Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
38 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
I lost $5 and 25 minutes of my life., 2 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wow. Wow. I wish that I was a poet so that I could adequately find the words to describe just how awful this movie is. Nay, I cannot even call this a 'movie'; movies have stories and plots, even the bad ones do. It is rare that I will not watch a movie through to the end, regardless of how bad it is. But Death Tunnel was not even worth more than 25 minutes of my time.

This was not even a movie; it was a random, mish mash of sometimes extremely quick and sometimes sort of long scenes, with no coherency. I am serious.

1) The movie jumps around from 4 different time-lines, with some jumps being as quick as 3 seconds to as long as 5 minutes. 2) There are scenes and/or images that are just randomly inserted with no introduction or explanation as to why the scenes are there. 3) There were many scenes in which I had no idea whose Point of View the scene was supposed to be from. Some scenes appeared to be intended strictly from the audience's POV, which makes no sense in movie making, since the audience is not actually IN the movie. But there was no other explanation for why the scenes were shown.

And this was only in the first 25 minutes!! I kept asking aloud, "What is going on? What was that about? Whose POV is that supposed to be? What was the point of that?" This was NOT a movie; it was merely a haphazard collection of scenes that *overall* followed some vague story about teenage girls that went to the bar and ended up in an abandoned hospital.

2 Minute scene of teenage girls in a bar. Sudden images of a hospital gurney. A girl locked in a dirty, hospital room. She takes a sack off of her head. A 2 second image of 2 topless women walking down a hall. A 10 second video of teenage girls outside college. Sudden images of old video footage of people in a hospital. 1 minute scene of teenage girls in a contest at a bar. A 1 minute scene of a teenage boy watching video monitors and....something happens. Followed by static footage of random building images. 3 minute scene of a teenage girl walking through a filthy hallway. and so on.

Horrible, horrible, horrible. I saw no point in even watching any more. And now I am out of $5, which I could have spent on candy. At least I would have gotten more enjoyment out of candy, and it would have lasted longer.

6 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Lost potential, 15 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Krod Mandoon started out as an interesting premise, mainly a fantasy sword and sorcery sitcom. However it just becomes a platform for more anti-male/pro-female bullcrap that is considered "humor" in our society. In between scenes of fantasy style questing, scenes of medieval castles/towns and characters like warriors and wizards, are the messages that "women are awesome and sexy" and "men are idiots and buffoons" while pointing out that female sexuality is awesome and sexy and male sexuality is disgusting and ugly.

I would have rated the show higher, but could not stand the misandric garbage. I had enough by the 4th episode.


Transmorphers (2007) (V)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
I cannot say much more other than, this movie was bad., 23 September 2008

I have watched a lot of movies during my lifetime and frequently buy movies from the $5 bargain bins. Every so often you get a gem that is worth keeping, but most bargain bin movies are at least watchable enough to actually watch the whole thing.

Transmorphers was so horrible, I could not even sit through the whole movie. The story was basic and offered nothing new, the characters were clichéd, annoying and horribly acted. Also, what was up with the constantly moving camera??!! Seriously, the camera never stays still; it was constantly bopping around, just making the movie that much more painful to watch.

I kept watching, hoping for at least a worth while special-effects/action scene. When such a scene did appear, it was worse that what is offered by most modern action video game titles. I have seen better graphics and action scenes in video games like Half-Life 2, Gears of War and similar games, than I have in Transmorphers.

Horrible, horrible, and now I am out of $5, which I could have spent on candy.

Rating: 1/10.

9 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
I wish this could have been, "One Missed Movie", 5 January 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This review may contain spoilers.

This movie follows the 'standard' template of a lot of horror movies that have come out in the last few years: Main characters friends are dying/getting-killed by something creepy and supernatural. Main character teams up with another person that is also somehow involved in the events. They follow clues to the 'source' of the problem. The 'source' of the supernatural problem is related to some tragic event, usually tied to a young female character.

If you have seen movies like; Fear Dot Com, The Ring, Dark Water, Phone, Pulse, The Eye, The Grudge then you have seen the formula that One Missed Call is based on.

I also rated the movie low due to the following: 1) The plot is rather simple, but the movie is dragged out by long "5 minutes walking through a desolated building with nothing happening" scenes. 2) At least half of the 'scary moments' are traditional "fake scares", like when the scary music builds up and.... A CAT JUMPS OUT!! 3) Once you find out the "reason" behind all of the strange happenings it just opens up a crap load of new questions: If *that* is the answer, then why did *this* happen? How could *that* have happened? Why would this or that happen? The "answer" makes no sense overall and does not explain why the events you saw over the course of the movie happened.

As for point #3, this seems to be a trend these days: movies that involve the "spirit" of a dead person that is wreaking havoc after-death. Why is the spook able to cause all this mayhem? Control technological devices? Appear anywhere in the world? Make living people hallucinate? Why is a corpse able to just animate itself? Is it just taken for granted these days, that "spirits" have all these wacky, superhero powers just because they are "spirits"?

I rated the movie 3 out of 10. It was far from great, but definitely not entirely bad either.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
As others have noted: This was a misrepresented movie, 29 December 2007

I just felt the need to add my voice to the many other reviewers that felt that this movie was 'misrepresented'. I do not want to counter anyone that did like the movie, because I am not saying that Bridge to Terabithia was a 'bad' movie. I am simply saying that it is NOT the movie that was advertised.

I can actually summarize, very briefly, my whole issue with this movie: The advertisement for this movie was tailored in such a way that it leads the audience to believe that it is a light hearted fantasy movie about some teenage characters that travel to the mystical world of Terabithia, have adventures and meet fairy tale beings.

However, that is not true. Instead the movie is actually a drama about a teenage boy, his relationship with his new friend and how he copes with the death of his friend.

Imagine going to see a rip-roaring action movie, because the trailers showed all manner of 'action' scenes. But when you watch the movie, you find out that it is really a romance/drama movie and the 'action' scenes shown in the trailers were only daydreams that one of the main character had.

As a drama movie, it was okay (I would rate it 5/10). However, as a fantasy/adventure movie that I was led to believe I would be seeing, I rate it 1/10.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Exactly what meets the eye., 9 July 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was expecting an exciting science-fiction/action movie about giant robots that transform, and that is what I got.

Transformers is very entertaining movie. This movie had humor, action, great special effects. The basic story: The American military seems to be under attack by strange forces that is trying to gain information from their computers. As they struggle to find out who is behind it all, a group of giant sentient robots comes to earth to battle with their evil counterparts. The humans and the good Autobots side up to defeat the evil Decepticons. Caught up in the struggle is Sam and his friend Mikela, because Sam, unknowingly possesses the secret to the power that the Transformers are battling over.

The good:

-The special effects were incredible. It is great to see thatCGI has developed to the point where it is really difficult to tell what is an effect what is the actual background in a movie. The robot characters were awesome looking.

-The acting ranged from decent to great across the many characters. Overall, I would have to say that the acting was well done.

-The story was interesting and compelling. I was really engrossed in the movie when it was portrayed the conflict that was going on as something that was affecting 'the world', or at least got the attention of the world. This made the movie feel more 'epic-like'.

-The movie did not go into too much detail about the alien characters background and history, which I class as a good thing, since that would probably open up too many nitpicks.

The bad:

-I like seeing attractive female characters as much as the next person. However, I would like to see them as an actual character. I am tired of the female characters that are put in movies, *just* to be a male characters girlfriend.

-On that note, I am also tired of movies telling men/boys that their lives MUST revolve around women. I am tired of the message to men/boys that their lives are meaningless unless they have some (attractive) woman/girl in their life.

-I don't think that the movie made good use of the alien character's ability to "transform". Throughout the whole movie, they chose one form and stuck with it. I just thought that it would have been better to show the characters actually changing forms more often to suit a situation.

-The movie focused TOO much on the humans. I mean, the movie was about 140 minutes long and it wasn't until 50 minutes into the movie, that the "main" robot characters were introduced. Even after that, the robots were secondary characters to the human characters, which did not seem right.

-I thought that the Decepticon, Frenzy, was way too "bizarre". I think they should have toned down the 'bizarreness' of that character.

-I thought that the robot 'urinating' scene was totally inapprorpriate.

-There is a scene where the giant robots are trying to 'hide' in the backyard of the house was too goody and WAY too long.

Overall, I would have given the movie a 9/10 rating, but there was enough 'low' points to drop that to 8/10.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
A Thrill a moment, 27 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Live Free or Die Hard is the latest in the series of 'Die Hard' movies with Bruce Willis playing the iconic character: John McClane. In the first movie, bad guys hold a building hostage. In the second movie, bad guys hold an airport hostage. In the third movie, bad guys hold a city hostage. Now in the fourth movie, bad guys hold a country hostage!

If you liked the first three movies, then you should like this movie: It is more Bruce Willis, more John McClane, more action, more stunts, more explosions! The movie is non-stop for the entire two hours. I mean, there is hardly any 'downtime' where the story is not advancing or something is not happening. It is go, go, GO! The acting was great, as far as 'action' movies go. Even secondary characters were acted and portrayed well. A lot of the stunts were really over the top, but all in good fun.

I didn't like the McClane's comments on the hacker, "You play with dolls" "Don't have a girlfriend." or telling his daughters prospective boyfriends that he will 'kill them', because, to me, it is just more anti-male sexism, but not enough to ruin the movie.

So, if you are looking for an entertaining, thrilling, action, "popcorn" movie, then Live Free or Die Hard is the movie for you. In fact, I watched the movie opening day on Wednesday, if my friends go and see the movie this Saturday, I may join them and watch it again. :) I rated the movie 8 out of 10.

Flightplan (2005)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Unholy Blightplan, 23 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Story summary (from the movie trailers): A woman and her daughter board a plane. The daughter goes missing and others on the plane claim that the daughter never existed.

My review The trailer summarizes the first 45 minutes of the movie, literally. You could watch the trailer, get briefed on what is happening , then watch the remaining 55 minutes to see how it unfolds. THAT next portion is where the movie falls apart. The main reason to watch this movie (which was my reason, at least) is to find out the answer to the question: "What happened to the daughter and why would other people on the plane deny ever seeing her?" How could it be that a whole airplane, have some 400+ passengers and NO ONE remembers seeing the daughter? Did aliens abduct her secretly? Is it some sort of government cover-up? Was it some strange science-fiction warped reality thing happening?

Unfortunately the answer is an unbelievably implausible piece of claptrap.

***Major Spoilers next. BUT!! You may want to read the spoiler to save yourself from watching the last 45 minutes of the movie***

The daughter is kidnapped by a fellow passenger (the air Marshall) and his accomplice (one of the flight attendants). This was done with the pretense that the mother would go 'crazy' looking for her daughter. Then, the plan is that the 'crazy' woman will make her way to the cargo hold and open the digitally locked coffin that her dead husband is in, where a bomb has been hidden. Then the air Marshall can convince the captain that the woman is secretly a hijacker with a bomb on the plane and convince the captain to have the airline wire money to a bank account. Then, the plan is that the FBI would shoot the woman, thinking she is a terrorist/hijacker and the girl would be 'vaporised' by the bomb that the air Marshall and his accomplice had planted on the plane.

Whoa. What an unbelievably complicated and contrived plan. The plan is based on SOOOOO many random factors (mostly on people and their reacts) that it is ridiculous to see anyone actually thinking the plan would work. The script seems like it was written with the first part in mind (mother frantic about missing daughter on airplane), THEN the writers had to come up with a reason, fast!! They concocted the whole 'secret hijacker for money plan', BUT with NO research into how that part of the plot would be handled when you thought about the impact.

Oh, yes as to the answer to the big question: Why did the other passengers/crew claim that they did not see the daughter? Simply, because (highly improbable!!!), NO ONE did see her. That is the answer. No intricate conspiracy. No sci-fi explanation. Just bad writing.

I give the movie 4 out of 10. The movie gets 1 out of ten for the first 45 minutes which *were* interesting, 0 out of 10 for the stupid plot that happened in the second half and 3 out of 10 for the good job done by the actors (who did good with what they were given).

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
A Scanner Boringly, 13 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

***Spoilers Warning*** The story: In the near future, police are trying to trace the origin of a narcotic called Substance D, which ultimately destroys the persons brain. Bruce is an undercover cop, who goes by the name Fred, sent to infiltrate a small group of substance users (undercover as a fellow user called Bob Arctor) in order to get more information from Donna, who is a drug supplier. During his mission, Bruce/Fred/Bob gets hooked on the drug as well, as he pals around with his 'buddies'. Drug users can go to a rehab place called New Path and live out their lives, if they are too far gone. After Fred has gone to far and his brain is deteriorating, he is sent to New Path. Now we find out, at the end of the movie, that his supervisors planned this and secretly manipulated him to this point so that he could enter New Path, whom the police believe are the ones actually creating the narcotic.

The story sounds interesting, however the movie has many huge flaws: 1) It takes 70 out of the 90 minutes to get to the point. The first 70 minutes are almost all about "Bob Acrtor" undercover and just 'hanging around' with his drug user buddies as they philosophy about life, bicycles and who is 'out to get them'. At the 48 minute mark, I actually said aloud to myself, "What is the POINT of this movie?" This movie was like a 22 minute Twilight Zone episode, or even a 45 minute Outer Limits episode, that was 'padded' to a 90 minute movie.

2) There was no point to the animation, whatsoever. The whole movie could have been done as straight live-action.

3) There was no point to the "scramble suits" whatsoever. It seems like the whole reason for these suits would be so that no one would know (till the end) that "Freds" supervisor was really Donna (or vice versa) or that the supervisor would not know that they were putting Fred on a case to spy on himself. This could have been handled with a *much* simpler excuse, without resorting to ridiculous sci-fi gimmickery.

4) The movie is presented as a sci-fi, "rubber reality" type of movie. However, if you remove the "scramble suits" and used live action instead of the distracting animation style, this would have been just a normal, drama movie. Nothing else.

Some people may say that "I just don't 'get' it". No, I understand the movie completely. If there is still something that I do not 'get', then it is the movie producers fault, not mine. Those that rated this movie highly because they found some sort of "philosophic" and deeper meaning is because they WANTED to find a deeper meaning to the movie.

I rated the movie 3 out of 10. It was boring, took a long time to get to the point, but was interesting to a degree.

Stranger than real life, 31 May 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

**Some Spoilers** Harold Crick is an IRS agent who comes to the realization, by hearing a narrator's voice in his head, that he is a character in a novel. He then finds out that he is going to be killed in the story. He tries to find the author and urge them to change the story.

The movie is a combination of drama and comedy, with a touch of "rubber reality" (examples: Vanilla Sky, Jacobs Ladder) thrown in. I do not like traditional Will Ferrell movies because he always seems to play a buffoon and his comedies seem to appeal to the lowest common denominator in our society. However, Stranger Than Fiction appealed to me and seeing the movie, paid off. Will Ferrell is great in this movie. He plays a straight-forward character who has a very ordered life that he finds is suddenly turned upside down. So completely different from the buffoon characters from other movies, Will Ferrell manages to be serious and genuinely funny, but without going over the top. By the end of the movie, I felt sympathetic and empathic towards the character of Harold Click.

Supporting characters/actors were great as well and really hit the mark. Dustin Hoffman was great as the literary professor that tries to help Harold understand the issue of finding oneself a character in an, as yet, uncompleted novel. Emma Thompson is great as the writer-blocked author that has trouble deciding how to complete the book. Queen Latifah (another actress whom I do not like most of the movies she is in), does a great job as the assistant hired to help the author. Maggie Gyllenhaal does a good job as Anna. However, Anna is a somewhat a clichéd character: She is a wanted-to-be lawyer that instead opened a bakery store thinking she could help others better that way. How many movies have female characters (especially love interests) that are "good natured, loving people", simply because they are female? A lot.

It is difficult to point out the main *good* aspect of this movie without spoiling something. Therefore, I would urge a review reader to just go and see the movie. If you want more insight, but this may spoil the end, keep reading.

During the course of the movie, it is difficult to determine where it is heading (I mean this in a good way!). As the character Harold tries to determine about his own life, it is difficult to determine if the movie will continue/end as a tragedy (hero dies) or comedy. Without giving everything away, I will say this: The movie ends in a touching, feel-good type of way that made me feel emotional *long* after the movie ended. :) The movie ends in such a way that when the movie ends, you will look around and think, "Hey! Maybe life really isn't that bad."

I rated this movie 9 out of 10.

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]