Reviews written by registered user
kagrisier

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

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

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Without a doubt, the funniest film I've ever seen., 24 February 2007
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

There's a huge difference between American humor and British humor. American humor is the fart and burp joke while British humor is the arguing over a pointless subject joke. Python is British. Therefore, there will be many people who won't "get" this film. But those who do will have the comedy experience of a lifetime.

With a plot that can be summed up in 10 words (King Arthur and his knights search for the Holy Grail), this film isn't deep or emotional. However, the dialogue is so funny and the acting so excellent that the film feels like an epic-minus a large budget. The budget is the only problem with the film, and it doesn't detract much. You might notice the crummy special effects, but there aren't many, so it doesn't matter. Other than that, the film is beautifully shot. The epic Scottish landscapes are perfect for the film. The medieval costumes and sets are also great, but it's the acting which makes this film a true classic.

All the Pythons are fantastic. Graham Chapman is hilarious as the straight-faced King Arthur, along with a few other roles. His straight man occasionally delves into the "silly", which makes for an excellent performance. John Cleese, my personal favorite of the Pythons, is funny as the French Taunter and- my favorite role in the film- the eccentric, pyromaniac, spitting Tim the Enchanter! Michael Palin has one of the funniest moments in the film while in the Castle Anthrax with about 20 young girls. Terry Jones is a riot as the timid Prince Herbert, who sounds like Michael Crawford and yearns to escape his castle with Sir Lancelot. Eric Idle is very funny as Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Lancelot, who frequently wets his pants and runs away. And Terry Gilliam, besides providing beautiful animation sequences, has a variety of funny small roles, including the "horse" Patsy.

Not a scene goes by that isn't funny. The humor is rich, including Knights who Say Ni, Killer Rabbits, politically active peasants, a knight who refuses to give up even when he's lost all his limbs, and a group of minstrels who sing of "bravely running away". The film is the funniest film I've ever seen. Shouldn't that be good enough for you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Missed Opportunities, 10 September 2006
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First off, this is not a superhero film. It's barely a Batman film. Instead of giving us a straightforward film, Tim Burton sidetracks the film with so many plot twists and story lines, that the whole thing gets bogged down.

The script is badly written. In the beginning, we hear about a power plant. About halfway through the film, the whole idea of a power plant disappears. Later on, Penguin has obtained some plans to the Batmobile. They're not even crude drawings, just plans. Where did he get them from? Unfortunately, we'll never know.

Then we have the villains. The nose-biting, mucus-spewing, deformed Penguin is executed in possibly the worst way. How did the Penguin find the circus? Just how did he return to Gotham City as a lone child? The entire freakishness of the Penguin just makes you not sympathize with him, as Burton no doubt wanted, but want to tell him to "take a hike" and do something that's actually believable. Catwoman isn't so much a disaster, but she is ruined nonetheless. Licking herself, fashioning a whole suit out of a jacket, and becoming a martial arts expert overnight, she also is a sad mock-up of her comic book counterpart.

One of the things I like best about Batman is that he rose out of a tragedy and made the best of it. Keaton, while giving us an excellent performance, loses any heroics Batman had about him in the first film, and instead brings us a dark, rarely speaking, killing creature of the night. He brings us the dark knight, but leaves out the caped crusader.

The sets are cluttered, dark, and sad. Gotham is supposed to be a creepy place, but not a Gothic place. The city is just a twisted reality, but the film gives us a city-in-a-matchbox. That's how cluttered it is.

I can at least say something good about the score. Danny seems to want to try and give us a heroic sense, but is deflated by Burton's "genious". Poor guy.

However, I still like this film. Why? It gives you such emotion with the portrayal of it's characters, it's hard to forget. Also, buried deep within these villains, you'll find the comic-book characters you know. Their original origins are, whether on purpose or not, mixed in with the movie origins.

Overall, it's a good Batman flick, with some missed opportunities. However, there is some good acting and character development found here, that cannot really be explained.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
The Ruby Slippers lost their magic a long time ago., 11 August 2005
6/10

The Wizard of Oz is probably one of the best films ever made. Even if it didn't follow the books as closely as possible, it still did a tremendous job of being funny and entertaining. With all this success, somebody HAS to think "A second movie can only be second best." And if anybody thought that, they were probably right.

First off, the movie is WAY dated. All the effects and everything are quite fake. Matte lines, slow motion, stop-motion effects... All here, all bad. "Star Wars" (not talking about "Special" Edition) had better effects than this, and it was made nearly ten years before this.

Also, most of the stuff was also WAY off. The Wheelers speak for themselves, and Billina is somewhat of an annoyance. Jack Pumpkinhead's voice was...uh, odd, as was the way his head seemed to move depending on his emotion. And Tik-Tok, the Royal Army of Oz? I think NOT! Plus, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, the Cowardly Lion... oh, dear what happened? I know people will say that they look like the illustrations in the book, but, this is a SEQUEL TO THE WIZARD OF OZ! You'd think they'd at least try to make them resemble their 1939 counterparts! Other than that, the movie is OK. I mean, the sets, although they don't resemble the ones from The Wizard of Oz like they should, are great. The movie has a pleasantly dark feeling, mostly because of the Nome King's magic on the Ozians. Also, besides the problems mentioned above, the characters are fun to watch and sometimes funny. Tik-Tok is probably the best of the lot, aside from the annoying noise he makes when he walks.

Overall, I recommend this OK movie only if you'd like to forget about the 1939 classic, or you're bored out of your mind.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Alas, the end of Star Wars. Alas, George goes out with a BANG!, 4 July 2005
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Star Wars has taken nearly 30 years to become a complete saga. There have been rough bumps along the way (The "Special" Edition and Jar Jar Binky come to mind), but overall, this saga consists of some of the best made pictures ever ("Star Wars", "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi"). And now, I am proud to say that the best Star Wars movie is-----"Revenge of the Sith". Yes folks, this is a darker, scarier, and PG-13 rated movie that only Star Wars fans from the old days (1977, 1980, 1983) will appreciate. The kids won't care, so long as they get their Star Wars light-sabers and Darth Vader masks. All Star Wars fans who fully understand Star Wars (ages 11-up, 'cause my son now understands that 1 and 2 and the "Special" Editions are crap, and he's 11) will get that "Oh, I see now!" feeling.

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!! Now, this film has it all. The death of all Jedi but 2, the birth of the twins, Anakin turning bad... yes, sir, I'd say that this is even better than the Original Trilogy. The film also has Darth Vader (even though he only appears in full mask and whatnot for 3 minutes or so), Emperor Palpatine (Oscar for Ian, anybody?) and, though you can only see him for 3 seconds, GRAND MOFF TARKIN! You know, the old guy who pretty much stole the show (even though Harrison Ford was better) in "Star Wars"? Gotta love Tarkin! Anyways, the effects are, as usual, amazing, and the best performance is, of course, by Ian Mcdiarmind as the Emperor. Now that this film is released, my official order of the movies is:

1 Revenge of the Sith (brilliant work) 2 Star Wars (still entertaining) 3 Return of the Jedi (lovely battles and quiet moments) 4 The Empire Strikes Back (gotta love those quiet moments+ emotional stuff) 5 Attack of the Clones (fun to watch+ quiet moments!) 6 The Phantom Menace (Jar Jar Binky! Not bad but not good either!)

I recommend this film to anyone. Go see it, now! Thank you, George, for almost 30 years of entertainment! Go and see it!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A GREAT improvement on "The Phantom Menace"., 4 July 2005
7/10

"The Phantom Menace" was, without a doubt, the worst Star Wars movie, but it still wasn't bad. "Attack of the Clones" is MUCH better. Let's list the reasons, shall we? 1- It has MUCH more action, partly because it has the beginning of the Clone Wars. 2- The romance angle, although not as good as Han & Leia's, does what it is meant to do. 3- Obi-Wan goes on a detective spree! Yay! Go Obi-Wan! 4- Not to much Jar Jar Binky! Yes! 5- The visuals! Go visuals! But there are a few flaws. 1- One of the things that made Han & Leia's romance interesting was that it had not much kissy kissy goo goo stuff in it. But Anakin & Padme's does. 2- In this movie, Anakin, like Luke, gets his arm chopped off. When it is cut off, he shows no sign of pain other than a barely audible "ugh". 3- Another problem with the romance angle. Anakin is 19. Padme is 24. I'll leave you to figure out what's gross and disgusting about that. 4- Even though he's better than Jake Lloyd (Jake played Anakin in Episode 1, and seemed to be bored in his role. In fact, when I watch him, it makes Jabba the Hutt look like Ob-Wan), Hayden Christensen is awful and thus, he is Gayden Christensen among fans. Overall, I good Star Wars movie I recommend, but still not like the Originals. Watch it if you feel like it!

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
If you know nothing about Star Wars, and then you see Episode 1, you still won't know anything., 4 July 2005
6/10

"Star Wars", "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi" are considered 3 of the best movies ever made, and Episode 1 will, sadly, never reach those heights. It is a kiddie film. It is made for kids, for kids to watch, and made for adults to cry as they watch their beloved Star Wars go to waste over this movie. It is basically a 133 minute movie made for selling toys and making big bucks at the box office. Plus, where has Lucas's creativity gone? He used to make aliens that were "cool" and even "works of puppetry genius" but now all we get is that moron Jar Jar Binky. Yes, I call him that. I hate him. One of my friends who has seen the movie and likes it said that the person who played Jar Jar gave a great acting performance, and I agreed with him until I went home, popped in my copy of Episode 1 and watched some random scenes with Mr. Binky in them. HE STINKS! Jar Jar is the worst insult since the "Special" Editions! But despite all of this, there are a few reasons to watch this movie. 1- The visuals are mind-blowing! Love those! 2- Liam Neeson! And even though Lucas can't write his lines for scrap, it's good to see Neeson in Star Wars. 3- Awesome light-saber battle! Love it! 4- Podrace! Gotta love those podraces! Overall, the film is the worst Star Wars, but it is not as bad as you may think. Watch it if you want to!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
The second best of the Original Three, and the stakes are the highest!, 4 July 2005
10/10

Alas, the Original Trilogy ends, but ends with a BANG! Happy endings for every good character, and a ton of action in this third spectacular achievement in STAR WARS. Let's review the "Special" Edition first. Do we really need poorly animated CGI aliens singing "Jedi Rocks"? Is a beak on the Sarlacc really that necessary? And what about the roughest, toughest bounty hunter, Boba Fett, flirting with a B A C K U P S I N G E R? Noticed how I capitalized and spaced backup singer? Well, the four backups, 2 drummers, 2 winds, and 1 green thing playing a wind pipe are TOTALLY Unnecessary EDITIONS TO THE COOL ORIGINAL 3 MAX REBO BAND MEMBERS! Max Rebo on keyboard, Droopy McCool on flute, and Sy Snootles on vocals were good enough to perform an entertaining show for Jabba. Again, I DO NOT recommend the "Special" Edition to anyone.

As for the Original Edition, however, everything looked FINE. The effects in this one were obviously the most mind-blowing of the First 3, and even the weird puppets look fine in Jabba's Palace. And Lucas thinks he can replace that marvelous slime-ball puppet with a new "better" Jabba in Episode 1 and, dare I call it this, Episode 4 "Special" Edition?!?! Again, Lucas makes himself seem quite stupid with CGI junk in his Original movies. The acting is top notch, and the best would definitely be Ian McDiarmind as Emperor Palpatine. Every scene that he graces in this movie is awesome. And I know people will bash me for this but... I don't care about the Ewoks! They do what they're supposed to do fine, and are there for one reason: You don't need Technology to defeat an Empire. I actually like the Ewoks. Again, John Williams creates the perfect score, and this time the soundtrack has my favorite Star Wars track on it: "Luke and Leia". I LOVE that song! Overall, I kind of recommend the DVD's (Return of the Jedi has awful picture quality, could be my TV) but NOT the "Special" Editions. The second best of the Original Trilogy, which, thanks to ebay, I'll be owning soon. Watch the Original Edition only, and for the last time until Episode 3, may the Force truly be with you!

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
For me, the weakest of the Originals, but the most enjoyable..., 4 July 2005
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Face it. Once you see "Star Wars" (or Episode IV, for all you "Special" Edition lovers) at least 54 times, everything sort of drags on. Once you see "Return of the Jedi", it kind of drags along, but, even though it is the longest, it seems to be the shortest. While "Empire" is VERY slow, it is easily the darkest and most enjoyable movie from the Original Trilogy, but for me, the least. As with "Star Wars" I'm gonna start the review with the Special Edition stuff. We don't need to see the "VERY" interesting approach to the Star Destroyer. The extra Wampa scene builds MUCH more tension than the original. And making Luke scream like a baby was Definitely cool. So, like the original "Star Wars" DON'T BUY OR WATCH THE SPECIAL EDITION! Again, I am proud to be the lucky owner of the original 3 movies unwrapped, and in mint condition after my success on ebay. I think it is obvious that The Empire Strikes Back is the darkest, including the fact that it has the stunning (MAJOR spoilers ahead!) "I am your father!" by James Earl Jones. As for the acting in this movie, second strongest, (Return of the Jedi has the strongest,in my opinion). Best actor/actress here- Frank Oz as Yoda. Well, he didn't really act, but oh, well. Againg, the effects in the Original Edition don't stick out like a sore thumb like in the Special Edition. The sets have gone a small, almost unnoticeable change: They don't look used! While many may argue that snow and woods can't look used (and I agree with them), Cloud City certainly can, and I think that there wasn't a scuff mark until the Stormtroopers attacked! Again, the music is GREAT! This time, my second favorite track, "The Imperial March" is introduced, and my fifth favorite, "Yoda's Theme" is introduced. Again, the DVD is fine (Luke doesn't scream), and I recommend it over the "Special" Edition. But, I recommend the Original Edition above all. May the Force be with you as you watch this movie!

Star Wars (1977)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Watch the original edition. Special Edition is not worth it., 4 July 2005
9/10

Ah, Star Wars. One of the greatest motion pictures ever made. Sadly, one of the worst ones ever made as well. Do you know why? Two words: SPECIAL EDITION! I don't care if the cantina has a wolf-man in it! I don't mind the strange orange force-field under the land-speeder! I was born before (well, way before...) the Special Editions were released, and I'm proud of that. Let me just say some bad things about the so called "Special" Edition: 1- All the CGI is totally out of place and looks horrible! 2- The new "Jabba the Hutt" Scene spoils the revelation of the Millennium Falcon, plus, we learn NOTHING MORE than we did with Greedo. 3- Greedo shoots first. And misses! What's up with that?!? On the other hand, the Original Edition ROCKS! These are the films all of us grew up with! I'm proud to say that I won the Original, Unopened 1995 Edition last night on ebay! Yay ebay! And only for 15 stinking' dollars! Back onto the subject of the movie, even though the effects may look even more fake than the Special Edition, they fit like a glove, and don't stand out! As for the acting, the best here is Harrison Ford as Han Solo. Everybody else is great, but he sticks out as an old favorite. If there's one good thing I can say about the sets, it's this: THEY LOOK LIKE PEOPLE WALKED AND LIVED THERE! They're dirty and scuffed, unlike any of the other sci-fi movie sets (not counting Episode 5 and 6). Of course, how could I forget the music? John Williams scores music that fits perfectly into every scene! The only track that should be in the movie is "The Imperial March"! Overall, watch the DVD (the DVD'S OK), but don't watch the horrible "Special" Edition. Watch the movie that, in 1977, took us to a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away...

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Meh. Entertaining, but not great. (Parts 1 and 2 combined.), 3 July 2005
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS!!!! Batman Forever is the end of all that is bright and cheerful in Batman. And by bright and cheerful, I mean dark and dreary. First of all, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SETS? Neon, purple and green gas, and something that looks like a Chinatown replace the dark and moody Gotham of the first two films. Plus, based on the technology seen in the movie, it feels like it takes place in 1995. The first two did not have that feel. They felt like they took place in 1945... or was it 2005? And the acting leaves you thinking your kids could do better. Val Kilmer seems bored as Batman, and Chris O'Donnel is pure annoyance as Robin. Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face is going to take me forever to complain about. First of all, Billy Dee Williams could have and would have been happy to play that role. He even signed a contract about it. But no, Joel Shumacher says "Let's use Tommy because he's more famous." Billy could have done much better in that role. Plus, the switch of actors causes the infamous goofs: 1- How did Harvey Dent go from black to white? 2- How did Harvey Dent go from young to old in under 3 years? The Bat-Suit is, like the one in "Batman" overly muscular, and when you see Kilmer without his shirt on, you can see he's not even close to being that muscular. Plus, Kilmer is blond, and thus, he looks nothing like Bruce Wayne from the comics. The only light at the end of the tunnel is Jim Carrey as the Riddler. He is funny and witty. Love watching him! And the score is over-ridden with music videos plus the horrible new themes composed by Elliot what's-his-name. Plot is stupid and has so many plot holes, too. Thanks a lot Joel, for ruining everything for us! The movie isn't close to the comics either! Watch it if you're bored and want to see camp!


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