Reviews written by registered user
roberjruiz

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

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

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Not bad until the end that is horrible, 21 July 2014
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For those who have seen the wonderful old movie from 1968, this films does not speak about the first film. It speaks about the born of Caesar and the Rebelion of apes, which corresponds to the fourth film of the series "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" from 1972.

First to say is that I hate CGI. May be CGI monkeys have shorter legs and longer arms like real monkeys, may be they have improved a lot in the last 20 years (and probably CGIs are much cheaper than human extras), but CGI creatures look like pictures, not like solid beings. The remake film "Planet of the Apes" from 2001 was a horrible film, but monkeys where humans in disguise and they seemed real beings. No matter the improvements made, CGI still looks fake, specially movements. There are some scenes with chimps over a car, and the ceiling does not bend a millimeter, gravity is not properly simulated and movement simply seems unreal.

About the film, I liked a lot the first part, and how Caesar realizes he is a Chimp and what humans do to monkeys. And suddenly everything becomes incoherent and the film worsens a lot. Suddenly monkeys are intelligent, and able to fight like a trained army with advanced tactics. How did they learn so fast? Did they become ultra-intelligent just because they had a good teacher? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Bedazzled (2000)
Bad imitation of the original 1967 film, 12 March 2014
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you don't know the original movie from 1967, you may think this is a good film, with an original plot. But when you compare both movies, you will realize that one of them, the British one from 1967 is far better.

Elegant English humor vs Brendan Fraser grimacing.

A pitiful victim, played by Dudley Moore vs an always overacting Brendan Fraser.

Cynic devil: Peter Cook vs sensual one: Liz Hurley (In the old movie, the devil is not so tempting, that's true, but you have "Lust", one of the seven capital sins, interpreted by a young an sexy Rachel Welch).

And the ending: The cynic ending of the 1967 movie, when God childishly laughs at the devil, vs the typical Hollywood happy ending in the American version (Yes, he gets the girl).

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One of the stars is brighter, 16 February 2014
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The film tells the story of Snow White, a princess who is imprisoned by her stepmother who also killed Snow White father, the king.

There are two main characters in this film. Snow White, interpreted by Kristen Stewart, and her evil stepmother interpreted by Charlize Theron. May be this is not the best of Charlize Theron films (Not her fault), but she acts well enough to outshine the bland acting of Kristen Stewart. Did you think she was that way in Twilight because that was part of her role? She acts exactly the same way in this film, so I don't think so. The only role of Kristen in this films seem to be making Charlize Theron glow even brighter by comparison.

Aliens (1986)
More Action. Less thriller, 16 February 2014
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The plot happens many years after the events in the first Alien movie. Sargeant Ripley and her cat (The only survivors of the first movie) had been in hibernation for a long time in the vessel they used to scape. After some events, they end up in a planet with thousands of aliens.

There are somethings in common "between" alien and "aliens". Sgt Ripley is there, many people dies, and of course the aliens in the second film are the same species as the creature in the first film. But the resemblance ends there. While the first film is a thriller, the second is an action film with lots of guns and firepower. Which of the films is better, is a matter of taste: Do you prefer action or thriller. I personally prefer the first, but the second part is quite a nice film (The third part is mediocre, and the fourth is awful)

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
I hated Jim Carrey until I saw this film, 16 February 2014
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I hate Jim Carrey comedies. I just find it's humor too childish, too simple (I know, Hollywood payed him very well to behave in the films like he did). Fortunately Jim Carry demonstrated to be an actor with more pretensions than doing always the same role. As a result, he made this spectacular movie.

The movie is funny, and at some points Jim Carry behaves like Kim Carrey, but the film is far more than the stupid comedies in which he acted before.

Truman is the biggest attraction to spectators all over the World. He was born in a cinema studio, he is property of the studio, and his life is transmitted all over the World: The best of all reality shows, a real life on TV: He has a father, mother, friends ... all actors but Truman who suspects nothing about the deception. But suddenly things begin to work the wrong way. Truman would love to travel abroad, and some members of the cast began to remorse about what they are doing ...

An Idiotic film about two idiots, 15 February 2014
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Comedy is one of the most varied genres in cinema. You have social comedy, intelligent comedy, comedy mixed with drama, slapstick comedy, parody, surrealistic humor, etc.

"Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" belongs to a genre we may call "Idiotics comedy". That is, two idiotic retarded dumbasses making idiotic things supposedly funny (If you have seen Jar Jar Binks in Episode I, you know what I mean). OK, to be fair, only Jay is a retarded idiotic. Silent Bob is just weird.

May be some people find that kind of humor funny, but I find it way too stupid to be funny at all, even for children

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Just childish humor, 15 February 2014
5/10

Before watching this film, the only Monty Pithon film I knew was "Life of Brian". I really loved that film, and some of my friends told me that "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was even funnier. May be it was because I had such a great expectations, but the film really disappointed me.

I would't say it's crap, I admit the movie has a few funny jokes. But generally I found it just ridiculous and childish. Senseless jokes without any further objective than ridiculing some Middle Ages myths. And don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against humor that tries to ridicule myths. It's just that I didn't find funny most of the jokes.

1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
You won't really know what is it about unless you read the books, 15 February 2014
7/10

I began to see this series while I was reading the fourth book. Visual effects and filming are really nice, and the environment very well recreated, and chapters are real. They added some sex that does not appear in the books, an rearranged a little the story (In the book many things happen in parallel). I am not to complain about that, because I understand that books and TV are different animals What really disappointed me about this series is that storytelling is way too fast, and some main characters are hard to differentiate from each other (specially northeners). After watching the first chapter I could only think: People that that didn't read the book must have a huge mess on their minds about who is who and what the series is about. Simply it's impossible to realize about the real extent of the plot unless you read the books (That happens with many adaptations, but in this case I think you are missing most of it if you only watch the series). The first book simply has too much content for a 10 chapter season.

Nice series, but it could have been way better if they didn't squeeze the story so much to fit a book per season.

8 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Not like SG1, but not that bad, 31 January 2010
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really loved the original stargate series, but after the 7th season, every thing just beame too easy to achieve. While it took 7 seasons to defeat the Goa'uld, they defeated the replicants in a single season, and the Ori in 2. Atlantis came then to the rescue. A good series, but I never liked it as much as SG-1. Now comes SGU. I dislike many of the characters, specially Eli, but I don't think it is boring (There is not so much action as in SGA, but there is more sci-fi, something that I really missed in SGA). We can see people in real trouble for the first time in ... well I don't remember when. And I don't speak of trouble because they allowed someone to infiltrate the base, but because they don't understand the technology they are using, and their vessel is almost ruined. The only bad thing I saw is that they used time loops too soon in the series. I hope that was not simply lack of imagination

The Mummy (1999)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Why does Hollywood like buffoons so much?, 17 January 2010
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One feature of many modern action films that I dislike a lot, specially in Hollywood films, is that they always put a buffoon (or several) in their films (Fortunately there are films like Syriana or Babel). In "Episode I" it war Jar Jar Binx. In the mummy it was John Hannah (And Brendan Fraser sometimes). I have nothing against a bit of humor, but you should know where and when to make use of that humor unless you want to break the drama and the action atmosphere. Specially when you use childish humor.

I found this film to be a really bad one. Very good special effects, very spectacular, and I have to admit it was entertaining, but I would eliminate some of the characters, like Jonathan Carnahan. Sorry if I think that clowns are better for the circus than for action films.

The only really good thing of the film is Rachel Weisz, which is really impressive (And I am not talking about the acting)


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