Reviews written by registered user
pogo747

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

29 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
crappy movie with bad acting and terrible effects, 29 October 2006
2/10

One look at the rating ought to tell you this movie was voted on by shills, in an attempt to artificially boost this film's ratings.

This film brings nothing new to the zombie genre. In fact, it is laughably bad (in acting and cinematography) and derivative in its plot. The make-up looks horrible and the zombies look even worse when shot. Lines are stiffly delivered and badly timed, with the exception of the female bounty hunter, who is the only good actor in this mess of a film. The worst offenders are the Italian guy (Hans), Ryn the protagonist, and the lead bad guy. I've seen better delivery from pizza truck with a flat tire.

This is a self-proclaimed "zombie western", but about the only thing that makes this a "zombie western" is the fact that people wear cowboy hats and the lead actor's real name is Clint. The protagonist isn't cool and mysterious like a traditional Eastwood hero, and as an anti-hero, he doesn't have the wise-cracking attitude to pull it off either.

Don't be fooled by the fake glowing reviews. This is just another B-grade zombie movie that's competently made for the budget it had (it does have some decent lighting), but it reeks of low-budget, first-time directing and bad acting. There are a LOT OF REALLY stupid scenes that make this look really amateurish.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
poorly acted, terrible dialog, 20 January 2006
5/10

I bought this movie because of Christopher Walken. Ever since I saw him in Biloxi Blues, he has been one of my favorite actors. Not matter how crappy the movie is, if he's in it, I'll give it a go.

That having been said, Suicide Kings is totally awful. Walken in a ridiculous wig at one point in the movie is laughable. None of the characters are memorable or interesting. That guy from Roseanne (Darlene's boyfriend) who plays Ira in this movie is intolerably annoying. I don't understand why one of the other characters doesn't just smack him, because I wanted to. The dialog is unrealistic and frustratingly awful. The story is full of uninteresting plot elements, and the director tries to weave a suspenseful tale to keep you guessing, but I lost interest. The ending was hacked together after some test audience screenings, and the way it is shot and edited, you have no idea what happens! Give this one a miss. Not even worth renting.

The Island (2005)
1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
extremely mediocre, 14 December 2005
5/10

I didn't expect much from this movie, and I wasn't disappointed. It's another brainless action movie from Michael Bay. Like his others, leave your brain at the door.

The story is rather unoriginal, feeling mostly like the book Brave New World, a bit like Gattacca, Total Recall, Minority Report, bits of the Matrix, and other parts of movies glommed together, especially with some of the visual imagery. One really distracting thing is how Bay shot this movie. His television commercial and music video backgrounds really bear out here and don't serve the style of the movie well at all. Lots of quick cuts, pans, and shots from far away, rotations of landscapes... lots of scenes where the viewer isn't given more than 1 or 2 seconds on each cut, making it feel like MTV. This is fine for a Subaru SUV commercial, but not for this movie.

Some really stupid and obviously out of place technology here too. Most of the world looks exactly like today (2005), except for the hover trains and the Star Wars landspeeder. (Maybe McGregor made a deal with George Lucas).. hover trains that float stories above the ground, like in The Fifth Element, yet all the other cars drive on the ground.. The future doesn't look very futuristic at all.

Another annoying thing is the really obvious Microsoft product placements! In one of the early scenes, there's a plug for the XBOX (yet in 2050, Microsoft hasn't made an XBOX 5.. it's just the normal XBOX)... later, we get an MSN butterfly logo right in our faces. I don't know about you, but I find product placements extremely distracting and they cheapen any movie, forcing me to think about the product than the story, taking me right out of the experience.

McGregor's performance is weak and his American accent is horrid. Sean Bean is great as usual. Djimon Hounsou I liked and would've like to see more of. All in all, a terribly incohesive movie with huge gaping holes. A lot of the exposition is simply dummied down dialogue that flat out explains things to you. It assumes you're an idiot. ("this is a $500,000 car"... duh as if I couldn't draw that inference myself). Good if you want to turn off your brain, otherwise, watch any of the other movies this one tries to imitate.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
House of the Crap, 2 November 2005
1/10

Sometimes a movie is so bad, it's good. HOTD is not one of these movies. It's so bad, you'll feel ashamed and dirty all over after the entire affair (assuming you don't turn this off 10 minutes into it).

I had VERY low expectations for this movie. A trailer and teaser came on my Xbox version of House of the Dead 3. It looked pretty bad already, and a teaser is supposed to show all the good bits and make you want to go to theatres. This trailer definitely didn't, so you know you're in trouble as a film maker. It looked like a crappy costume party in the woods, or a high school film student's work. I finally saw it a few days ago to see why everyone hated it so much. Hard as it is to believe, this movie goes way below my worst expectations and even the harshest reviews aren't harsh enough. It's more horrible than I could have ever imagined. Every possible facet of this movie so completely bad! It defies belief that a man can be so stupid.

Sometimes critics have subjective reasons for disliking a film. There is no room for subjectivity here. This movie is an unequivocal and irrefutable heap of steaming turd. Uwe Boll, how can you sleep at night?! Shame on you and everyone associated with this abomination of celluloid garbage. Jurgen Prochnow of Das Boot fame, how low you've sunk!! Canadian punk singer Bif Naked just lost all points for her cameo.

There is nothing redeeming about this movie, unless you count the fact that we see 2 examples of boobage in the first 10 minutes. Never mind the fact that Boll took the name of the game literally and actually made a house of the dead in the wood... Everything about this movie is idiotic. Characters with weapons at the ready stand doing nothing, looking like morons as their friends get chomped by zombies. Boll does the Matrix spin with EVERY character as they fire off their weapon. Lame. The makeup is horrible. Acting is horrible.. The game had plenty of source material and bad guys to choose from. It could've been a great action, sci-fi/horror film in the vein of Resident Evil (which was mediocre as a film, but Oscar gold compared to this monstrosity).

If you like torture, watch this movie. I suggest Drain-o if you really want to kill yourself. It's much quicker.

Stealth (2005)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
lazy writing, uninspired dialog, nothing new, 2 November 2005
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

But what else can you expect from a Hollywood summer blockbuster but a formula production? Everything is so safe and risk-free here that we don't really have much of any semblance of a good story. The plot is lazy and rehashed from bits of other much beter movies, like Terminator (machines thinking on their own and taking over), Short Circuit (machine becomes nutty after a lighting strike), Top Gun, etc.

If the Navy is smart enough to design a Stealth plane that flies on AI, wouldn't it be smart enough to make it lightning proof? Planes fly in storms all the time without incident (commerical, civilian, and military planes). They're designed to survive that, just like if you're in a car during a lightning storm, you won't be harmed. This is just sad, lazy writing (and already done by Short Circuit, among others). They couldn't come up with anything more inventive that lightning making the AI go nuts. I was able to forgive that for about half the movie. The second half just devolves into crap. Why does Hollywood always need a love story in action movies like this? Can't they think of another motivation for the characters? The second half of the movie is basically the same "big strong man must rescue hapless girl" type of story. It also features some of the worst-trained crappiest North Korean soldiers ever put on film.

other gripes: Jamie Foxx is absolutely wasted in this role. Jessica Biel's cleavage didn't get enough screen time. Her ejection sequence is one of the worst-acted scenes I've seen in a while. And EDI downloading ALL the songs from the Internet?! (he must have awful taste, since he only plays Incubus). Wow, talk about shoddy writing! Joe Morton and Sam Shepard are both good, however, even if they're in the same typecast roles they've done in other movies.

Leave your brain at the door before you watch this. If you'd like to preserve the brain cells you have, stay away. This movie isn't horrible, but it *is* hackneyed and goes over the same terrain dozens of movies before it has.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
eh... mediocre treatment, 1 November 2005
6/10

Like most of Tim Burton's movies lately, he seems to focus more on style than substance. In Planet of the Apes, the visuals and set designs were absolutely fabulous, but the story was severely lacking. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no different. Both Apes and Chocolate are re-interpretations/remakes, but neither of them add anything to the original. In the case of Chocolate, it takes quite a bit away.

Johnny Depp looks absolutely freaky and disturbing. His face and voice are all wrong and reminds me of an amalgam of Michael Jackson, Ziggy Stardust, and Caesar Romero's Joker from the campy old 70's Batman shows... that or a woman who's had 1 plastic surgery procedures too many. The eerie smile and prosthetic teeth make him look like some kind of monster, a far cry from the endearing but eccentric character portrayed by Gene Wilder in the 1971 original.

Ironically, that movie was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, it focuses a lot on Charlie and his life of poverty. This one is called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and focuses too much on the hideous Willy. They bring in the back story of Willy's abusive father in the form of flashbacks, which is completely unnecessary. The kids had a lot of personality in the original movie, but here, they are annoying and cursory. Charlie has no personality and very few lines.

other problems: One segment (2001: Space Odyssey parody) looks like they bought all the left over props from Men in Black II. The new Oompa Loompa songs suck! They are also not cute and don't have any catchy songs anymore. Watching this movie was an ordeal.

"Don't touch that squirrel's nuts!" -- Willy Wonka. Don't touch this movie either.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Not as bad as everyone says. Quite enjoyable really, 1 November 2005
7/10

I had heard how bad and stupid this movie was, so I had quite low expectations. OK, so the premise of 2 black men dressing up and passing for 2 white women is absolutely ridiculous and far-fetched (they kind of look like Michael Meyers from Halloween!). But once you set aside your disbelief, you'll enjoy the whole movie a lot more. I think some people were too unforgiving on this point. I expected something horrible, but to my pleasant surprise, laughed out loud quite a lot. Terry Crews absolutely steals the show as the ivory-chasing muscle man. He is hilarious! Some people also thought this movie was racist, but they need to lighten up. Anyone familiar with WB sitcoms, the Wayans Brothers, Kenan Ivory Wayans' earlier films (like I'm Gonna Git U Sucka) and in Living Color will know about their brand of socially-derived humor which pokes at our society's hangups about racial issues. This movie makes fun of black people a little, white people people a little, but mostly, it makes fun of snobby socialites and class differences. It's quite funny if people'll stop being so uptight. No one is above being made fun of. I liked this movie a lot.

Madagascar (2005)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Not very funny, 16 June 2005
5/10

Dreamworks continues their losing streak with Madagascar. Shrek and Shrek 2 were brilliant, but it seemed like the writers for this movie were looking hard for inspiration. i didn't like the visual style of the characters in Shark Tale and i have the same complaint of this movie, but looks aren't everything. unfortunately, this film just isn't very funny and the voice casting is equally uninspired. none of the voices are very unique and the actors voicing them wouldn't be my first choices. all of them sound like the actors as people speaking normally instead of creating a voice to give the character more flair. i can't possible imagine more boring voices than Ben Stiller and David Schwimmer.

adults will likely find the Marty's voice annoying. i'm a Chris Rock fan, but it seemed like the studio just needed a loud, wise-cracking black comedian to voice the smart alec character (like Chris Tucker or Eddie Murphy in other movies).

there are a few chuckles, but mostly, most of the movie feels rehashed. a lot of the jokes go way over the heads of kids. there's a Planet of the Apes (the Charlton Heston one) reference. which 13 year old has seen Apes? the only funny characters were the dastardly penguins and the pair of poo-flinging monkeys.

Paycheck (2003)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
entertaining no-brainer, 5 May 2005
6/10

don't take this movie too seriously and you'll have a good time like i did. sure, it's full of plot holes so big it makes the Titanic look like a tugboat... and while you're at it, throw believability out the window. whoever heard of being able to duck a bullet coming straight at you AFTER you hear the shot being fired?! don't think too much about this movie and just sit back for an hour and a half of mindless fun. i don't much enjoy Ben Affleck, but this movie managed to keep me entertained. funny man Paul Giamatti is absolutely wasted in this film.. he only appears for about 15 minutes. Colm Feore (Chronicles of Riddick) does his usual bad guy thing and Uma Thurman looks absolutely horrid in this one. you'd think they could've spent more money on her makeup. bottomline: dumb fun.

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
a great slapstick/action movie you don't have to be Chinese to enjoy, 1 February 2005
8/10

Wow! this movie really made my day! It's very rare that I can say that about a movie, but today, I left the theater with a smile on my face thinking "that was money well spent." (Movies are normally $18-20 USD here in Japan, but the first of the month is 1/2 price, making that NORMAL price for me as a former New Yorker). This movie is really something special and I whole-heartedly recommend it to anyone who likes kung-fu, slapstick, action, and everything in between. It's got characters you can love, unrelenting action sequences, an appropriate amount of weirdness, great CGI, heart-warming moments... even a tiny romance element. The fight choreography is done by none other than the masters Yuen Wo Ping and Sammo Hung (together!). It's a fun, light-hearted action-comedy that's got something for everyone.

If you've seen Shaolin Soccer (or earlier films like God of Cookery), you may have scratched your head at the bizarre references in Chow's movies. If you're not Chinese or don't understand Cantonese, you probably won't get many of the jokes, no matter how hard the translators try. You won't find that in KFH. The story here has been much more sanitized for a larger non-Chinese audience. Chow eschewed a lot of the quirkiness and culturally-specific jokes in favor of a movie that is more accessible to a wider audience, using more universal themes, visual gags, and a whole lotta arse-beatings. Shaolin Soccer really blew the doors off HK action-comedy cinema when it came out, but I don't think Chow had any idea it would become so big outside of HK. It had a cult following in Japan and the US and was big here for a little while but many people just didn't get it due to the many cultural jokes.

None of that in KFH. Chow just concentrated on giving everyone a good time. The 40'ish Japanese man sitting next to me in the theatre laughed as much as I did throughout the movie (and i grew up speaking Cantonese!) of course, it's stupid. it's unbelievable, it's a little weird, but it's fun, got great action, great CG.. even a few sad moments. I loved the heroes, especially, the old couple. Go watch it for yourself! If you hate it, then someone's gotta check to make sure you still have a sense of humor.


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