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]
16 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

19 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
10 out of 10, 25 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you think this is a movie about a man and his dog, you're half right. It's more about the man.

Marley and Me is more about the Grogans, and how Marley subtly changes their lives each day, from beginning to end.

This movie will make you think... and make you realize just how a pet can touch, and change your life.

I'll tell you one thing... today three of the showings I tried to get into were sold out. The one I finally got into sold out as well. For each show, it was the same thing. People laughed until they cried, then just cried.

It's a touching movie based on a real life dog you'll never want to forget.

I'll tell you one thing. It gave me a better appreciation for my pups at home and how they've already changed my life for the better.

There are a few people that say the end was too graphic. that's a shame. You missed the WHOLE point of the movie getting stuck on that one scene. the scene was necessary. If it were cut, the movie would have lost that one thing that connects the audience to the Grogan family. The mutual understanding. You were there through the good times, you grieved with them through the hard times. you shared the emotions. you shared a mutual love for Marley from the beginning of the book, to the end of the movie.

It was raw, it was graphic, but we were sharing a moment that only pet owners can truly understand.

I always find it amusing that there will be people who find this movie appalling because it touches a raw emotional nerve,

but will turn around and bring their kids to Rated R movies with graphic sex or foul langage and violence.

Kind of like the 5 year old who sat screaming a row in front of me at Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix... a much darker, and way more violent chapter to the Harry Potter series...

go fig

86 out of 153 people found the following review useful:
If you don't have anything good to say, "F" it., 26 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The one pet peeve I have is when the writing is bad they start throwing in bad language hoping it will get a laugh. I'm sorry but I think if you took out every "F" bomb dropped in this movie... there'd be no dialogue.

The movie was disjointed... I know some movies are meant to be avant guard... but even those weird artsy movies make SOME sense. There were too many things going on, it seemed at times even the actors didn't know what scene they were involved in.

The plot between the Linda and her boss was just stupid and misplayed by the writers. And just when you think there's FINALLY going to be something amusing... they "SHOCK" you back into realizing the movie sucks.

The whole movie was a boring yawn fest. I'm not sure what so many people saw in this film. I felt like burning the movie projector after watching! And the ending, don't get me started... definitely not worth even the matinée prices.

The only thing I liked about this movie was Sledge Hammer star David Rasche, and only because it gave me a Sledge Hammer flashback.

I love George Clooney and Brad Pitt, and I usually like the Coen brothers... but this is one movie I wouldn't even wait till it came on DVD for. Just avoid it.

28 out of 59 people found the following review useful:
This is the most overrated movie of the year, 29 July 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm not sure why people think it's so great.

A lot of people talk about this being Heath Ledger's last movie. People... not only was he working on another movie... THAT Movie had decided to use his footage, so when it comes out THAT will be his last movie.

Do people think it is "dark" because it is mistakenly believed Heath Died because of this movie? (Even though it has already been proved to not be true.)

Cause I've seen cartoons that are "darker" theme wise. Last night I saw an anime on Scifi that was more twisted than this movie. This movie really wasn't as dark and twisted as they made it out to be... and considering most of the violence is suggested rather than seen, People can't say this is the most violent movie out there.

Also, why did the guy who played batman feel he had to talk as if he had Laryngitis or Bronchitis or something? Every time he talked when he was in "Batman" costume, people started giggling.

Another problem was that it went on FOREVER. It went on and on and on and on. I walked out. I'm not sure how much longer there was to the movie. But once the Joker was caught by Batman, and you thought it was coming to an end... in comes "two Face" with Commissioner Gordon's kidnapped family. I had had enough by then.

The plus sides:

I like Michael Caine. Glad to see him in the movie.

I have always had a crush on Gary Oldman The makeup they did on Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) after he became 2-face was brilliant.

And I liked what they did with the joker, to a point. But for what it was, Heath did a good job.

However, I have to give this movie an over all D.

It was too long, Too boring, Too long, Too hyped, and Give Batman a cough drop for pete's sake!!

WALL·E (2008)
4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Great movie - Very touching - Family fun, 20 July 2008

This was an excellent movie. It will make any one of any age laugh, tear up, laugh some more. And the subtle messages will make you think.

I really enjoyed this movie as a 31 year old woman (no kids) I even liked the opening magic/bunny cartoon.

One thing I think is off...

Hello Dolly and Michael Crawford have such pivotal roles in the movie that Jerry Herman (the composer) and Michael Crawford (Seen Singing "it only takes a moment") Should have been credited. I didn't see them in the end credits or on this site. (Granted I didn't sit through the WHOLE credits. So maybe they were closer to the end)

I'll have to check if they are near the end when I buy it on DVD.

Yes, this is worth adding to your DVD collection! Highly recommended! Solid A

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Sad, Sad, Bad, Bad, 17 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Can you give a 0 out of 10?

OK this contains a major spoiler


so am I to gather that after 4 highlander movies stat began in the 80's (20 years in the making)... and an 8 year long series... THIS Highlander had decided to say "oops... I guess there can be more than only one after all" WHAT!?! Are you friggen kidding me?! This movie had none of the sword fighting that Highlander is known for There was only 1 quickening and the effects were so cheesy it made the TV series look like million dollar FX. The bad guy was obnoxiously poorly acted and written... and the ending...

WHAT?! So there CAN be more than 1 and really all the "There can be only one" crap was about only 1 pure hearted immortal would be allowed to have a child? Well if Highlander II ALMOST killed the highlander franchise... and the Highlander:Raven series made Highlander a bit laughable... Surely Highlander: the Source finally did it in.

Poor effects, poor acting, poor script, HIDEOUS ending to an otherwise great series of movies/TV episodes that I loved so much.

to Adrian Paul...


I miss Christopher Lambert.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Excellent Follow up. Looking forward to 3., 7 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just got back from seeing Pirates of the Caribbean- Dead man's Chest.

Now- I'm not going to give anything away but basically- Jack's back and it looks like he's done it again- and brought poor Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner With him.

Now... Mr. Turner meets up with someone he never in a million years would have believed he'd find himself working along side of. Elizabeth has a small crisis of her own and Captain Jack? Well... Its Jack.

So what's new? Well, for starters, the plot, the action, the comedy, the special effects, and of course, the legendary Cracken.

All of these make for a fantastic movie. The audience clapped out loud in many places, laughed in many places, and even gasped in quite a few places... and just when you think you have things figured out... Trust me... you don't.

There are a lot of twists and turns that will actually take you by surprise, and the ending- I'm not going to say anything... but trust me. The only way you could POSSIBLY predict the way its going to end, is if someone told you what happened ahead of time.

This movie had a running time of just over 2 1/2 hours... but when the movie came to an end.... it was kind of surprising, it didn't feel like you were in the theater that long because you became so involved in the action.

However... This movie is rated PG-13, and for good reason. Not only suggestive comedy- but some stuff that may be a bit too scary for younger viewers. (Some of this stuff does get pretty dark.) So for the enjoyment of other audience members- please keep age appropriateness in mind. (You don't know how annoying it is to see a 5 year old in a movie like this, screaming and crying, and constantly having to watch the parents pick her up and take her out during the scary parts. Thats not only annoying for other viewers, but how can the parents be enjoying the movie? for the cost of the kid's ticket- get a babysitter.) the final installment to this trilogy to be released in 2007 is tentatively called "Pirates of the Caribbean- At World's End."

"To Davy Jones's Locker With Ye"

Captain Jack is Back

Yo Ho

The Omen (2006)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
So what happens at the end? I left early, 9 June 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The only thing this movie had going for it, was the 6-6-06 hype. Seriously. I've never seen a longer, more dragged out, more BORING movie since, well EVER!

The only scary thing about the movie was that they actually had enough script to pull off over 2 hours worth of film.

Usually, the slowest part of the movie is the character development. then it gradually gets better from there. Well, in this movie there really is no character development, and yet it still surprisingly is able to maintain that slow boredom inducing rhythm that sadly lasts throughout the film.

Even the "Scary" scenes are so dragged out and extremely predictable that it has you making sighing noises rather than gasping ones.

Some scenes were So dragged out you wanted to go "Damien". Like the scene with the priest who had no face... when the guy is begging him to talk. you want to scream


after about just under 2 hours, and no end in sight, I decided if I had to sit through 15 more minutes I was going go evil on the movie screen. So my friends and I packed up and left.

The only regret is not finding out what happens to the photographer. He was the only likable character in the movie.

so all in all

1. just because it comes out on 6-6-06 does not make it scary 2. boring movie 3. very boring movie 4. VERY boring movie.

I do not recommend this one. Usually I'm the one who says "its up to you. go see it and see what you think." but in this case. Save yourself the cash. The tag line instead of "his day will come" should be "his day will come. most people won't notice, and the rest will be too bored to care."

622 out of 931 people found the following review useful:
Excellent Video Game/Movie crossover, 20 April 2006

Someone said worst movie ever- dude- ever see UltraViolet or Scary movie? Please easily those are the worst movies that should NEVER have been made.

However. this movie was excellent. I have a feeling the person who gave this movie one star was someone who did not play the video game, maybe even did not realize it was based on a video game. I can see how this movie could present a problem to those who are non-gamers. However Most of my friends never played the game either, and they still enjoyed the movie very much.

I wasn't as disturbed by the changing of the characters as I thought I'd be. (Harry Mason to Rose for Example.) I totally understand how Harry wouldn't cross over well. while he was a cool character (From a girl perspective) he was kind of a wuss. lol.

the actors they picked to portray the characters were superb. they did a very good job portraying the intensity, the scary and sometimes disturbing nature of the movie.

I saw a sneak peek where most of the movie goers did a lot of gasping and clutching of their friends or dates, covering of eyes... it was a pretty creepy film, and the only horror movie that actually got my pulse to race. Normally I hate horror movies because they're more ridiculous than scary.

but this movie was scary, well acting, well written, and I loved the monsters. It was much more realistic to use people rather than complete CGI characters. it made it more creepy. I liked that touch. Definitely proves that old school can be more scary than technology. Although they don't completely ignore the modern day novelties. Its a perfect combination of both.

Pretty much- I miss Harry- I can understand why they did away with him (I'm glad it wasn't for a stupid reason like them wanting a tough cigar smoking buff man chick thinking that's "P.C.") but the character changes work, the actors in their parts work, the script works, its creepy, its scary, its a great movie. Some who have not played or haven't heard of the Silent hill games may not get it... but for the most part, I think most should enjoy this movie, gamers and non-gamers alike. This has to be one of my favorite movies this year.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Better special effects in Blues Clues, 17 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I hate to say this about a movie. I rarely give reviews this bad, but this movie was kind of pathetic.

I know this is based on a comic, but did it have to be so comic? I mean X-men is a comic, Spiderman is a comic but they cut the camp, used REAL special effects, and good acting.

in this movie, the explosions looked like cartoons drawn in because they didn't have money left for real fire... the cars and trucks looked like Tonka cars from a 5 year old's toy chest.

It was like they gave up on trying to make the FX believable. The script was terrible. The words seemed forced, the comic book timing was annoying because it made you want to laugh more than sit on the edge of your seat, and the acting wasn't all that great. The little boy was probably the only real good actor in the show. and his part wasn't huge.

Just because its based on a comic book does not mean it has to be comical. I mean, whenever someone dies, They make a face like bugs bunny when he pretends that Elmer fudd "got him". I mean the faces these guys make is almost funny because its so over the top. I know they're going for their 15 minutes of fame, but its ridiculous. and for all the guys dressed in white, they don't seem to bleed much when they're pierced right through.

Some moments were OK, which is why it got a 2. because I think there were only about 2 OK moments. This movie is basically a confusing mess of terrible special effects, mediocre acting, terrible script and such fake action it was almost painful to watch.

Sad thing is Milla is an amazing actress. Her agent should have known better as soon as he/she read the script. If I was her agent, I'd have told her to run the other way as fast as she could.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
It was definitely brilliant, flawed but brilliant, 11 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'd have to say I really enjoyed this movie. Just as much as I enjoyed Spirited away. Graphically it was stunning. Storywise it was pretty good. its the kind of brilliance you've come to expect from a Miyazaki film.

Its definitely easier to count the ways it IS like the Howl's Moving Castle novel by Diana Jones than the ways that it isn't, because aside from the characters- and the two subplots where Sophie is turned old by the witch of waste, and the way Calcifer is bound to Howl, the movie and the book are very different story wise, and other character wise. Even character personality wise.

At first I thought that would be a bad thing, but now, its not. Now the two can stand alone without being compared to one another. I kind of like that idea. Saves the heated debates you see with the Harry Potter movies for example. lol.

The casting was very good. Especially in Japanese. The English cast was pretty good, but I could not grow to like the English voice for Sophie. The voice for young Sophie seemed way too old for her, it sounded like a thirty year old voice in an 18 year old body kind of thing. the voice was too loud, too deep, the British accent, while I believe the actress is British, it sounded almost fake it was so over enunciated. it didn't grow on me. but other than that, it was great casting.

Its a very good movie as long as you don't expect to be seeing Diana Jone's book come to life. the two are pretty different. but in a good way. Its a stunning artistic work from Miyazaki and its got a little bit of everything. Romance, action, comedy, drama and while the two are very different, there are little nods to the novel that inspired the film. there are some confusing "How did, when did and why did that happen" moments in the movie, but I noticed that in Spirited Away and Only Yesterday. So it must be a Miyazaki thing. ^_^ 9 out of 10.

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