Reviews written by registered user

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

10 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Gattaca (1997)
8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
A moving underdog story, 2 January 2006

This film tells an excellent story of a person who gives everything for his dream. Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) is born into a futuristic ultra-conservative world dominated by genetic engineering. He is told from birth he can never be as good as those around him. Faced with this reality he gives everything he has to reach his goals.

Few films have blended sci-fi, drama, romance, and thriller genres as nicely together as Gattaca did. The story moves at a good pace and consistently builds suspense throughout each scene. Hawke and Thurman show great chemistry together on screen. Jude Law also delivers a good performance. The sets are well designed and worth mentioning as they make the movie even more interesting.

This is an overall excellent film with few if any weaknesses. The story sends a strong positive message that can be appreciated by almost anyone. 9/10

Syriana (2005)
2 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Wha... What?, 19 December 2005

Hmm, I think this movie had something to do with America, Iran, China, and some oil. I'm just not really sure what.

I suspect everyone loves this movie for two reasons

1. The CIA and AmeriKa are portrayed as the bad guys. I guess that automatically makes the movie good no matter how incoherent it is.

2. It is incoherent. What better way to prove your smarts than to say you've got this gibberish of a movie figured out.

Long, boring, and incoherent. The only good thing about this movie is that George Clooney and Matt Damon act well in it. Just make your movie complex, political, and hard to understand. If you do that then it just has to be smart. Right?

26 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
One of the most beautiful things I have ever seen., 19 February 2005

The artwork in this is simply gorgeous. It is without a doubt one of the most visually engaging animes ever created. From start to finish the animation is pure excellence.

The story focuses around a murder investigation. It quickly gets very strange and hard to follow as many animes seem to do. However, if you don't try to over analyze it, it is really just a cool sci-fi detective story. Some of the characters are continued from the first movie which is rewarding to those who have seen it, but won't confuse everyone else.

This is a beautiful anime that will be enjoyed by both long time anime fans, and even first time viewers.

1 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
You'll be praying for forgiveness., 19 February 2005

I'll just skip right to it, this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. This will probably be the worst movie of the year. To sum it up without any spoilers- there is little action, a completely ridiculous story, cheesy one-liners, cheesy background rock music, silly looking cgi, and a whole slew of misrepresentations of Catholicism. If you have received any kind of Catholic education, or have any kind of taste for good movies, this one will be hard to sit through. This movie is targeted at Chreaster (only on Christmas and Easter) Christians who can't tell what a good movie is. Beware of this one, or you'll be sorry.

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A horror movie about a disease? What?, 18 January 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*spoilers*(Not that you should care) This movie features a super disease that pops up in some woods in the middle of nowhere at the exact same time a group of college kids decide to go on vacation there. You might be wondering, "How can you make a horror movie about a disease?" I mean diseases kill you slowly. The most fatal need at least a couple days to kill a healthy person. So how can you make a horror movie about someone getting a fever and becoming weak and bedridden? Well, you cant. Or at least it has yet to be done.

Lack of a coherent plot, lazy writing, and cheesy gore shots plague this movie. Just to make sure the characters don't simply leave the woods, their truck inevitably breaks down. For another example, the writers needed a way for the disease to be spread from a kid to one of the adult characters. So what do they come up with? Thats right, they decide to make this kid very weird. So weird in fact he just bites everyone he sees for no apparent reason. Just have to establish this fact early on and then you have an excellent reason for the disease spreading later. Then towards the end of the movie there is a character who hides away then finally comes out thinking hes made it out. Obviously he is about to die. So how do they kill him? Hes not going to get infected there isn't enough time left for him to die slowly. Ahhh I know! Lets have a whole bunch of people shoot him on sight just in case hes infected. But, the most astounding thing this movie does is take a nude sex scene with an incredibly gorgeous woman, Cerina Vincent, and manage to not make it hot. Thats some pure talent.

Alexander (2004)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The Great, Incredible, and Legendary Tale of the Most ZZZZzzZZzZZ..., 27 November 2004

How many epic films have opened with a quote from some old philosopher? Alexander could have really done without it. In fact, this film could have done without nearly half of it.

The film did seem to have a lot of potential. It was fairly well directed and well acted. The battle scenes (lets face it this is why many people even bother to see the movie) were intense and well done. These pluses, however, are drowned out in the rest of what the film has to offer in its entire 3 hours. Prolonged scenes of people dancing around or walking around. Long conversations between characters that could have been summed up in half the time. Many minuets of the film are used in an attempt to try to convince us that Alexander was actually great. Every time the narrator talks or Alexander gives a speech I can't help but think, 'Is this what proves he is great? No? OK, but this speech must. No, still? OK then this next speech surely will.'

This film could have been good. All it needs is a major reworking to the plot structure and storyline to actually need it interesting. It needs massive amounts of editing to shorten it up. The farther the film progressed, the more and more confused I became on what I should be feeling for the films protagonist. The good acting could only hold this long drawn out movie afloat for so long. So by the end of the film, I didn't feel anything and I was simply glad it was over.


2 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
So bad you wont even know what hit you. *spoilers*, 16 June 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

STAN: No, what does that mean, find the clitoris?

CARTMAN: Is that like finding Jesus or something?

Okay that was funny. But the entire rest of the movie is crap. I don't have some kind of moral outrage against this film. I could care less how much violence or swearing it has in it, if it were funny. The jokes maybe immature but if they were immature AND funny I wouldn't mind. Instead these are some of the stupidest jokes that will leave you wondering why anybody would have written them. Most of the humor is supposed to come from the fact that the characters are saying all these things and they are just kids.

HAHAHAHA. Isn't that funny? He's a kid and he said %$&#! OMG HILARIOUS! In one scene they are in class and are completely ignoring the teachers request that they stop swearing. Instead they just keep swearing. For some reason this is supposed to be funny. With all the swearing in that scene there is pretty much no joke the entire time. Someone gets called fat someone else gets called a Jew. Maybe if the lines were clever or something it could have been funny. But no it is just pure stupidity.

There are really only a couple reason why people might find this movie funny

1. They find jokes insulting fat people, Jews, Black people, foreigners, and pretty much any minority group to be hilarious. I am not so uptight as to think this movie is so bad because it insults this group or that group or blah blah blah. I am not one who thinks any joke that pokes fun at a certain group is automatically not funny. The fact is the jokes used are JUST NOT CLEVER, ORIGINAL, OR FUNNY. And that's just when they use jokes. The writers often don't use jokes at all and yet expect me to laugh. When watching it in the theater everyone laughed when someone was called a Jew. There was no actual joke just the word Jew. If there was some kind of small joke there maybe it could have a chance at being funny. BUT NO! He just says Jew and I am expected to laugh at that like its some kind of brilliant joke. Your going to have to try a lot harder than that if you want to impress me with your comic genius. At least write a joke into the line somewhere.

2. They think it is funny to hear little kids swear or commit acts of violence. Again, even though there are often no jokes it is just supposed to be funny because they are kids. They make fun of each others moms with jokes I have ALREADY heard before I saw the movie. TRY and use something original. Even if its not all that good its a thousand times better than using something we have already heard.

What's worse than all this is that people think this movie somehow stands up against censorship. It does not do this in the least. In fact if anything it shows we need censorship to get rid of pointless crap in the media. If you want to go against censorship make a movie that proves the artistic or comedic value of the movie supersedes the violence or language used in it. Don't just make a movie with bad language and violence and then make it have absolutely no value at all. That is not going to convince any people that are borderline on the issues of censorship that it is a bad thing. All it will do is push those people further towards the side of supporting censorship.

To sum it up, this movie has bad jokes that are few and far apart, pointless usage of bad language and violence, and bad animation with bad voice-overs.

2/10 A very very low 2. You will be left wondering how something so bad could ever be made.

A decent and fun spy thriller., 14 June 2004

If you have any kind of knowledge of the CIA or of computers, then, you will probably be able to point a lot of unrealistic elements in this movie fairly easily. The story itself also gets pretty unbelievable at times. But, by the end of the movie I felt it was a decent film and was worth my time.

Despite all the unbelievable elements in this movie it still ended up being a fun thriller. Colin Farell and Al Pacino were both great for their roles.

Al Pacino really comes off looking like a tough seasoned CIA field officer.

You get the idea pretty quickly that he thinks he the best there is over at the CIA. Farell is able to appear like a guy who got caught up too quickly in something beyond his experience. His character gets into some pretty big trouble in this movie and Farell is able to make him look like he really is in over his head.

This movie is one of the more fun and exciting 'spy' movies there is. It will keep you entertained regardless of the impossible or unrealistic aspects of it.

7/10 A fun spy thriller well worth your time.

Monster (2003)
4 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
An utterly despicable film., 12 June 2004

This movie is one of the absolute worst I have ever seen. Yes, this movie is horrifying. It is not horrifying because it tells you the story of a brutal killer. No, not at all. What is horrifying is that someone would actually have the audacity to make such a god awful film. Many critics have given this movie praise over the great acting in this film. Well, I can assure you there is nothing in the entire script that calls for any kind of great display of acting talent. The actors did show their dedication in transforming themselves into disgustingly ugly people. But, apart from this the actors did not have to do anything impressive during the actual movie. The only people that proved their talent while working on this film were the make-up artists.

The purpose of this movie is very clear. The filmmakers want you to understand why Aileen Wuornos committed these cold hearted murders. Its like the filmmakers feel that Wuornos had at least some kind of small valid reason for killing innocent people because she was mistreated her entire life. They even want you to feel sorry for her when her lover turns her in.

The angle the filmmakers were going for is that Wuornos tried to turn her life around but the cold cruel world forced her back into a life of crime. Its just like they are trying to show the viewers that 'it wasn't all her fault'. The attempt by the filmmakers to use this angle in the movie is insensitive and disrespectful to the victims' families. If, at any time during this movie you felt like you understood Wuornos's actions (save the one scene of self defense) or if you felt bad for her after her lover turns her in, then, you're an idiot. The real killer was cold, heartless, and greedy. Any reputable theatrical presentation of her should reflect that fact. It should NOT try to make you feel sorry for her when she is turned in.

Instead of accepting the angle the filmmakers were going for, by the end of the movie all I thought of HER and her lover was that they must have been among the stupidest people to ever live. If you feel a story about that kind of person should actually hold enough merit that a movie should be made about them, then, go ahead and see this despicable film.

2/10 Just don't waste your time on this one.

Good effects could not save this horrible script. *small spoilers*, 28 May 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

******Some small possible spoilers******

The script for this movie was painfully bad. In every scene what you expect to happen, does happen. Everything has been done before and done better. None of the scenes moved me and many of the "emotional" scenes were badly forced or just completely unnecessary.

There is a major disaster on the way. So, of course, there is some brilliant lone scientist that makes all the right predictions. And, of course, nobody listens to him! Oh, no! If only the people listening to his speech were less conservative and more liberal they would have been able to save so many lives!

Yes, this script was a left wing political statement as much as it was a lesson in bad film making. The alienation of any conservative watching the movie starts in the first few minuets and keeps going until the end. However, even if this movie didn't try to force us left wing ideas the entire time, it would still be bad.

Almost nothing original was used in the script at all. In one scene a guy and a girl are making out and he's about to take off her shirt... But wait! You hear a sound! Then, of course, she says something like, "What's that sound?" How many times does that have to happen in movies?

Yes, we have seen that before many times. Just as we have also seen the hero scientist make his shocking, yet technical, revelation. We know that it is shocking because it is followed by a room full of gasps and murmurs. An equally poorly scripted and reused scene can be found in The Core.

The movie also suffers from an excess of unnecessary drama. Millions of people must have died in the disasters shown in this movie. However, at no point do I ever get a sense of danger for any of the main characters. In one particular scene, Sam, the hero scientist's son, is caught in a hallway while it gets completely flooded with water. He isn't able to make it out in time. Will he be able to swim under the water and make it to the arms of his crush? We are basically forced to sit there and wait for him to come back up because obviously the writers were not going to kill him there.

To top it off, the script had a lot of blatant mistakes in it. Its like they didn't even read it over to check that everything made logical sense.

While the script was very bad, the movie does not fall short in every aspect. The special effects used in the large disaster scenes were well done and very entertaining. The visuals and sound combine to create large scale disasters like we have never seen in a movie before. The eye candy is consistent and is not just limited to a couple scenes. This is fortunate for the viewer because it is about the only thing that will be keeping your attention. Too bad the rest of this film is just too abhorrent to be rescued by good effects.

I give it a 5/10. The 5 coming solely from the good effects.