Reviews written by registered user
Apollyon_Crash

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

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

14 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
Plenty of potential for everyone, save for the TG-UK fanboys....., 29 November 2010
10/10

As a regular viewer of the original UK version of Top Gear, I must say that I'm two episodes into the American version, and I'm already reasonably impressed. Top Gear is a car review program, and car markets differ the world over. In other words, this isn't "mindless American remake" territory, but rather a program that NEEDS to be localized to reflect differing automotive landscapes.

Top Gear's trademark direction and editing are spot-on (I loved the Murcielago bull fight in episode 1, and the gorgeous shots of the Aston Martins racing at El Mirage in episode 2), the upcoming challenges look entertaining, and unlike the original version of the program, the test track appears to be set up as an actual TRACK, rather than just two stacks of tires on an old runway somewhere.

One of the foremost criticisms so far of Top Gear USA is that the hosts are "flat," although honestly I don't see them as significantly more characterless than the current UK hosts. The UK version is hosted by "Creepy-Looking Tall Guy," "Short Guy With Really White Teeth," and "Mild-Mannered Oddball With Crazy Hair," whereas the US version is hosted by "Scrawny Japanophile," "Full-Faced Neckbeard," and "Jersey Shore Reject." Pah-tah-toe, pah-tay-toe. Fanboys will never be pleased.

One area of legitimate criticism is that the interplay between the hosts is still a bit awkward and forced (although not nearly as bad as it was between Clarkson, May, and Hammond in their first series together in the UK), and the "Big Star, Small Car" interviews are almost painful to watch. It's obvious that none of the three hosts know even the basics about conducting an interview; this mars an otherwise excellent localization of the program.

All in all, after two episodes, I've got to give it 10 out of 10. If the show is this strong only two episodes in, I can foresee it being practically flawless by the end of the season. My original expectations for an American version of Top Gear were fairly low, but they've gone above and beyond. Good stuff.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
In the tradition of "What's Up, Tiger Lilly?"...., 18 August 2005

Circumsized cinema is a frequently hilarious half hour show in which bad Mexican (usually action) films are re-edited and re-dubbed into comedies with some sort of hispanic relevance (i.e., Luke Borderwalker, the Dos Equis Files, etc.). The films themselves look to be wonderfully cheesy, but with the new and (quite intentionally, I'm sure) terribly dubbed dialogue they're only made all the more amusing.

If there is one complaint about Circumsized Cinema, it's that it's a little too hip, and many of the references will probably rapidly date the the show. References to low-carb diets, Pilates, Crawford Ranch, Trading Spaces, and the last Star Wars film will insure that this show is remembered as being an early 2000s show, if it's remembered at all, thanks to the largely unwatched digital satellite channel it is shown on (SiTV, which as far as I know is only available on Dish Network).

For anyone who is into re-dubbed films or anything of that nature (somehow I think Mystery Science Theater 3000 fans will like it), Circumsized Cinema is definitely worth a look.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
It isn't THAT bad, 26 April 2004
4/10

Currently over 58% of this films votes are "1", probably because it appeared on Mystery Science Theater 3000. While it was great material for the show, this movie isn't completely without merit. The core idea of the movie was interesting (although amateurishly handled), and Micheal Berry gives a decent performance as the protagonist (or maybe the worse actors in the film just made him seem better). Some of the scoring and directing here is effective, as well.

Overall, this film is a 4/10. But if you see it, see it on MST3K. Not only did it make for one of the best episodes (proof that the worst movies don't make the best episodes), but it makes some of the duller parts of the film seem lively.

126 out of 143 people found the following review useful:
Look back on your life torn asunder...then throw it into third gear and floor it., 2 April 2004
10/10

Barry Newman is "Kowalski", an enigmatic figure who has tried everything in his life from stock car racing to the military, and failed at every one of his endeavors. Working as an auto delivery man, he gets an order to transport a 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T to San Francisco, and makes a bet with a few friends that it can be done in an impossibly short time. After loading up on "ups" and throttling the car westward, he is soon pursued vigorously by the police and embraced by the public as something of a hero. During a time when national speed limits were all controversy, this film provides a compelling argument against them: A fast car in the hands of a capable driver is not dangerous. Even the police, so caught up in their own system, don't realize that they are the only ones causing accidents and endangering the public while blindly trying to keep up with and capture Kowalski.

While the film sounds at first to be a simple action film, it's really much more than that. Kowalksi's past is revealed little by little through flashbacks, making the film something of a character study. Kowalski's trip becomes a road trip of existentialism as he runs across various strange characters: Solitary hippies, gay bandits, a boogie-woogie snake handling Christian cult, and the blind soul station DJ (brilliantly played by Cleavon Little) who is attempting to guide him on his journey from within the car's radio.

Topping it off is a great soundtrack, breathtaking cinematography and direction, and automotive action that has seen no equal. This film manages to be both compelling and exciting. Just watch it already.

10/10

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Underrated, 1 January 2004
8/10

The Supernaturals is a highly flawed, sometimes corny, but occasionally scary film. Although the dialogue is bad, numerous technical mistakes are made (especially the entire nature of military training exercises), and the climax is somewhat confusing, the film maintains an unsettling atmosphere, which is surprising given that the best parts of the film take place in broad daylight. Anyone who likes a ghost story or "living dead" films (this could conceivably fit into either category) should enjoy it.

6/10

Hang on tight, 22 December 2003
10/10

"The Hitcher", along with the Terminator films, is a perfect example of how to do an action film: Combine nailbiting suspense, surreal horror, and crackerjack violence then shake vigorously.

Jim Halsey is caught in a nightmarish situation...he's being pursued by a murderous, sadistic hitchhiker with a death wish who seems not so much intent on killing Jim as toying with him in an attempt to drive him over the edge. The hitcher is omnipresent, following unseen and then popping up just long enough to do serious damage to people and property alike, cleverly setting our hero up for every crime. As the hitcher continues to pile bodies over the Texas countryside, a manhunt for Jim ensues. The police soon turn into robotic killers hidden behind their chilling, garbled radio messages, proving themselves to be almost as dangerous as the hitcher himself. Jim ends up doing the only thing he can do: Fight his way out, hoping to keep both life and sanity intact.

The acting, directing, action, score, writing, and pacing are excellent, making this film one of the best of it's genre. It's a wild ride.

10/10

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Nothing to see here, 22 December 2003
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS - IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T READ THIS.*

"Black Cadillac" is another one of those "mysterious black vehicle chases some people" movies, and it's one of the worst. Apart from solid acting and occasionally witty dialogue (and the eye candy that is the '57 Cadillac), there is little left to this film.

The story is quite silly with a non-shocking climactic "twist", and there are several "Huh?"-inducing moments, like the question of how a small-town sheriff could afford a classic car that normally sells for well over $20,000 (and just carelessly fling it around on top of that), or maybe how our heroes manage to restart their car after they lock the engine in it. If the car overheats to the point that the engine locks, nothing short of a new engine is going to get it back on the road...and I don't think the shop they broke into had a new Saab engine block and an engine hoist conveniently left inside.

All in all, this film is very similar to "A Friday Night Date" (or "Road Rage" as it was called here in the U.S.), except considerably less exciting and better acted. The two films have several similar plot elements, right down to the ending. The difference is "Road Rage" at least manages to be entertaining enough for the viewer to forget how awful it is, and this movie doesn't.

3/10

Road Rage (2000) (TV)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
I'm torn. Really torn., 22 December 2003
5/10

"Road Rage" (as it's called here in the U.S. of A) is one of those movies that I really can't say that I like or dislike. One hand, the film is undeniably amateurish. Although the two leads are decent enough actors (the awful dialogue makes them sound worse than they are), the rest of the acting is terrible, in particular Joseph Griffin. The directing is sharp during the action sequences, but there are MAJOR continuity problems with the cars...damage appears and disappears, rollbars are visible in the interior, etc. Some of the story elements are completely stupid, including (but not limited to) stealing a truck when they were sure that they had wrecked their pursuer, and the "plot twist" that's so blasted obvious I laughed for two full minutes when it was "revealed".

I already mentioned the dialogue, but it really deserves a separate paragraph since this was the worst (or best, depending on your mentality while watching) part of the film. Stilted lines like "Do you think a girl would drive a beast like that?" prevail here, and the "this is the game" conversation between Bo and Zack is the most hilariously banal exchange this side of an episode of "Sealab 2021".

Now the reason that I can't say I hate the movie: It's certainly never dull. The stunt driving is great (how did they hire such good drivers for such a cheap movie?), there is the occasional flash of humor, and the score, although generic, is energetic. For these elements alone, I can't actually dislike this movie no matter how hard I try.

If you don't mind hokum and you like car chases, this movie delivers both in droves.

5/10

41 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
What every horror comedy wants to be, 19 December 2003
10/10

"Return of the Living Dead" is an often hilarious, often frightening, often disgusting, and always entertaining horror comedy. The cast is great, the dialogue is snappy and very quotable, and the special effects still hold up very well, nearly 20 years after the film's release. Fans of the horror genre, 1980s buffs, or just folks who enjoy something different occasionally will most likely get a kick out of it.

10/10

Lone Hero (2002)
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Cheesy, but good fun, 19 December 2003
7/10

For those living in the Ivory Tower who think that "Citizen Kane" is the movie by which all others should be judged, this movie is complete trash. For the rest of us who remember that movies are ENTERTAINMENT before ART, this movie certainly has the capacity to be entertaining.

It's a modern western: A small town in the west, a gang of bandits, and a nobody who has to save the day thanks to an older, tougher mentor. The action is fast-paced, yet refreshingly simple, and the movie deserves bonus points for not taking itself too seriously...in fact, the general pace of the movie switches fluidly between action and comic relief. The direction is effective, with a few inventive shots, and the score has the perfect "modern western" feel to it. The acting, however, is a bit weak. Sean Patrick Flanery acts like he's about to fall asleep, and most of the rest of the cast is completely forgettable. Two exceptions however, are Robert Forster (who is for the post part solid) and Lou Diamond Phillips, who actually overplays to the point of being likable (it's an over-the-top character, thus requiring an over-the-top performance).

Anyone looking for a meaningful cinematic experience will surely be disappointed, but if you're looking for an entertaining shoot 'em up, you can do a lot worse.

7/10


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