Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Easy Rider (1969)
Bikes Drugs And Rock'n'Roll
Before anything else, I have to make one thing clear. This is not a bad movie. I could really relate to the characters. but the fact that it's a low budget movie really shows. and at times it shows in a way that bothered me. obviously nobody's fault. In fact, hats off to the creators of this movie, for what they managed to accomplish with limited funding (in fact, I don't know if this is really a low budget movie, I just assumed after seeing it it was. regardless, I gave it a 7 because of it's overall value. I'm not an adept of adapting my rankings to the budget of the movie) Another thing about this movie - the clichés. The cool, laid back dude paired with the restless, motivated dude, the drugs that, eventually, end up screwing things up (drugs are bad, mk? so don't do drugs, mk? cause drugs are bad, mk?), the choppers (themselves a cliché. don't think there's anyone who would ride across America on one of those), the hippie-hating rednecks, etc. perhaps at the time some of these were not yet clichés, I don't know. What really saves the movie, in my opinion, is the acting. Exceptional acting, in my opinion. I've seen quite a few movies about drugs, but I have to say I don't think I ever saw getting high so well portrayed so well. And I'm not talking about one of the guys, either. I'm talking about all of them. Almost makes me wonder if they weren't actually high. Then there's also something you don't see everyday in a low budget movie. A second layer. There's a little resentment there, especially from captain America, under all his cool, there's jack's character who's more than first meets the eye, and more. All in all, a movie I would watch again, but not more than once. A solid 7 in my book.
Carlito's Way (1993)
Yet another '90s mafia flicks
I love Al Pacino. Just wanted to state that upfront. Now, his presence is not necessarily a guarantee for a five star movie, but usually it means that the movie is not total crap. This is the case with this particular title.
The story is decent enough - Pacino's character, Carlito, is an ex-drug dealer, fresh out of prison, trying to go straight, but unable to do so, as one would expect (there's no quitting or retiring in the crime business).
The characters are well enough developed. Carlito, as the main one, in particular. Especially his inadequacy in a world that's new to him (not only the legit world, but also the crime scene, with the new punks, people he knew but he finds to be changed, etc). Sean Penn (who I find annoying at times, but can't deny his talent) plays the support character of David Somethingorother, Carlito's old friend and lawyer. He once again does an extraordinary job. Some of the other characters might seem a little too stereotypical, but most of the '90s crime flicks suffer from this.
Brian de Palma does a good job directing this flick, but I can't help wondering if he didn't spend too much of his career doing movies like Carlito's Way, The Untouchables, Wise Guys, Scarface (which are all great, don't get me wrong, just a little similar) and not enough doing things like Bonfire Of The Vanities or Raising Cain. But that's another story. Let it be said, however, that the movie is totally worth watching, be it that you're a mafia movies lover, or just want to see Sean Penn in a pair of round glasses, a la John Lennon.
The Darwin Awards (2006)
so bloody disappointed
I was so disappointed after seeing this movie. I had great expectations for it. I've been following the Darwin awards for some time now. Call me a sick person, but I find them funny. Anyway, there was a lot of potential for this film, and having checked the cast before hand, I thought I had all the more reasons to check it out. Little did I know that the guys would make such a p_ss poor job at putting together a decent story, that the main actors would look so awkward in their roles, and that the guys I was looking forward to seeing in the movie (i.e. Chris Penn, the "MythBuster" guys, Juliet Lewis) are only doing cameos.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, I gave it a decent 7/10 because it had it's moments, but considering it's potential, I was ... well... disappointed. Can't think of another word.
Oh, and this might tick quite some guys off. But here it is anyway. Metallica have just gone one more step down that road. I'm not against going for the money. To all those saying "they're selling out, man, they are bowing down to the almighty dollar" I'd just like to say "so are you, mate. because you need the money to provide yourself with the best lifestyle you afford". So I'm not against "selling", I'm just against doing it with no style at all.
American Psycho (2000)
underrated, if you ask me
i can't help thinking how little i heard about this movie, while in the same time movies like Friday the 13th or American beauty are praised constantly. i'm not saying American beauty is a bad movie, undeserving of its status, or anything like that. it's just that this one is, in my opinion, right up there with a clockwork orange, maybe not exactly on the same level, but close enough.
what i really liked is the acting. absolutely perfect. not a lot else to say about it. the soundtrack fits the movie perfectly, and the image is also exceptional. the script also deserves a big thumbs up, hitting on issues that very few other movies dare tackle (perhaps a clockwork orange, and fight club, and a very few others). this might sound a bit like i'm trying to sell this movie, and i'm not, i just find it very hard to find serious flaws in it. it has little holes here and there, like most other movies that i saw, but all in all an extraordinary piece of cinematography.
that being said, i gave it a 9 (because of some very minor problems i had with it's suspension of belief) and i highly recommend it.
sorry for whatever English mistakes i might have made, English is not my primary language.
This movie was less than it thought. Definitely not a legend.
I had great expectations for this movie, if only for the cast. I mean, John Malkovich, Jeremy Irons, Robert Carlyle? What could go wrong here? Well, apparently, a lot. The script is very poor, full of clichés, the story is below average... the best cast in the world couldn't save this movie. Not to mention that John Malkovich appears about 4 times or so and has maybe just as many lines to speak, Jeremy Irons' character dies about halfway through the movie and Robert Carlyle barely opens his mouth other than to give growls and laughters. I'm not saying any of their acting was bad or anything, but with so little chances to do anything, with such a poorly written script there wasn't much they could do. I liked the special effects. Nothing sensational, but just enough to make the images believable. The baby dragon looks cute. But some things... I don't know. The dragon vision, which looked like some 1st person shooter night vision ability, that only added to the whole sub-par feeling of the movie. I'll give it a 5, 'cause I didn't consider my day at the theater a total loss, but I definitely wouldn't recommend it.
Illegal Aliens (2007)
ohmygod, that was, like, so ohmygod
This guys are geniuses. I mean, aliens flying as pigs through outer space and landing and becoming babes? That is so incredibly smart and funny. Plus, get this. Ana Nicole Smith is playing... you're never going to guess this... are you ready?... a stupid blond bimbo. Can you imagine? Her playing a stupid blond bimbo? That's genius. Where do they come up with this stuff? They must have, like, talent or something, and genius, yeah, genius, and, like, they must be really, really funny people to make this kind of movies.
Anyway, I did give this movie a 2, not a 1, 'cause at one point I almost laughed, when this guy finds JC.
Bottom line, if you want to see Anna Nicole Smith, find some old number of Playboy or something, and if you want to see a comedy, see Hot Fuzz, 'cause that's really funny. But I, for one, can't imagine any possible reason for recommending this movie to anybody.
Bachelor Party (1984)
not exactly one of tom's best, but still
Far from being one of Tom Hank's best movies (as previously stated by a reviewer), this is still a very entertaining movie. I'm a fan of Tom's work. All of it. I love him, he's a great actor. Big is one of my favorite all time movies, as is Philadelphia. There seems to be nothing this man can't do, acting-wise that is. Back to this movie, while it may not be excellent, it still is very entertaining, and if you haven't seen it and are a fan of Tom (or just like over the top comedies), please go and rent it now. It will give a few good laughs (if it doesn't, blame me for the time you've lost watching it but i don't think that would be the case).
Queen Live at Wembley '86 (1986)
if only i could've been there
of course, at the time this show took place, i was only 6 and living in ceausescu's communist romania, so there was no chance i could've been there. but ever since i can remember listening to music, i always wished for a time machine in order to be able to go back in time to that concert. queen is, in my opinion, the greatest band there ever was. i might not listen to them as much as i used to, but they're still number one in my book, and whenever i put on one of their songs, my heart resonates. that being said, i'm obviously a bit subjective saying this, but it is beyond my power to understand how anyone could rate this anything else than 10. much less a 2. incomprehensible. i would really love to listen to what they have to say. if anyone who rated this less than say 7 reads my review, please let me know why you considered this to be under par. back to the concert, it is amazing. freddie is most probably at his best, although his live career was quickly approaching it's end. what a shame it is that freddie died i needn't say. let's just try to enjoy the extraordinary music they all have created, and be happy we have that.
A Sound of Thunder (2005)
and it had so much potential :))
this is a VERY (i don't usually use capital letters, but i really felt the need to do it now) bad movie. it's very bad in every aspect. starting with the acting, which is mediocre at best, continuing with the CGI, which in turn does more bad than good to the movie and ending with the story, which has more holes in it than any story i've ever. i don't mean to say that it's a week plot with not a lot to say, like those horror movies that have no point to them or something. no no no. this is a story that pays no respect to the cause-effect principle or at least to simple logic. it can't even be ignored. it's annoying. it bothered me more than those disconcerting special effects, and that's not easy. i'm not going to say it's the worst movie i've ever seen, but it's close. i'll give it 2 stars instead of one, because i understand it's been done with relatively limited funds, but i strongly recommend against paying to see this. i saw it at one of my friends', so fortunately i didn't waste any money on this, and had it not been for a few bottles of beer we drank, i don't think i could've last through the whole movie. so be warned ;)
Return to Sender (2004)
Nothing interesting either way
This was a movie that OK. The acting was OK, the story was OK, everything was OK, but not more than that. I wasn't p***** off about the time I spent watching it, but there were a lot of other ways (better ways) I could've spent that time. Bottom line, it's a good movie to see if you've got NOTHING else to do. The other thing to mention about the movie is that it had been done before. Not the exact same movie. But you can't help saying to yourself "haven't i seen this one before". It's just one of those movies that has that feeling about them. That being said, I'll go home and watch cartoons. Yeah, cartoons kick a55.