Reviews written by registered user

4 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Nothing Special, 9 August 2012

I remember when I saw the first underworld movie. I was much younger and maybe the right audience for the franchise but I left the cinema with a sense of excitement similar to the one you get when you discover something really good that will keep you excited for a long time. Unfortunately the sense I got from the latest movie of the franchise, and mind you I may not be so excitable by gorgeous vampires killing werewolves anymore, was that of in-deference. I thought that this probably will be the last underworld movie.

Shallow, unexciting, predictable, tired.

Action wise. not bad..but nothing special. All in all..this movie will not be remembered. 5/10

16 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Not as funny as expected..watchable but not memorable, 14 August 2011

I went to the cinema with my wife having quite high expectations primarily a result of frequent radio advertisements and probably artificially unbiased opinions of radio show presenters that "This is a very funny movie".

Unfortunately the reality was different, but fortunately not "Sucker Punch" different.

The story evolves around three friends that they face three different versions of "Horrible" bosses, to the degree that justifies plotting to murder them and turn three seemingly innocent good guys to criminals.

The idea surely can deliver a lot of humor, but unfortunately falls sort.

The comedy is just too over the top to become hilarious. The closest situation to reality was the one between spacey and bateman. Jennifer Anniston's persona was so unrealistic that it failed to become funny, and collin farrel was heavily under played resulting to somewhat fall on the side.

There were a few laughs don mistake me but in general i laughed less than the times that i thought "Why do they have to be so crude and that what funny has become now days?" Cant say i hated the experience..i just got a bit disappointed due to false expectations.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Appetizing Location, unappetizing movie, 21 March 2010

I've seen this movie on DVD at home, I had several breaks and it took around two and a half hours to finish the two hour movie. I am sure if the movie was more interesting i would have given in less distractions.

To sum up quickly since it does not deserve a lot of words:

1. Beautiful locations. It makes you wait till the end of the credits just to see where is that place on earth. To save you the wait its Bora Bora in French Polynesia.

2. Flat script - some rare gags but in general not interesting. Characters try to cover a variety of types but most of them fail to become "real". Doesn't avoid the stereotype all American happy ending with relationships that although seriously broken, miraculously and simultaneously recover after some not so convincing sequences (that belongs to the last third of the movie. see bellow)

3. Last third of the movie i just watched in autopilot in order to finish the movie, with a limited hope that there might be some funny moment in the end worth waiting for. It didn't come.

The epitome of uninteresting average: 5/10

Avatar (2009)
2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Great Introduction of the 3D technology to the mass market but far from being a masterpiece., 3 January 2010

What makes a great movie? Or to put things in IMDb context, what makes a movie deserve being in the top 250 movies of all times? (Avatar currently being #26).

There are several elements. The quality of presentation, The presented story, the characters and their development, the soundtrack and the sound, the CGI if applicable etc.

My point is that a movie is a whole bunch of things and the overall mark that people give it represents the overall impression that has made them.

Usually that impression is balanced and it represents the true average of their opinion for all elements of the movie, but in the case of Avatar i am afraid it is not.

It is generally agreeable between people who have watched a lot of movies that AVATAR does not break the ground when it comes to story originality, character development or script quality. So what makes this movie receive 9 and 10 from so many reviewers?

It is the ground breaking CGI presented in ground breaking 3D technology that is the reason behind the phenomenon.

Although you realize all the weaknesses (or not) the visual result is so stunning that you cant help have a really enjoyable time although 3 hours are challenging.

So yes it is a really enjoyable movie in 3D. and the CGI and the technology deserve 9 and 10..but the rest of the elements are probably between 4 and 6.

You also have to factor in the effect it will have on global production of movies that more companies will engulf the 3D technology and perhaps produce masterpieces in 3D in the near or distant future, and for that reason only, Avatar is already part of the history of cinema.

Not because it is the best movie ever.

And to challenge a little bit the people who insist on this movie being the best ever, i want you to imagine how cinema is going to be in 10 years, how the computer generated graphics or actors will be looking then...unavoidably much better than Avatar. Can you imagine somebody watching this movie in 10 years and giving it a 10? Thats what makes a masterpiece deserving 9 or is timeless..and Avatar is not, it is just a bit ahead of the game...but that means it will soon fall behind.

Does this mean you should avoid watching the movie? Absolutely not. Entertainment is guaranteed and actually watching it now you will get more entertainment for your money than waiting for 10 years when you willb probably be able to afford home 3d presentations. Because in 10 years it will look average and too long and boring and maybe not worth the three hours you need to invest in it.

So for the moment (3/1/2010) i give it 7/10