggle.

That's the film. Your child probably wrote it. But his version was better.

Tatum plays his usual character. A no talent, brainless wanna-be thug who turns whatever tricks to get by. He frequents the military as his main trick, but in this he sells bootleg literature. Yea, I guess it exists. Parents seem to be garbage enough to buy their kids bootleg books. But not to get into that, this is focusing on horrible Tatum and this movie is.

He gets a scuffle with some sneaktheif and beats him up. Mind you, it's a terrible fight, but this seems to be the most realistic event in the movie and the best fight Tatum puts up. To wrap it up, he is scouted by Howard who is an underground fighting manager and Tatum becomes his Balboa.

In all the fights, Tatum basically gets whooped to crap and then Tatum basically gets some lucky break or someone gets in the middle of it and Tatum wins. What blows my mind is that it's so obvious the fight ended unfairly, but everyone thinks Tatum is the best fighter since Ryu and Ken.

So if you're in the mood to waste time, or watch Tatum suck again, or see the worst fighting film that takes itself waaaaay too seriously. This is for you. If you want something better, but along the same lines: Last Dragon.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Okay nerds, it's a good movie; and I'm a nerd., 15 June 2010

What's with Video Gamers with no sense for film doing putting down this film? Shouldn't you all be busy buying EGM's Calander Issue for the sexiest pixel breasts? Seriously guys, let me break down to you why this movie is a great dedication to the game series. From someone who has played and beaten it.

The movie would have been an 8 or higher if the action was a bit more involved. People keep claiming this movie had amazing parkour. It was good, but hardly amazing (comparing this to the freelance free-runners seen on Youtube that are a dime a dozen). Now I am not asking for more blood. I understand this is Disney and they have limits, but there seemed to be some slow moments (think The Mummy Returns).

Actually! This is a lot like the Mummy Series. Now maybe I am just being biased and geographically racist "A desert flick is a desert flick", but the action is few and far between with some hardly enamored moments, and very staggered pacing. But! The film still survives my critical grasp for giving it a low score, because it's a great play off the game series, the cast was phenomenal, and the effects were top notch.

Now for you gamers saying they didn't stick to the story good enough. If we take this as the first movie to the first game, let me correct you in your assumption that you're smart. You're an idiot. Sorry, no one would make profit on a movie based on a guy running around a castle that is more dilapidated than Ground Zero. No one would watch a movie with a shallow story line; like that in the first game. (This is not a video game review, but I do love that game, but let's face it. A full transition into a movie would be worst than Saw XXIII).

So is this film worth seeing in theaters? Maybe. Kids loved this film, so take them, it's a rare kids movie that the jaded father won't mind. If you have no interest in a watered down action movie, wait for it on Bluray. If you simply spend money on just the best of that genre. Then save your money for A-Team for your action movie for summer.

The A-Team (2010)
2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Not for the Jaded. A great summer flick., 14 June 2010

I have only seen a few episodes of the original show, so I can't say I am at all biased; other than the fact that I absolutely love every person cast for this action/comedy.

There are films who like to ride that grainy fine line of realistic and go-for-broke-unrealism. Where other films, like Shoot'em Up just completely ignore it. A-Team walks the line and teeters perfectly along it. Yes, many of the scenes are over-the-top and they don't try and sell it as anything other than entertaining and a huge laugh. If you're someone who has to identify every impossible feat, than this nor movies are for you.

It has been a long time since an action film has been able to keep me interested. So many films try and mix drama, comedy, effects, and whatever artsy fascination a director may have that many films have dry, long, and unneeded parts. In fact the last Action film I saw in theaters that really kept me interested and away from my phone from sending texts or checking the time was Smoking Aces, an earlier film done by Carnahan.

A-Team doesn't try to be anything it isn't. It's a fun, entertaining, and grasping when it needs to be. Like Peppard said about his time on the set of A-Team: This is a Man's show. And the only time the movie loses pace is when they enter in one dramatic/romantic scene, but thankfully that has a reason to, so we can all take a sigh of relief.

So again, A-Team won't blow your mind with any effects, plot, or anything like that. But it will entertain you like an action film should. And if you find yourself without an action movie that could keep you hooked on the screen for a while, then I believe this to be the remedy.

39 out of 42 people found the following review useful:
TV's Best Kept Sevret, 11 May 2010

Where to even begin. I stumbled upon this when browsing New TV Comedies on Watch Instantly from Netflix and decided to give it a shot. And I am very glad I did. I have burned through all my TV Comedies forty times over. The Office, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, 30 Rock, Arrested Development, and all of those. This one easily fights for my number one spot of favorite TV Sitcoms. The show doesn't try any quirky gimmicks (which drove me quickly away from watching too much 30 Rock), or anything over the top. The film is based on a Motley Crew of Caterer's of has-beens or aspiring actors who do the dry waiting job while they wait for their big break.

Every character is hilarious and none are annoying. Granted, some will have their episodes where they are the heel, but the writers have a great punishment regiment in each episode which makes you feel like you weren't harassed the entire episode by horrible writing just to create an annoying personality.

The show has enough story to sync them all together and to keep you interested in the chronological history of everything, but not so much that it becomes a drama or a sinking point. The comedy is purely adult with minimal if any at all slapstick. It's namely realistic and witty humors launched from all sides with realistic and sideshow situations.

Over all this show is great for those like me who have exhausted all the better comedy shows out there and need something new and unique. I have never seen a show like this one or sell it like this.

5 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
This is... Crap. But hear me out., 9 May 2010

Alright. Not much to say, other than READING is far more entertaining than this horribly narrated and presented documentary is. I will just get right down to what wasn't good about it. And there wasn't that much bad about it. It's just that the falling points to the film are constant and never expand nor decrease.

The narrator to me was like an older Ben Stein telling me all about the 19th century. I really don't like listening to Ben Stein attempt to educate me. The information is also poorly presented. For example, a big part about Holmes was his building he designed. Now they do have a segment on it, but they really don't emphasize (enough in my opinion) how he really went about it. They did a sad little black and white RE-ENACTMENT of a innocent victim going through the labyrinth and being caught and placed inside the trap-walls. But it seriously just belittled Holmes.

The chronology was poorly paced and just didn't have much direction to it. I found myself wondering what was pacing through Holmes as his evil began to really take part.

Now I understand that Holmes existed before modern science and psychology, so everything about who he was, how he was, and all of that is pure assumption. But we have a thing called educated guess and I don't think anyone will be upset about several educated guesses to breathe some life into the film. This was not done at all.

The entire film seemed to drag on. The first thirty minutes felt like two hours. Literally. I was hoping that it would pick up so pace towards the end. But it actually just slowed down.

Overall, this film is very educational, but I would seriously recommend having some background knowledge first. I would seriously expect this film to be on a shelf at some high school; an idle threat to force the students to watch and take notes on the film. Because it's extremely dry on a very INTERESTING subject. Honestly though. You will thank me and yourself for picking up a book or essay vice watching this dry cardboard cut out of HHHolmes.

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]