Reviews written by registered user
mega_mike

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

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

300 (2006)
3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
...wow..., 7 March 2007
10/10

I honestly have not seen a movie that left my jaw open like this in a long time. In comparison to Sin City, 300 blows it away.

Don't go expecting a history channel re-enactment. This is based on a graphic novel and style wise it stays very true to that look. The warriors are bare chested and while silly in reality, it meshes beautifully with the stylized graphic novel world this movie is based on. The art style and effects are absolutely amazing in this movie as is the acting, narration and score.

If you can suspend belief and immerse yourself in this almost comic book like world you will absolutely love this movie. A must see in my opinion, and also a must own on DVD when it comes out.

Also, for the parents out there. 300 is NOT for the kiddies. Violence, some stylized gore, deformed people, nudity, sex scenes both couple, group and quasi-rape.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Harris rules, Hurt...not so much, 8 June 2006
7/10

The first half, maybe even first two thirds of this movie are excellent. The story, acting and cinematography (especially at the beginning) are all top notch. Unfortunately the movie falls apart into a cliché filled cheesy action flick in the final scenes.

What really stands out in the first part of this film is Ed Harris's performance. Harris' stage presence in this film is unbelievable and grabs a hold and does not let go in every scene that he is in. William Hurt's performance at the end of this film is memorable...but for all the wrong reasons. As another poster put it, he plays the stereotypical gangster so close to the vest its like he is a cartoon character (i.e. Jason Isaacs in "The Patriot"). The character does not flow out of Hurt and appears forced...which makes his performance look exactly like it is....a performance.

Overall this is a good movie and is worth watching. Is it Oscar worthy? In the best scenes, yes...in the rest....dear god no.

Average CGI, Horrible Acting, Below average movie., 10 May 2004
3/10

Ribbed Turtleneck Sweater??? WTF!!!!!!

Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) has only one outfit throughout the entire movie. It consists of a leather trenchcoat, leather hat, leather boots, and a grey, ribbed, turtleneck sweater. It looks more like a Berlin clubbing outfit than anything else.

This movie takes place before the 20th century obviously, so how on earth did Van Helsing get his hands on a grey, ribbed, turtleneck sweater before the 1960's! The people behind this movie could have at least TRIED to make the outfit look like it came from over a century ago.....instead of raiding Ricky Martin's closet from 1998.

Moving on (thought I don't want to), the rest of the movie is just below average. Details:

The CGI comes off as just average. The good points are the fusion of CGI on the vampires faces when they open their mouths wide to take bites. Also the CGI artwork of Dracula's brides are also done quite well. The backgrounds are also excellent, but alot of fog effects cover up any mistakes. The bad....Dracula for starters. He looks like he just walked off the set of the Golden Child. Extemely cartoony...just plain bad. The werewolfs also looks cartoony as well. And Dracula's spawn just look like little video game monsters.....too cartoony.

The acting. KILL ME NOW before I here anymore horrible eastern-european accents. The guy who played Dracula was the worst...by far....so cheesy. Hugh Jackman did fine, but his role was limited to the serious action hero and all he had to do was not deliver his lines like Vin Diesel. Kate Beckingsale had the only role that showed a great range of emotion and had the ability to show acting prowess. Unfortunately, with a cheesy accent and forced emotion, she failed at this.

Story....what story? Why was dracula releasing werewolves? Why did Dracula need Frankenstein if had the Doctors equipment? Could Frankenstein have been anymore pointless? Why does Dracula even care to kill off Kate Beckingsale's family? Finally, don't expect any suprises. The movie tries, but every twist can been a half hour before it happens.

Hellboy (2004)
One of the Top Comic Book Adaptations, 5 April 2004
8/10

I definitely have to put this movie up with the top comic movies that have been made lately. That list, in no particular order is: Batman (ONLY the first one), X-men(1&2), Superman (1&2), Spiderman, and Hell Boy.

In no way shape or form does this film fall into the dregs of comic mishaps such as DareDevil, Hulk, the rest of the Batman movies, Captain America, Judge Dredd, the first Punisher Movie, and the rest of the Superman movies.

The plot isn't all that great, but that isn't what drives this movie. The special effects are also good (especially the fish guy), but they don't make your jaw drop in a Return of the King way. What really drives this movie is HellBoy himself. The wit and machoness of the character (evenly tempered by his green feelings towards Selma Blair), make HellBoy a pleasure to watch. Perlman does this character perfectly! The only thing knockin the movie is the lack of a significant villain. The zombie Nazi and Rasputin were creative, but they don't really strike you as memorable villains (example: The Joker).

Unlike Stallone or Vin Diesel, Perlman delivers his witty lines perfectly unlike the previously mentioned actors where you roll your eyes every time a "catch phrase" is uttered. This is a great flick, definitely worth the time to see.

Oh, and to the first guy who commented....Benicio Del Toro had nothing to do with this movie....the director's name is Guillermo Del Toro....learn a little more about a movie before you decide to write an essay.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not as funny as Old School, but still good., 9 March 2004
6/10

What is with these losers complaining that this movie isn't a "true" remake of the original series? Starsky and Hutch isn't a sacred cinematic piece of art, it was a silly 70s cop show for crying out loud.

The only thing hurting this movie was the expectations. With Stiller, Wilson, Vaughn, and Ferrell you expect some sort of comedic nuclear bomb. Unfortunately with that many actors, some get underused. In this case it was Vaughn and Ferrell. Ferrell only had one humorous scene and Vaughn was almost completely wasted. When Vaughn started to make fun of the mimes (one line), I was waiting for him to keep going into his typical wiseass/a*****e humor that I so love....but he stopped. So the comedic focus is on Stiller and Wilson.

Think of the movie as along the same comic level as Zoolander. For 70s buffs, there are alot of references to that era, some are obvious while others are rather obscure (Wilson's song). This is a very good, but not great, movie.

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Kelso acts "serious"., 21 January 2004
6/10

Got a sneak preview of this flick on January 21st. Seeing it for free never hurts the review.

This movie is good. The performances for the most part are pretty strong. With the one exception towards the end of the movie when Ashton asks the doctor for his notebooks in an intense voice but doesn't pull it off and just sounds like goofy kelso acting angry. For the most part, Ashton's acting wasn't that bad. To be honest I expected much worse and therefore wasn't that disappointed.

The movie also started to get ridiculous when Ashton started using his time travel power capriciously. All he needed to do was be able to just see his old writing on a piece of paper and BAM he was instantly in a trance and into time travel mode. This was a little silly in the jail sequence when he runs into the cell, grabs the notebook, reads a few words as the goons are chasing and BAM, like a magic spell he is warped out of there.....

So in short, the screenplay is average with some pieces of the plot a bit too contrived.

The director did a great job. The camera work and editing and sound effects were excellent. Simple conversations that turned really intense shocked the viewers as they should.

And the acting is good, with Ashton doing a decent job and the rest of the cast doing very well I might add (the guy who played Tommy needs a bit more polish to be believable).

So overall, a good but not great movie.

Would have been great if not so overdramatic, 10 December 2003
7/10

This is a good film, the acting is good, as well as the story and battle sequences. In particular, I was impressed with Ken Watanabe's acting as the samurai lord. The special effects in the battles (standard explosions with horses falling and guys spinning away to their death in sword fights) and 1800's style backgrounds were decent (you can obviously tell the backgrounds in San Francisco and Tokyo are paintings in the background). The costumes were very well done, and depicted the era quite well.

Now a couple of the fight sequences were not that great. The opening battle is fantastic, and the end battle is good as well (the Tokyo street fight with Tom Cruise was ok). The fight when the ninjas attack the village was well done for the most part except for the silly timing of the attacks towards the end of the sequence (the ninjas ran through the door in groups of two, when one group was finished off, the next two jumped through the door to attack). Some better editing could have made this look less choreographed.

The only fight sequence that got on my nerves was the escape scene. This was just poorly done. Cheesy effects (like the exploding pellets on both sides of the bridge handle bars as Tom Cruise ran down the middle) and the ridiculous repeat shot of guards getting hit with an arrow in the exact same corner over and over. Coupled with the overdramatic death of one samurai, made this scene just plain annoying. This over-dramatic death is similar to the prince of Gondor at the end of the first Lord of the Rings movie, but better editing in that movie made that scene more subtle.

Finally, the fact that everyone was on the verge of tears or just plain crying in every other scene was just really overdramatic. Some would have been fine to show the character's passion, but this was overdone.

Almost bad enough to be good...almost, 10 December 2003
4/10

First off, this movie is bad, really bad. Generic actions sequences, campy attempts at humor, generic effects and a yawn of a story.

Also, the backgrounds are very obviously hollywood sets, and the costumes are cheesy and poorly done. For instance, the wizard princess or whatever is kidnapped naked while taking a bath. Along the way she grabs a rag off a clothesline to cover herself up, some time later that rag inexplicably becomes a low cut sexy rag dress with high cut slits on the side that covers her oh so perfectly....ok.

Other cheesy things being the amazing mix of ethnicities in an ancient mesopotamian kingdom (british, american, black, asian, hispanic, and arabic(almost forgot)). I mean, the main villain is british, one of the captains of his troops is Cuban (the dude who gets stabbed at the banquet), his lackey is american and that magic princess is asian.

The thing is, this movie is so bad....its almost good...almost. This movie was right on the edge and went to neither side. An example of a movie so poorly made that it is good is the cult classic, Army of Darkness. The makers of that movie didn't care how bad it looked, and the movie is hilarious for it. Too bad this movie didn't go that route all the way....

6 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
so...so....HORRIBLE!, 20 August 2003
1/10

Don't see this movie. Thank god I saw it for free at an advance screening. Jackie Chan movies have always been a bit silly, but this one is just plain bad. On top of that, there are only TWO FIGHT scenes worth watching, and both happen in the first half of the movie (the dock fight and the street chase). Pointless scenes (why the hell were they dancing and cooking at that dudes house? And more importantly...WHY THE HELL WAS THAT SCENE SO DAMN LONG!!!), horrible acting, and bone-gringly bad humor add to this horrible mess made by Jackie Chan Productions. Jackie can't blame any directors or writers for this mess...his name is all over it. Jackie made his name doing his own stunts....Jackie on wires is just horrible. It cheapens everything he does. Rent and watch a real Jackie Chan movie, not this.

Nighthawks (1981)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Simple, yet creative, 20 August 2003
8/10

Pretty good acting, and the final scene rocks. Actually the final scene makes this movie for me. Plus seeing stallone with a beard and big glasses. Plus the goofy keyboard soundtrack just rocks. 80's at its best people.


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