Reviews written by registered user
possiblegod

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Underworld (2003)
80 out of 106 people found the following review useful:
Ignore..., 3 November 2005
7/10

Everything you've heard from the critics, everything you know about vampires and werewolves, everything that is standard in most fantasy/action films. Then you'll enjoy this film. I, unlike a lot of fans, will not claim that this is a move masterpiece, I will not claim that this will change movie making history. I, however, will go against the critics and say that this is a good film. Not getting a chance to see this in the cinema, when it came out on video I rented it out immediately. Now, at first, I could see what the critics meant it wasn't how the trailers depicted it and the script and acting in places was a bit rusty. I put it back and gave no more thought to it. However I soon found myself thinking about the film and the bits I'd enjoyed. I soon realised that this was good because it wasn't conventional and I couldn't stop thinking about it. There had been so many plot twists, so much to take in that I knew I had to see it a second time. This time I bought it, on DVD, and I found myself watching it again and again. This film gives you wonderful villains and just when you start to hate them something nastier comes along or they give you a motive which makes you confused. In one film the world which you are presented with at the beginning, Lycans (Werewolves) vrs. Vampires, is thrown into doubt. There are no longer good and evil, it is no longer this side versus this side and our hero Selene is stuck in the middle. The thing is every villain in this film seems to be fully justifiable in their actions yet completely nasty. I was trying, after falling in love with this film, to work out where it went wrong. I realised there was too much. You are thrown into this world and you have to keep up, there is no chance to sit down and work things out. That comes after seeing the film, this world explains itself through the characters actions. It is as if this world is real and we are meant to know about it already. Their is a history, their is a false history, their are legendary characters and not all of it is gone into in particular detail. Pieces of the world's history are just thrown in by the characters, as they would be in real life, with no long detailed explanation. That mixed with the cliff hanger ending, the promise of more characters from the past. MEans that even if you weren't sure about this film, the sequel Underworld: Evolution looks like it will be amazing.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
El Mariachi goes out with a bang, 3 November 2005
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When writing a review of this film you can't avoid Desperado and El Mariachi. The first 2 in the trilogy. El Mariachi was a landmark in cinema history, shot in Mexican for $7000 by a man who sold his body to science to produce it. Rodriquez, the man in question, has certainly come a long way since. He is the man behind Spy Kids and Sin City and in the sequel to El Mariachi he had Antonia Banderas now playing El. While Desperado was a straight follow up from the first in the trilogy, El is taking out the gang responsible for being shot in the hand, this is very different. Once Upon A Time In Mexico is more of a fourth film, a sequel to a 3rd one that doesn't exist (and I for one wish had been made). The excellent Carolina from Desperado and the love of El's life is dead, and we see in flashbacks how. This annoyed me as the flashbacks show a Carolina who had learnt to fight, perhaps even better than El. I wanted to see more of her. OUATIM throws you in the deep end, El has a new enemy a vicious general and he has since learnt to play the guitar again. Yet somehow you eventually get over this. The characters are far more interesting, and thus the plot more complicated. The ever amazing Johnny Depp plays, aside from Jack Sparrow and Ed Scissorhands, his best role yet mentally unbalanced Agent Sands. Who although is a villain, he is a villain you want to triumph. Willem Defoe turns up as well as a gang leader, who I saw as a pointless character. The plot revolves around El being hired to kill Defoe and his general friend after a coup d'etat arranged by Sands who is also the man who has hired El to kill Defoe and the general, while El wants to save the president. This leads to an amazing finale full of explosions and machine gun firing guitars. If you haven't kept up so far, I guarantee you'll still Love it. Especially when El rushes in, with his standard 2 goofy assistants (Who actually live in this one) and the president stands in shock. President: Who are you? El replies: Sons of Mexico sir. Before blasting the enemy. With classic lines, classic characters the only problem is it is very different from the previous 2 in the trilogy. That alone it is an amazing film in it's own right.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
no. 1 it is not, brilliant it is, 26 August 2005
10/10

OH MY GOD!!! I have never watched a film this long before then decided to sit down and watch it again. I've seen plenty this long and although I enjoyed them and watched parts of them again, I have never watched one like this all the way through. Let's take your standard gangster film, either you have the new guy just arrived in town looking for trouble, Joe from 'A fistfull of dollars', or you have the guy looking for revenge, Porter in Payback, or the cop trying to stop them, countless films. THIS IS DIFFERENT!! Sure you might say gangsters have been the guys your rooting for before but no not like this. You start with an established family, and you watch them fall into the ruin and gradually get saved. Brando and Pacino both deserve every award there is for making characters who although are often bad you can still see the old fashioned hero in. Not one bad actor, not one bad character. Not one bad moment. Yet why isn't it no. 1? Well I don't know but it isn't really no. 1 material. Perhaps its the fact you have so much story to take in and so much happens that you aren't sure whats just happened or it could be simple. I could have just expected a no. 1, a film that had me crying, cheering, yelling. I didn't get that but I cant think of one better gangster film, or one other film that deserves to be a classic like this. So perhaps it is a no. 1, for now until a true no. 1 comes along. For those of you who say 'the book was good, not sure if I want to see this', then I'll tell you this. This film is a book. not only is it a book, it's a great book. You cant put it down but when you do you can start anywhere. You can flick back to clarify what has happened, the story is well structured the characters well developed. It's well cut as if it's been edited by a publisher. I don't want to call this no. 1 because when you see it you'll constantly be judging it as a no. 1 film, like I was, and you will feel let down. However if you see it not expecting a no. 1, you will finish it having seen a no. 1.

1 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
What other show has killing Vampires as a daily occurrence?, 23 March 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Where do you begin? This is not a film where you can talk about one plot, this is a T.V series with hundreds of brilliant plots and villains and characters. When it comes to milestones in Television history here you have one, there is nothing else like it on our screens. Yes we have Angel, yes we have Charmed but Buffy was the original and still reigns supreme. In the olden days the monster made out of bubble wrap painted green would have scared children and for a T.V show that was brilliant to be able to create hundreds of those monsters on a T.V budget. Now the blockbuster style effects of Buffy on the small T.V screen of our homes have blown those out of the water and with the British Equivalent of Buffy, Doctor Who, coming back onto screens it is returning to a different world with new challenges. Buffy displays a wonderful mix of emotions and always handles everything brilliantly picking my favourite episode, of the moment, 'The Zeppo' it gives you a plot early on Demons Planning the apocalypse, this is going to be the biggest evil ever and boy are they scared and then you have your high school story line, the side line story, Xander, the goofy sidekick of the series wants to be cool and they want him out of the way so he can be safe. Okay so you think you're about to settle into 40 minutes of them trying to work out how to save the world from evil while Xander feels hurt as a side plot, okay it's been done before but Joss Whedon delivers us something else. Xander is suddenly in a position when his attempts to be "cool" have landed him in with monsters of his own and the big apocalypse is pushed to a sideline, you know they will win it's Buffy she can't lose. The apocalypse is used to help push along Xander's develop meant as the character all on his own and he battles the Zombies and no one knows. He feels different about himself by the end but doesn't tell anyone there is no "well done Xander" instead you end up with the main characters reflecting on the apocalypse they prevented, as you would expect accept this time the apocalypse was not the main plot. You actually get to the point you almost forget about it and although this is a show about monsters and a slayer saving the world while keeping her identity secret, and of course you get the standard Girl power stories that the writers would not be forgiven for leaving out. IT isn't, it is about what all good stories are about: The characters, their developments, their personalities and basically them. Buffy isn't an action hero, she is a witty, confused, originally a, young girl at school who goes on to become the leader of a small army of potential slayers who eventually become slayers and unlike in the films it doesn't come naturally to her. In the first series she finds out she'll die and quits before accepting it going back, getting drowned and saved. She has to die twice and go through seven years being confused before she gets there. She gets a sister introduced in the fifth year who we know hasn't been there all along but she seems to think has and we see her go from only child to big sister who discovers her 14 year old sister has only been around for 6 months and her memories of her are fake. In the same year she has to lose her mum and the beauty of this is her mother didn't die of unnatural cause, e.g killed by a vampire, as everyone else is in the Buffy world but by an illness, brain tumour, the one thing Buffy can't fight and the episode in which that is handled 'The Body' is wonderful at first making you think she saved her mother and then revealing that is just her dream, that she didn't. You'd think your main character would stay the same but she doesn't but she changes in natural ways. Having watched Season three and then season five, mixing them together, it was like watching different characters because they've grown up but they still retain personality traits. Even the villain of season 2, goes from big bad to the guy forced to be good to the guy who is bad but in love with the good guy to the good guy himself, ultimately saving himself. They, the characters, are still them but they are them in a different, a new way. They like everyone else has grown up and like everyone else it has taken them seven wonderful years to do so.

doc in love? A western film? Mad Dog Tannen? Really mixed feelings, 12 February 2005
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

i don't know whether to hate or love this film. I went through a stage of hating it but then i found myself loving it. I don't know what it was but something was wrong and as many times as I have watched this it still seems wrong. For one thing, in back to the future two, they took Tannen and made him into a real villain. Giving Wilson a chance to really put his heart and sole into the character. But that didn't work here, Mad Dog seemed too unstable. It was like having Griff there all the time, although a great villain he didn't fit in with the others for some reason. The whole mcFly family members thing didn't work so well this time, perhaps it was the fact that his great great grandma looked just like his mum despite the fact that they, hopefully, weren't related. I didn't like the irish accents and although i hate western films, they used it so well. They should be congratulated. I also like the touch that, although to Marty the doc has only been gone for a couple of minutes. The doc had been in the wild west for 8 months before he wrote that letter. You then get reminded that he is the past and will have died a long time ago if he stayed in the west. Which was a weird feeling. They used time travel to the best again instead of just throwing it in, as they could have but Doc in love and then with children. For some reason it didn't work and another thing, how did he get that train working and why didn't mad dog kill him after Marty left? Although all these things bug me I still really liked the film but every time i praise it those tiny little things come back and i have second thoughts. If you love back to the future see this, it is the perfect ending. IF you think back to the future is okay, then give this a chance. IF you love westerns, don't see this. You wont get what you expect.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
back to the future lives on, 9 February 2005
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

not originally designed to have a sequel despite having an end that cried out for one, Back to the Future was a good film. Full of heart, well scripted and the actors clearly putting all their heart in there. It appealed to a wide audience but despite having time travel. The Sci-Fi fans were left out, though they could enjoy Chris Loyd's character. I am not a sci-fi fan although i admittedly enjoy star wars but have never liked anything else in this genre. Unless you count the back to the future trilogy. I saw parts of Back to the future 2 before any of the others and as i flicked through I instantly regretted not watching the whole thing. As the first one I saw and one with parts that i remembered seeing, enjoying but not getting as I hadn't seen the original, I am particularly fond of this film out of the three. I try to avoid ruining it for myself by not watching it that much, so it is still a treat when I watch it. Back to the future was a good film but it took several watchings for me to warm up to it and soon I loved it. However it never over took this one, the plot is full of action, adventure, laughs, brilliant characters and new twists. It does not make the mistake many sequels make of being exactly the same thing just repeated but also doesn't make the mistake of falling into the trap of being so completely different fans of the first one will be disappointed. The story is original and we never settle in one period of time. The story really gives, the Biff/Griff character a chance to shine as a real villain not just as the high school bully he was in the first film and we also got to see the first film from a different angle and find out what happened in between scenes and behind the scenes in the background. We finally get to see the future and instead of trying to predict the future they took the mickey out of the future. The entire cast shine and they make the best out of what they have. This time leaving the film intentionally open for Back To The Future 3, and with this ending it is a film you can't wait to see.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
visually stunning, 28 December 2004
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When people go to see films and they say that was good. They usually refer to the acting or the sets or the plot. However a good film is something different. A masterpiece is something different. IT is something that makes you think, that makes you look all over the screen looking at everything, when everything you see stuns you, when you can see the love put into this, when you are drawn into it and when you realise that every aspect of the film got the same amount of care. This was one of those films. Yes Jim Carrey's count Olaf was far more funny than lemony snicket's count Olaf but wasn't this more horrific when he said things like 'I'm going to be the ultimate dad' when you know that he is going to make their lives hell. The sets had so much care, unlike harry potter the special effects were taken as red. They were just used as a camera was used. With films like Harry Potter and Lord of the rings it was all very much 'look what we can do'. There were those wonderful touches the happy little elf in the back of the car and when Count Olaf sat out in the hall way 'have you got a hall pass?' yes funny, but what a lovely little touch. Imagine if you were violet and you heard him say that. Sunny's speech was wonderfully done and Aunt Josephine brilliantly played every actor loving their character and when you saw Timothy Spall, Billy Connolly and Meryl Streep you forgot who they were and saw them as Mr. Poe, Uncle Monty and Aunt Jo. Hats off to Jim carrey. I could have done with little more threatening behaviour but he had the character perfected. A villain who although was so funny was just as terrifying and 'he's behind you' as any other.

9 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
some people find this cool, they are wrong, 24 December 2004
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am not someone who has seen a lot of films, I do not claim to know a lot about films but I do know that I hated this film. I'm not going to just slag this off, because that would be stupid. I'm going to try and to explain why I hate this film. I have not seen many 18's, not until i saw this. and I expected to be shocked, I wasn't. As much as Mr. Taratino, sorry can't spell, tried I just laughed. When Lucy Liu's character cut off that man's head and the blood shot out. everyone in the room laughed, EVERYONE, and why? Because it looked so fake. The dialogue was appalling, the plot was just an excuse to fill the room with fake blood and try and make the elderly die of fear. An example of the awful dialogue was the scene where Uma arranges a fight with the assassin, at the beginning. They agree to meet in a ball park. This is roughly what it was like Uma: Where? Woman: In the park I coach a team there? Uma: Weapon of choice? Woman: Knives Uma: They always said you were the best with knives. Woman: see you there. Suddenly they kill each other, that burst of action grabbed my attention but it was so crap that it didn't keep it. The woman's little girl walks in, if you are meant to feel sorry for her you don't, Uma: I didn't mean for you to find out. If you feel beaten up about it, come and kill me someday. Cue another a film. I just pray that kid does kill her. The dialogue sounded like a fan written script for a t.v series e.g star trek or something. And sounded like a computer game, weapon of choice? If only Uma could act, the only people I know who like this film are either film addicts who like every film or people who think they are cool for liking this film. That is why I think it deserves 1 out of 10. Hell it deserves 1 out of 100.