Reviews written by registered user

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

319 out of 475 people found the following review useful:
Too much testosterone!, 13 August 2010

Tough guys. Always going on suicidal missions. Threatened by bullets and blades. Running from explosions. Best friends waging wars. Nearly killing each other, then going to the bar later to laugh about it. Director and star, Sylvester Stallone, gets all his best men together to kick as much ass as humanly possible, allowing himself a severe beating from Steve Austin. Sly took a serious neck injury. Then he goes in front of a Comic Con audience and jokes about it. A man whose Double-"R" franchises, Rocky and Rambo have both been highly successful. But he keeps coming back for more pain and putting his body on the line for the sake of entertainment. There's nothing tougher than that!

The Expendables is a movie that lifts you up out of your seat, pats you on the head, gives you a lollipop then smashes you in the frickin' face! With a cast like Jason Stathum, Randy Couture, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Terry Crews, Dolph "I Must Break You" Lundgren, and cameos from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, you'd think it would be one crazy mess. Surprisingly, it's more focused then you may think. Just a straight-forward action movie with a reasonable run time that sustains itself and never has a chance to feel dull. It doesn't try to be anything more than what it is.

The only negative: Some of the blood and explosions looked digital. Wish it could have been just a bit more authentic. Sometimes, there was a tad too many closeups during the fight scenes. With so many people fighting at the same time, sometimes I couldn't tell who was punching who. It didn't happen very often, but how cool would it be just for one moment to see three simultaneous fights from a super wide master shot? Never, but I can't blame them. At least let the cameras pull back and allow the choreography to do the work.

It feels nice to get my ass kicked by something I haven't seen yet. It's not Rambo. It's not Rocky. Nor is it another Die Hard or Terminator sequel. It's something fresh, yet feels like it came out of the 80's. It has the perfect blend of humor, blood, sweat, smart-ass comebacks, witty one-liners, and an overabundance of testosterone! Don't expect anything more than action, exposition, action, exposition, all with a nice cherry on top… with sprinkles… and grenades. And some real tough guys. We all wish we could be tough guys. But no, let's just watch'em instead.

48 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
Just push the button marked BOOZE!, 30 January 2009

What can I say? It's an epic adventure and comedy rolled into one! It's been my #1 all-time favorite film since childhood, which says a lot. I was surprised to find out how underrated it is. Critics always talk about how it stars so many famous comedians. The novelty overshadows the movie itself. Like I said, I saw this at a very young age, and didn't know who all these actors were. This is the movie that introduced me to them.

It also gets downplayed, being labeled as "slapstick." But that's cutting it short. There's a lot of subtleness in there too. The performances are outstanding. I've never seen a movie that has so many memorable characters all in one.

Each of them go on their own adventure, inter-cutting along the way, as they each have to overcome their own obstacles and meet other characters on their journey. It's like several movies all intertwined together, and most of it happens in real time. The 2 1/2 hour run time feels appropriate and passes like nothing. Every second is entertaining, which is the greatest accomplishment for a motion picture to achieve.

The film resonates with me on a deeper level. All these characters met on the side of the road. They were just ordinary hard working people who had nothing in common, except for one dream. That unreachable fantasy. They all wanted the money so bad. They weren't happy with their lives. They wanted a change, and they would do anything to beat each other. They're overcome by greed which becomes their overlying problem.

Fantastic movie! Full of hilarious moments, and a great story!

13 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Pre-Joe Bob, 17 August 2006

Nobody here seems to remember MonsterVision before Joe Bob Briggs. While he is, by far, the most memorable host they ever had, there lots of great ones before like Penn and Teller.

One time they hosted "Night of the Lepus" a crappy flick about giant killer rabbits. Before the commercial break, Penn and Teller demonstrated how the special effects were done. He let a group of rabbits loose in a miniature town set and screamed like crazy "everybody run! killer Rabbits!!!" It was absolutely hysterical.

During that time, they played classic monster movies, some really great ones like The Blob and The Thing, but also lots of really bad ones like The Cyclops and The Giant Claw. One time they played Godzilla marathons all night, the last Saturday of every month.

It wasn't until Job Bob took over the show, when they started playing slasher flicks like Friday the 13th. His drive in totals are now infamous.

Great memories. Wish TNT would bring it back.

293 out of 297 people found the following review useful:
Overlooked and Hilarious!, 20 October 2005

Coming from a fan of "Mystery Science Theater" and B-movies like "Plan 9 From Outer Space", I have to say "King Kung Fu" is one to see if you're in the right mood.

If you think the idea of a guy running around in a cheap gorilla costume beating people up sounds funny, then you're on the right track.

It certainly has its moments that made me laugh my ass off.

Why include a John Wayne impersonator, I have no idea, but it's hilarious! He's my favorite character and his impression is spot on, yet hysterically bad at the same time.

It's not a high class movie by any means. It's slapstick humor. I've seen it criticzed for its cheap gorilla suit and bad acting. It seems some reviews actually take it seriously and don't realize it's a comedy.

But the jokes range from clever like "I'm the karater and he's the karate" to just plain dumb "I gotta make like a banana and split." But when the jokes are bad, they're funny BECAUSE they're so bad. And that's what to expect from a movie like this.

If you like cheesy, out of control, "So bad it's good" movies, then give it a watch and you're sure to have a few good laughs.

Also See: John Landis' "SCHLOCK". Also, with a monkey running around.

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Horrible! Best left in graveyard., 18 August 2005

This movie has a lot of potential. The lighting is eerie, the sets are great, there's crumbling castles, dark cemeteries, shadowy forests, all the elements of an atmospheric horror gem which reminds me of a Hammer Film. Unfortunately, the attacking scenes are awkwardly acted and edited and there is no coherrent story that makes much sense or holds your interest. While it retains a melancholy mood and is worth a look for any big horror fan, the overall experience is tiring without any clear idea of what's happening or when it's going to end.

The DVD is usually overpriced from $16 to $20, however it's still worth it for some rare bonus trailers.

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
This movie must be destroyed!, 15 March 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This has a lot of potential at being a clever and original horror film, but there are certain problems I find with it that frustrate me. First of all, the beginning, which makes no sense at all. Who is the guy who wanders into Frankenstein's lab? Why does he kill the man outside in the alley and after committing an act like that, why is he afraid of a decapitated head? Most of all, why is Dr. Frankenstein wearing a MASK!!?

The overall problem I find with the plot is that it doesn't give Frankenstein anything new to do while most of the previous films in the series have him advancing in his experiments. In the original Curse of Frankenstein, he brings a person to life for the first time. In revenge of Frankenstein, he does it again, but perfects it (almost), makes another being identical to himself and has his brain transplanted into it, making a new identity for himself. Jump to the 4th in the series, Frankenstein Created Woman, he actually figures out how to transfer the SOUL of a dead man into another body. Now in Frankenstein Must be Destroyed, all he's trying to do is a brain transplant. Hasn't he already done that before? And if he's been messing with human souls, than wouldn't brain transplanting be kindergarten level for him?

Another thing about the plot that bothers me is why Frankenstein needs the help of the doctor who's gone insane. I just fail to understand it. Isn't Frankenstein a genius enough himself. What does he need this guy for?

Finally, the worst thing about the film that drives me nuts is when the (monster) is stabbed by Veronica Carlson in the stomach and acts like he's dying, but then, in the next scene, he's fine. WHAT?!! They don't ever follow up on it again, and never do we see him in any pain or bleeding at all.

The only thing this movie has going for it is the presence of Peter Cushing and his excellent portrayal of Dr. Frankenstein obsessed with his experiments so much that he kills anybody who stands in his way. I think they have his anti-hero character perfectly developed this time around. He's evolved a lot since the original Curse of Frankenstein, but even then, he killed an old man for his brain, but now he's grown so cold and ruthless, that he'll kill or manipulate anybody. He's sophisticated, intelligent, but evil as hell. While he's a great character, he can't save the movie from the carelessness of the plot.

It seems most people hail this as the best of the Frankenstein series, and even more astonishing, some say it's the greatest of the Hammer films, but I don't see why.

If there's something I don't understand or I just need to see it again, let me know.

Gremlins (1984)
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
One of the best Horror/Comedies of all time!, 23 February 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It follows a somewhat conventional monster movie plot. An ordinary guy witnesses his unusual but cute cuddly pet spawn a horde of evil Gremlins. He tries to warn the authorities, but they don't believe him until the creatures show up and go on a rampage throughout the town. Like in many monster movies, a plan is devised to destroy them, which works, but then there's still one left which needs to be defeated.

Every monster movie convention in the book is used, including all the famous shocks such as something jumping out in the foreground and something jumping out in the background, but what makes this film original is the Gremlins' silly personalities. They don't eat people or kill them in order to survive in any way. They just want to have fun and cause chaos! Their personalities are almost human and seem to represent a side of us that has no morals and just wants to let loose in a world without regulations. At times, you are cheering for the monsters, which makes this movie so unique.

Two major highlights are the bar scene and the movie theater scene where all the gremlins gather together and have a great time!

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
A Horror movie in disguise as a children's movie!, 23 February 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A lot of people put this film in the back of their minds and label it as a kid's movie. First of all, it's very entertaining for all ages and it has some parts which are really scary for kids like when Wonka takes his guests through a tunnel full of nightmarish images such as a chicken getting its head cut off which was actually edited out for television.

Wonka is fascinating, funny and often terrifying. The look in his eyes is demented and when he screams, all hell seems to spew forth. Wonka doesn't care about what happens to the kids that get knocked off. He didn't give any warning to that boy not to drink out of the chocolate lake, but starts yelling and running at him once he starts slurping it. In all the excitement, the boy is pushed into the lake and gets sucked up a tube while the mother cries "he'll be grounded into marshmallow." Wonka's response is "That pipe doesn't lead to the marshmallow room. It leads to the fudge room."

After the girl turns into a blueberry, he casually says "we'll have to squeeze the juice out of her before she explodes." Meanwhile the father is standing right beside him looking on horrified.

When one of the brats does something they're not supposed to do, Wonka gives less of a warning, each time. The last time is nothing more than a softly spoken "No, wait. Come back." After the kids meet their fate, we never see them again, which is the equivalent of what? Death. At the end, Wonka says they'll all be returned back to their "normal rotten selves", but I don't trust that smirk. Besides, how are we to believe him if we don't see the kids ever again? He's a child killer who uses candy as bait. Sure the kids deserved it, but the idea is still twisted.

Take a slasher movie like Halloween for example, where all the main characters are killed, except for one who is innocent compared with the rest. Here, it's kids instead of young adults and they all get disposed in some way or another until only Charlie is left to confront the demon Willy Wonka. What I'm saying is that Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a horror movie in disguise as a children's movie. Ingenious!