Reviews written by registered user

4 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

9 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
I'm sorry, but this is a waste of time., 29 January 2013

Honestly, just wait until it comes out on DVD. That's all it deserves.

The anachronisms are funny at first, but then they become painful. I know that it wasn't the point of the film to be historically accurate. I get it. They wanted to make an action film, but the action was just awful, too.

I used to really enjoy Jeremy Renner. I like him when he plays roles where he doesn't let his inner asshole loose. He does that in this movie, and I really don't like it. Gemma Arterton is totally flat. Actually, nobody has any dimension in this garbage flick.

Action movies are some of my favorite things to watch when the action is believable and not too over-the-top. The violence is really stupid, and it's kind of surprising that Hansel and Gretel can even kill witches, because it always seems that they are getting their asses handed to them.

Just wait until it's at Redbox. Give it a view and return it the next day. Then forget it ever happened.

Movie 43 (2013)
26 out of 55 people found the following review useful:
Were you really expecting anything smart?, 26 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Every review that I have read for this title has said nothing but bad things. Of course, I think the people who often take the time to go on the internet and review movies are usually looking for something a little more in their cinema than jokes about poop and mangled penises.

Anyway, the point of a raunchy comedy like this one isn't to leave you feeling like a better person afterward. The point is to simply entertain and that is exactly what it does. But of course, if you are looking for wit, try Silver Linings Playbook instead. The jokes in this movie are gross and totally inane. They're absolutely stupid and very offensive. But that's what's great about them.

Like I said, it's going to take a certain kind of person to actually find this a great movie, and most are going to chuckle quite a bit. I can't say it was one of those "so bad it's amazing" movies. I can't say that it was amazingly hilarious. But despite what everyone else says, it was worth the 8 or more dollars you pay to see it.

Total Recall (2012/I)
135 out of 204 people found the following review useful:
Takes away the good from the original, turns into a dime-a-dozen action flick, 5 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The thing that made the old Total Recall so great was that it kept a certain level of fun going throughout the whole film. It threw Doug Quaid through several crazy challenges and turnarounds in the story. It was enjoyable to watch, and totally intrigued the viewer. It was campy. It was, all in all, a great movie.

This remake forgot the entire element of fun, and instead replaced it with what the producers probably thought people wanted to see: more explosions.

It's just, simply put, bleh.

It's not very fun to watch. It's actually pretty boring in the scenes where there isn't action, and the scenes where there is action, it begins to get old very quickly.

I don't ever feel like it's my place to critique another person's acting, but there are a few exceptions. Farrell just doesn't seem like a great Quaid. He kind of just takes everything that is thrown at him, and gets over it. Schwarzenegger was thrown into the action and was always surprised with what came next. He wasn't ever ready, and that showed. It made it more exciting! Farrell always kind of keeps that "yeah, I'm a secret agent? okay." attitude going the entire movie.

The last thing: You have almost no doubt that Quaid is actually a secret agent in this one. The old one actually had you thinking it was possible that he was still back at Rekall; whereas the remake spells it out in the beginning: He is a secret agent. That's it. End of story. The point of the old Total Recall was that you were never really sure. Is it all fake? Or is it real? The remake completely missed that intrigue, which was a big part of the old one.

It will entertain the people who like action, and nothing else. The substance just isn't there, which is a bit of a letdown. I give it a four, because it looked pretty.

Insidious (2010/I)
137 out of 229 people found the following review useful:
Hands down the best PG-13 horror movie ever, 1 April 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When I went to the theater to see this, I had been excited for awhile. And boy, did this movie deliver. But it unexpectedly did more. I was thinking you'd get your exorcism, with everything being all happy and good in the end, but I honestly was not expecting something that complex.

I'll come out and say it: The outline of the movie was not that original, but what the writers did with the traditional ghost story was amazing. They twisted it to make it not so much about the ghosts, but about what was going on to the family in the house. How they were taking it.

The effects were great for this type of movie, which really only require a slamming door or a random person standing in. And I also thought the actors did a great job. I particularly liked Patrick Wilson playing the father that doesn't want to have any part of the hokus-pokus ghost stories, but is sort of pulled into it against his will.

The best part: It was genuinely scary. There is virtually no gore, because it's not needed to build the creepiness of the plot. It sort of builds and is intense right from the get go. I'm a major scary movie veteran, and I was truly scared (which doesn't happen often).

I highly recommend this movie to anyone up for a good scare. If you aren't an experienced scary movie watcher, this is a good starter. And trust me, you will check all the closets and doors when you get home from the theater.