Reviews written by registered user

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

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

Shrek 2 (2004)
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Myers, Murphy, and Diaz do it again in SHREK 2!, 13 November 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So, remember how long SHREK was in theaters? Remember how many times you laughed? Well, SHREK 2 brings back all the excitement and laughter! Myers stars again as Shrek, Murphy as the hilarious Donkey, and Diaz as Fiona.


After their honeymoon, Fiona asks Shrek to go with her to see her parents. At first, Shrek isn't sure if it's a good idea. But, whether he likes it or not, he is soon persuaded by Fiona to go to the kingdom of Far Far Away. Donkey asks/decides that he'll come along, and soon enough the three are on their way.

Once they reach the palace, Shrek and the King (Cleese) clash immediately. King soon takes matters in his own hands when he hires Puss In Boots (Banderas)to "get rid" of Shrek. In the meantime, Shrek and Donkey don't seem to be getting along so well. Puss fails, and becomes Shrek's new friend. Donkey gets jealous, but sticks with Shrek nonetheless.

The three then steal a potion from the potion factory to make Shrek and Fiona's marriage go on forever so that they can live happily ever after. Donkey tests the potion and then Shrek drinks it. The next day, Shrek wakes up to be human, and Donkey a stallion. The potion also affects Fiona, however, and she becomes her once beautiful self.

Seeing this as an excellent opportunity to get her son, Prince Charming, with Fiona, Fairy Godmother gives King a love potion. She tells King that the love potion is to be poured into a drink, then drinken by Fiona. The first man Fiona kisses at the Royal Celebration Ball, becomes her new love. King feels guilty and secretly puts the love potion into his drink, which is later on discovered.

Meanwhile, Shrek, Puss, and Donkey catch up with their old buddies after being arrested. Their friends free them and take them to see the Muffin Man. The Muffin Man builds a big gingerbread man to crash through the gates of the palace during the Royal Celebration Ball, giving Shrek a chance to see Fiona again.

Shrek makes it in time, but the giant gingerbread man falls apart. After Fiona kisses Prince Charming, Fairy Godmother realizes that King drank the love potion himself (because Fiona knocks out Prince Charming). Shrek and Fiona then turn back into ogres and leave Far Far Away, after forgiving King.

44 out of 66 people found the following review useful:
Good, once you get past the beginning, 13 November 2004

Wow, to be honest: I really didn't think that I was going to enjoy this movie. The beginning was slow, and dragged on a little too much. But after that!

Garner does an excellent job portraying a confused thirteen year old in the body of a thirty year old. 13 GOING ON THIRTY is arguably one of her best.

The plot was good. Don't expect any twists or turns, though. Its consistency is one of the things that actually inspired me give it a good rating.

There really isn't much more to it! 13 GOING ON THIRTY was a great movie and I encourage you to see it if you haven't!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Trades accuracy for action, 9 July 2004

The first thing that caught my attention while I was watching this movie is that it was not accurate at all! Many dates and events were completely off. I won't even bother going into what they should be changed to.

Actually, why is this movie called "King Arthur"? He doesn't become king until the last five minutes of the movie, the time in which you are still wishing that the final battle has lasted a much longer that it did. A better title would have been "Knights of the Round Table" or "Knight Arthur" or even "No there isn't a Holy Grail, but we did find Guinevere in a dungeon". The title of the movie should go along with the movie itself. The tagline ("Rule your fate") was better chosen than the title. And that's saying something for some of the taglines that are out these days.

On the flip side of the coin, the action was decent. There was more than one "big" battle. The story also wasn't predictable because the accuracy was so far off. Scenery was done fairly well. I wasn't expecting anything special, though. That's pretty much it on the other side of the coin. Not nearly as much as there is to criticize...

This movie would have been much, much better if it had been historically accurate. Even if there wasn't as much action, somebody could still understand the story of Arthur instead of reading the entire book.

I give this movie 1.5/5 stars. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, though...

EuroTrip (2004)
Has spunk to it...but falls short, 7 July 2004

This movie is more of a ROADTRIP jr. It does, however, inspire a plot that characters decently follow. It isn't in every movie that you see landmarks across Europe, so that was something sorta cool about it. The comedy was pretty funny (including the opening credits), but a lot of the jokes were related to one another (i.e. somebody is making one joke off another joke).

The movie basically thrives off stereotypes that people presume some Europeans to be. Though, I have to say that some stereotypes were quite funny! The plot was pretty decent, as mentioned before. I think that it sort of just dropped at the end, though. Once Mieke and Scotty finally met each other, the road ended and the comedy stopped.

Aside from that, though, the movie was fairly well presented. There were some parts that left you waiting for a while, but nonetheless, still worth while.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A Wonderful Masterpiece, 5 July 2004

This is a wonderful movie that shows an experience that our country will never forget. It takes place in the 50s in a town in Mississippi. The acting, music, scenery, and everything else about this movie was done extremely well. Whether you are commenting on the excellent detail of a farm, or how much you hate a certain character, this movie will entertain you! MISSISSIPPI BURNING gets all stars!

There are no improvements that can be made to this is truly its best that it can be. This is truly one of the best movies ever made because of its attitude towards the subject that it is talking about. Missing this movie is something that you will regret! Indeed, MISSISSIPPI BURNING is a film that we will never forget!

Khartoum (1966)
3 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Starts off slow but ends strong, 27 June 2004

KHARTOUM was a pretty good movie when it came to preparing for battles. Then again, most of the battles were only 5 minutes. I was displeased with how long it did actually take to get ready for a battle, though. But on the reverse side of that, the battles were worth it...even if they were only 5 minutes.

The acting was okay. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't super. The acting followed the plot of the movie (i.e. when a battle is going on you see a MUCH different side of the character).

I was impressed with the ending. The last battle was truly what I will most likely think of when this movie comes to my mind.

Patience or not, though, this movie sets itself back a couple of stars because it starts off so slow. Though, as said many times, it does pay off in the end.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Nothing can compare to the enjoyment of a good war movie..., 27 June 2004

There is nothing bad to say about this movie. It has everything that a good war movie should have - emotion, good scenery, good action, etc.

This movie sets the tone for what war movies should really be like. Spielberg does a fabulous job of directing this movie. I also have to give a lot of credit to Hanks, Burns, Siezemore, and all the other actors and actresses that made this movie the best that it truly could be.

This movie has totally changed my opinion on war movies and I now see what a war movie should really be like. What was once my favorite war movie has changed because I saw this movie. That is how good this movie is.

Good Boy! (2003)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
GOOD BOY--Bad Boy, 15 June 2004

HORRIBLE! Absolutely HORRIBLE! I don't even know where to start with this excuse of a film. What really p***ed me off the most...was it the horrible and cheesy acting, or was it the plot that seemed to go no where. Or MAYBE was it the fact that I was watching this movie and looking at my dog wondering if my dog really came from another planet and arrived on this planet in a UFO. Perhaps...just perhaps this movie was the opposite of CATS AND DOGS. I really do not know how else to say it. This movie was possibly one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my entire life time.

I truly pity any soul that has to go through this terrible experience and I send my deepest sympathies...

27 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Hilarious!, 15 June 2004

This movie is truly a masterpiece. The plot, the acting, the scenery...everything!

It is about Mel Coplin (Stiller) who is puzzled who he really is a couple months after his baby is born. He becomes addicted to the fact that he indeed doesn't know who he is. Finally, he receives information of where his birth mother is. He gets on a plane with his wife, Nancy (Patricia Arquette), and the adoption agency associate that he is working with, Tina (Téa Leoni). Together they all fly to San Diego only to discover that there has been some terrible mistake--this woman in San Diego is not his birth mother.

Well, I won't ruin the rest of this hilarious and ongoing plot for you. I guarantee that you will laugh sometime in this movie...whether it is at the little old lady in the bed and breakfast, or when Tina maces the church workman in San Diego.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Oh, and the rest of the World is suffering, too., 14 June 2004

This movie is one of those movies that completely revolves around American lifestyle. What I mean is that you only see what is happening in the United States. Sure, there is some European and Mexican stuff thrown around, but it would have been great to see the ENTIRE WORLD is peril, rather than just the United States.

Otherwise, this movie wasn't that bad. I was surprised. Many of my friends had said that they didn't enjoy it. But, I always want to make sure for myself, as I'm sure most of you do. The acting was good, not great. I'm sure better characters could have been chosen instead of Quaid and Gyllenhaal.

The disaster situations were realistic, especially the situation in Los Angeles. But, again, you only saw events that were occurring in America (with the exception of a couple of helicopters going down over Europe)and they were selected (i.e. the story stuck strictly to New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles).

Graphics and detailing was done extremely well, especially the tsunami heading for New York. I was also impressed with the scene when Hall (Quaid) and his associate were walking north of Philadelphia and the American flag froze.

So, this movie was quite impressive and much different than some viewers may expect it to be. I'm a little shaky on the title (and everything else I've critized on by now) but I really did enjoy this movie!

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