Reviews written by registered user
Simmonz

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

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
One of the Best Games I Have Ever Played, 9 November 2006
9/10

The first thing I will say is the PC I played this on:

CPU: And Athlon X2 4400+ RAM: 2X 512MB OCZ PC-3200 Graphics Card: 2x BFG 7900GT 256MB Hard Drive: 200GB SATAII Hard Drive Monitor: 20.1" Widescreen Monitor

I run F.E.A.R. with all of the details at maximum, soft shadows on, 4x AA, 16x AF, and at a resolution of 1280*960. I tell you this so you understand my interpretation of the graphics may be different than some.

F.E.A.R. has some of the best graphics I have seen yet. The best part in my opinion being the blood. I take time to look at some poor guy I just massacred on F.E.A.R. because it is that pretty. Also the shadows are very well done to. I like being able to see enemies advancing towards me on walls depending on the circumstances. Another nice touch is when I shoot at a wall pieces come off depending on the gun, and there is dust depending on the surface. One last thing, when you blow enemies up with explosives, you can sever limbs, and the stumps you leave him with trickle out blood, very good touch.

The story to F.E.A.R. is also top notch. It sucked me in and made me want to know more about the main players. I liked how you are given little tidbits of what's going on currently by overhearing radio reports, as well as getting back story by listening to answering machines. I won't spoil the end except to say it was very satisfying.

The game play is net to perfect. The enemy AI is very good. They flank you and work together, retreat if necessary. I would say they are second best to the AI on Far Cry. The slow mo effect worked really well. I was worried going into the game because slow mo effects in first person seemed liked a bad idea, but Monolith pulled it off. In fact it saved my ass countless times. One of my biggest praises of F.E.A.R. is that if you set the difficulty higher the enemies get smarter and better, they didn't simply crank up their health.

F.E.A.R. has a lengthy single player campaign, and multi-player. The single player campaign, on extreme difficulty, took me about 15-20 hours to finish. The multi-player is pretty good as well. I don't play it as often as I thought I would, but it's still decent.

I don't have many gripes with F.E.A.R. but there are some slight things I disliked. For instance you have a flashlight, but it's mounted on your head and only lasts about 1 minute before it has to recharge. I'm sure special forces can come up with a better solution. Secondly the multi-player seems to lack the tactical feel the single player had. It seems like a slightly better version of Counter-Strike.

These things aside, F.E.A.R. rocks. I can't praise it enough. If you have a good enough PC to appreciate the graphics, and you like a game that is fun and also can scare the crap out of you, F.E.A.R. is for you.

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
One of the Best Games I have Ever Played, 9 November 2006
9/10

The first thing I will say is the PC I played this on:

CPU: And Athlon X2 4400+ RAM: 2X 512MB OCZ PC-3200 Graphics Card: 2x BFG 7900GT 256MB Hard Drive: 200GB SATAII Hard Drive Monitor: 20.1" Widescreen Monitor

I run F.E.A.R. with all of the details at maximum, soft shadows on, 4x AA, 16x AF, and at a resolution of 1280*960. I tell you this so you understand my interpretation of the graphics may be different than some.

F.E.A.R. has some of the best graphics I have seen yet. The best part in my opinion being the blood. I take time to look at some poor guy I just massacred on F.E.A.R. because it is that pretty. Also the shadows are very well done to. I like being able to see enemies advancing towards me on walls depending on the circumstances. Another nice touch is when I shoot at a wall pieces come off depending on the gun, and there is dust depending on the surface. One last thing, when you blow enemies up with explosives, you can sever limbs, and the stumps you leave him with trickle out blood, very good touch.

The story to F.E.A.R. is also top notch. It sucked me in and made me want to know more about the main players. I liked how you are given little tidbits of what's going on currently by overhearing radio reports, as well as getting back story by listening to answering machines. I won't spoil the end except to say it was very satisfying.

The game play is net to perfect. The enemy AI is very good. They flank you and work together, retreat if necessary. I would say they are second best to the AI on Far Cry. The slow mo effect worked really well. I was worried going into the game because slow mo effects in first person seemed liked a bad idea, but Monolith pulled it off. In fact it saved my ass countless times. One of my biggest praises of F.E.A.R. is that if you set the difficulty higher the enemies get smarter and better, they didn't simply crank up their health.

F.E.A.R. has a lengthy single player campaign, and multi-player. The single player campaign, on extreme difficulty, took me about 15-20 hours to finish. The multi-player is pretty good as well. I don't play it as often as I thought I would, but it's still decent.

I don't have many gripes with F.E.A.R. but there are some slight things I disliked. For instance you have a flashlight, but it's mounted on your head and only lasts about 1 minute before it has to recharge. I'm sure special forces can come up with a better solution. Secondly the multi-player seems to lack the tactical feel the single player had. It seems like a slightly better version of Counter-Strike.

These things aside, F.E.A.R. rocks. I can't praise it enough. If you have a good enough PC to appreciate the graphics, and you like a game that is fun and also can scare the crap out of you, F.E.A.R. is for you.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A Great Horror Movie for almost Anyone, 6 July 2006
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had been waiting to see the original Dawn of the Dead for a long time now, and I finally rented it last night. It was awesome. You'll have to forgive me if I reference the remake of Dawn of the Dead often in this review, I saw it first so I was basing my expectations off of that. The original had more gore (which surprised me), a more developed story and characters, and had a slightly better payoff at the end. This is not to knock the remake, which I still love, but to show you how good the original was. It has everything a horror fan could love, lots of monsters ( in this case zombies), lots of gore, and a little bit of comedy thrown in. What I liked about Dawn of the Dead was it conveyed to me what being trapped in the mall was doing to the characters, it wasn't just an intermission to the next action scene. I liked how it built up how they got to the mall, what they did to the mall, it took time to set things up which is rare for most horror movies. Also, maybe it's because I rented the remastered version, but it didn't look or feel to be 28 years old. So just a quick recap of why I loved Dawn of the Dead, a lot of gore, a wonderfully crafted story, and a good set of actors/actresses. I didn't find it scary or creepy, but still enjoyed it nonetheless. I am not giving it perfect because in that story I was talking about earlier I did find it dragged a bit, I think a few minutes could of been shaved off here and there. I recommend to any horror fan who hasn't seen it, and to anyone who wants to see a good movie, and can stand to see gore. I give it 9/10.

Syriana (2005)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Very Enjoyable and Well Done, 1 July 2006
9/10

I will not say that everything in Syriana is 100% true because I just can't do that, but it will certainly make you think. It has the feel of someone writing an essay on their views on the oil industry and how it affects everyone, and then taking that essay and putting it onto film. I was kept interested almost all throughout the film and kept me wanting to see more, which is all I can really ask of a movie. Most of the characters were well enough developed that I cared what happened to them and those who didn't have a lot of explanation I wanted to see more of. I have seen many reviews describe this movie as an "eye opener", I think that is pretty accurate. I really wonder if this is how governments do business and if they will really go to the lengths in Syriana to protect their interests. I can already assume that some companies, especially oil companies, would go that far to make a profit it isn't much of a stretch. I particularly liked how the 3 or 4 stories inter wined and smashed together. Syriana does not have really any action, gun fights, anything like that. It is a thinking mans movie, that might bore some and i'll admit it did drag ever so slightly at a couple of points but it is one movie that is worth seeing by just about anyone. I wouldn't describe it as left wing or right wing, it has elements of both believe it or not. If you are looking for a movie that will make you think about it, and make you want to discuss it after wards, I recommend it. If you expect action, gunfights, I would look elsewhere. I give it 9/10.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Overall Predictable, Cheesy, and Preachy, 30 June 2006
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I think that Madea's Family Reunion could of been better, not a lot better, but somewhat better. I was not a fan of the first film Diary of a Mad Black Women, so I was slightly biased towards this movie, but I really did try to give it a shot, but it failed as a whole. I found some parts of Family Reunion funny, but they were few and far between while the rest was either rehashed, predictable, and uninteresting for me. Here is one thing I found funny, out of about 110 minutes, only roughly 30 of them took place at the actual family reunion. Not only that, but those were the ONLY moments that had anything to do with the family reunion. Is this a big deal ? No, but it does make the title a little pointless. I would of liked this movie a little more if it had of only included scenes with Madea and her brother. Those were the ones that had me laughing. I hate all of the romantic parts about finding love because I couldn't care less about it, especially when I can predict how the scenes going to play out. I also can't stand how much the characters talking about God so much. I don't mean to sound anti-religious, because i'm not, but if I want to hear a sermon i'll go to church. I didn't pay to see this movie, my dad loves this one and Mad Diary... so I watched with him to be nice. I got basically what I expected, something I could of gone without seeing. If you liked Diary of a Mad Black Women then you will most likely enjoy Madea's Family Reunion. If you don't like predictable cheesy romance, and a lot of preaching then you will most likely not enjoy this movie. I give it 6/10.

Submerged (2005) (V)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One Of Seagal's Worst, Just An Overall Bad Movie, 6 September 2005
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was easily one of Steven Seagal's worst films he has made. The plot was changed so much during the course of making it that I had no idea what it was about going into it, and the film itself at times failed to clarify it for me. It does not even follow the plot line of what is given here on the IMDb site. It was confusing at times because it just seems to follow no logic at all. For instance in "Submerged", the film takes place on a sub for about forty minutes, maybe. The rest is spread out in "Uruguay" and involves car chases, gun fights, and a little hint of political commentary. That is just the first of my many gripes with the film. To add to that, much of the movie where Steven Seagal talks, it is in fact dubbed. There is very little action really, and what little there was was not entertaining. Seagal kicks a few guys, and has a very quick knife fight with a enemy that looked to have been an attempt at copying a knife fight from Under Siege. If it had of been that, then it failed miserably because it sucked where the knife fight from Under Siege was entertaining. I saw two bright spots in the whole film, Vinnie Jones, and Alison King. Vinnie Jones had a lot of funny lines, and overall made me mildly interested for the scenes he was in. He in fact had better fight scenes than "Lord Steven". As for Alison King, she was just extremely beautiful and that was enough. She plays the tough chick of the film, and does it well. Overall, this film was laughable. Steven was fat, had very little fighting, and that fighting he did was crappy. The plot was horrible and flowed even worse. The dubbing just annoyed me and made the whole movie experience worse. The only bright spots were as I said earlier, Vinny Jones, and Alison King. I give Submerged 2/10. I don't recommend this film, although no doubt Seagal's loyal fans will go see it anyway.

1 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
A Fun Movie, Keep that in Mind, 10 January 2005
8/10

24 Hours in London was a fun movie for me. It promised Hong-Kong style action and lots of fun, the action isn't quite Hong-Kong, but it was decent, and like I said, I had lots of fun.

This movie is about an ambitious gang-lord named Christian who wants to merge with an American gang to rule the streets of London, only thing standing in his way is one witness that can put him in jail. The next 90 minutes was me being entertained at Christian trying to dispatch of this witness.

There are several well crafted action scenes throughout this film, I have seen better, but I have seen far far worse, so that is a plus in my book. My only complaint about the action was that in one scene in particular it was incredibly unrealistic, was very entertaining, but I couldn't help but mentally note "yeah right" while watching it. Believe it or not there was some very well placed humor in this film, I found some parts to have me holding my sides, I may be exaggerating a bit, but trust me, there is some funny parts indeed. The acting was for the most part pretty decent, I could only point out a few times where I was waiting for that moment to pass because I couldn't stand watching it, but that didn't occur nearly often enough for me to be truly angry at this film. I was intrigued by the variety of odd-ball characters there were, each one was unique to me in some way, a good thing.

Some minor complaints of mine would be the plot. At points it is just fine, not near greatness, but decent enough, but there are parts to this film that just should of been changed to be less cliché. I was expecting this sort of problem with this film so it didn't affect the rating a whole lot, but still, the problems are there. Other than that, and some acting problems that I mentioned earlier, I have no real complaints.

I wanted a movie I could just relax and have fun with, a popcorn movie if you will, and I found one. I recommend this movie to action fans (although it is not excessive on the violence I will warn), or to anybody who likes movies they can just shut their brain off for. I give 24 Hours in London 8/10, an enjoyable movie with some nice gunfights.

35 out of 65 people found the following review useful:
Pretty Good Action Movie, 26 December 2004
8/10

I must say that going into seeing Blade: Trinity I was not expecting a masterpiece, I merely wanted to be entertained by this movie. With that said, it did a pretty decent job. People can criticize this film with having a thin plot, being corny at points, heck I know I will, but I don't think the makers were going for a great plot, and great acting, more along the lines of action/comedy and lots of fighting/explosions.

The plot is this: a group of vampires bring back Dracula to help combat Blade, while they also get Blade to the top of the FBI's most wanted, now Blade needs help of his own, this comes from a group of new young vampire stalkers. These are not spoilers by the way, everything I say is included in the trailers. I must say that many times I was saying in this film "yeah right", but most of the time I was having a ball. I will say that one thing I found is that Blade: Trinity was less "dark" than the other two Blade movies, it just had a lighter feel to it. More comedy involved than before, which was nice because it was indeed funny, but I liked the atmosphere set by the other films that this one did not take.

The newest additions, Ryan Renolds and Jessica Beil, do their jobs pretty well. I must say that Renolds had me laughing almost any time he was on screen. Beil was very nice to look at, she is just incredibly beautiful, and she does well considering the lines she is given. Paul Levesque, better known as Triple H makes a decent debut, I guess. He had some funny parts, but really I can't see how his job was that hard considering his role was to beat people up, and that's what he gets paid to do for the WWE so it's not a real stretch. Well overall the supporting cast did a good job and kept me entertained.

On to the meat and potatoes of this movie, the fights. Much of the work was very well done in this film, Snipes is his usual acrobatic self and disposes of vampires in interesting ways while showing off his martial arts skills. Here is a part I didn't like, the fighting involving Ryan Renolds, at times he tries to be like Snipes, and it just doesn't work. I always say, if the actor doesn't know martial arts, don't make him try to pretend, it's just not the same. Beil did some nice fight scenes to. Triple H, well his fights were good, but I see it too much in the ring to really enjoy it, the whole time I was thinking in my head, "now when's he going to break out a pedigree ?", well that moment never came. The gun fights were really well done, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. Overall Blade: Trinity had awesome fight scenes.

So that pretty much sums up my feelings of this film. It was a fun movie to watch just for the action, and comedy of Renolds, but not much else (did I mention Jessica Beil was very beautiful). I will say that out of the three Blade movies, this is my least favorite, but I still like it and recommend it to anybody looking for a good action movie, die-hard fans of the series will probably be conflicted with it. My rating is 8/10.

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A Good Game That Could Have Been Better, 7 November 2004
9/10

I had high expectations of this game for many reasons. After playing through a season of season mode, and countless matches online, as well as doing many challenges I have come to the opinion that while Smackdown vs Raw is a good game, it could have, and should have been better. First lets start with what should have been one of the bright spots of the game, Online mode. I will give THQ and company credit just for finally putting it in, but that's as far as I will extend the praise. The problem is that it has many little things that I can pick apart about the Online mode. There are only 2 match types to choose from, Single and Bra and Panties. I was hoping to have more variety with online mode. The next problem with it was that for a considerable amount of the time, the matches were very laggy and had poor frame rate, at times making play unbearable. This did not happen all of the time, but enough for me to become angry and take notice. The Online mode also has no ranking system, which while it is not a crucial part of an Online game, I still like to have one. I must say that the soundtrack to the game was just awesome, and easily beat any of the soundtracks to previous Smackdowns. CAB and CAPPV were also added for the first time since Smackdown 2 and it is a feature that I and many others really enjoy having. You do need a substantial amount of money to make a belt, but I still feel it is worth it. The story lines in season mode are very interesting so far. I have only played one complete season, but I must say that with the past two Smackdowns the season mode has greatly improved as far as the story lines are concerned. You are sure to find original stories that are not stolen from the real life WWE broadcasts, although there bound to be some real ones thrown in for fun, no harm there. I also like the improvement of the weapon damage because it is now as close to realistic as has been reached in any of the other Smackdown games. I should also mention the addition of the dirty/clean meters that will reflect how you work the match. You fill up either bar and each one gives you something special to do as a result. You can also elect to be 'neutral' and work the match any way you want, you just don't get any special thing to do for it. I will now move on to my other big gripe with the game, besides online play, which was the the new 'ringout meter'. The point of this meter is when you are in a Royal Rumble instead of being punched or kicked out of the ring so quickly like in previous games, this bar must be emptied before you can be knocked out. It is very simple, you engage in a grapple when the opponent is on the ring apron, and the bar starts to go down, when the bar empties you are knocked off. The problem with this is it doesn't work like it is supposed to. I have played in two royal Rumbles so far and each time I have been punched off of the ring apron when my bar is at full. This angers me because the point of this bar was to prevent these quick exits from occurring any more. I would not be angry in the previous games because this kind of thing in Royal Rumbles was common, but this 'ring-out meter' was supposed to change all of that, and it failed. Oh, if I have not mentioned it earlier in this review, the graphics are the best yet in this game and really deserve praise. In conclusion, I really like this game but I feel that it could have been better than it was. Here is my scoring on this game:

Graphics: 9.5

Story (in this case season mode): 9.0

Difficulty: 9.0

Controls: 10.0

Fun Factor: 10.0

Tilt (my personal feeling): 8.5

Total: 56/60

Overall: 9.3

Has Its Flaws, But Was Enjoyable, 14 August 2004
8/10

Alien Vs. Predator

I had very high expectations of this movie because I, like many others, had been waiting for many years to see this adapted to film. I would like to state right now that I did enjoy this film and think it is an alright addition to both series. Now with that said, AVP does have its problems, some that hampered it very much. The following are my problems with AVP.

1.Lack of violence

I am not saying that this needed to be some kind of epic bloodbath, but almost all violence was committed off-screen and what was done on screen was IMO barely worth a PG-13 rating. Much of what made great shots in previous films like chestburstings, Predator claw kills, and so on were all off-screen. It really did not seem fair to deprive die hard fans of these acts that are common in all the respective films of these series. Going for a PG-13 rating was by far the worst move that Paul Anderson could of done.

2.Lighting

Many of the action scenes were very poorly lit, and I had a hard time to make everything out that was happening. I understand that this took place in a pyramid 2000 feet under the surface, but it could have been a bit brighter for the viewer's sake.

3.Predators

I don't believe that the Predators were adequately represented in this film. First off there should have been more than there were, and they should have been tougher. I wont give anything away but the movie doesn't seem to be fair in depicting which species are better.

Conclusion:

Well, those are my main beefs with the film. I did enjoy it, but I just think it could have been better. The performance of who played Lex Woods was good, and the interaction between Predator and Human was interesting to say the least. I give this film 8/10, and I think any fan of either series should see this film just to see what impact it may have on their series of choice. That and you may end up enjoying this film. I think this is a positive step in both series, and am interested and excited to see where it takes us. I just hope Paul Anderson or whoever does the sequels will take suggestions like mine seriously.


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