8 Reviews
Sort by:
Enjoyable , funny and gory but not scary
28 May 2005
People expecting to be scared will be disappointed after seeing Seed Of Chucky. Although it is gory the film depends on comedy to entertain the audience. The film is funny but at times it feels inappropriate to laugh at some of these jokes. This is because the killing scenes are made to be funny. This may seem strange and obviously may offend some viewers. This is because the Chucky films are an acquired taste. Those who watch it may be either disgusted or entertained. If you have a strong stomach you should avoid it. However if you don't try not too take it too seriously. There is a noticeable difference between this and the superior original back in 1988. If you enjoyed that film you are almost certain to enjoy the latest installment in this popular horror franchise.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent but overrated
27 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Johnny Depp has always been a good actor. He finally got the recognition he deserved when he was nominated for an Oscar 2 years in a row. He deserved his nomination however the film didn't. Although all of the performances are excellent the film becomes boring after a while. I would have more respect for the film if it wasn't heaped with praise. I would advise people to see it but like a lot of films it wont suit all tastes. The film does have some strong points however. The imagery is beautiful and the final moments are suitably sad. Fans of Depp and Winslet should see the film on the strength of their performances alone.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Avoid at all costs!
27 May 2005
I have to say this is the worst film I have ever seen. Having seen the remake (which I thoroughly enjoyed) I expected the original to be at least watchable. I was wrong. For a start It wasn't scary. The filmmakers attempts at trying to scare the audience fail every time. Worst still the acting is terrible and the two main characters (James Brolin & Margot Kidder) fail to portray the feelings of the Lutz family during their 28 day stay in the house. The best thing you can do is to avoid this so-called "classic" of the genre as the remake is far better. The only positive point I can think of is the unintentionally hilarious priest (Rod Steiger) whose story is a pivotal part of the second half of the film.
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Funny but not as good as South Park
26 May 2005
It is obvious that many South Park fans will watch this film expecting to be greeted with the same crude humour. They wont be disappointed. However while Bigger , Longer and Uncut featured an almost non-stop barrage of jokes, Team America makes attempts to handle serious issues. This is where Team America fails. The film is at its best when it tries to be funny. The songs are also hilarious and well written, my favourites being Pearl Harbor Sucks and I'm Lonely. Due to a lack of jokes towards the middle of the film it becomes slightly boring. However don't give up watching it as you will be treated to some of the best jokes of the entire film. Don't compare it to the superior South Park film . If you don't you will enjoy what Team America has to offer. What it does well , it does very well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Passable Kids Fare
22 April 2005
What can I say about a film based on a Disneyland theme park ride?. Well not a lot actually. Eddie Murphy stars as an estate agent who along with his wife(who also happens to be in the profession) goes to a mansion to talk to the owner. They think it is to discuss a sale however the owner and his butler(Terence Stamp) have other more sinister reasons for their visit.

This film is OK for kids , but for anyone else it is sometimes boring and not at all scary, although some scenes may scare very young viewers.Eddie Murphy is good but he has given the same performance before in better films such as Dr Dolittle and Daddy Day Care. By no means is this film bad , it is just that there are better films out there that could be classed as family viewing.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Well deserving of its Oscars
22 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
In a word this film is brilliant. The excellent script , the masterful direction and the strong performances catapult it into the higher echelon of Oscar winning films. The story centres around Frankie Dunn (played by Clint Eastwood , who was deservedly placed on the shortlist for Best Actor) a boxing trainer who has just lost his latest prospect to a rival promoter. Just before he is about to throw in the towel (or so to speak), he encounters Maggie Fitzgerald (an ambitious female boxer who asks Frankie to help train her). At first Frankie is not so sure ,he doesn't want to venture into the world of female boxing at his age. However Maggies drive forces him to take take notice . Soon afterwards he takes her under his wing and trains her for the big time.After a rocky start they become good friends , she even takes him to Missouri to show her mother the new house she had bought for her from the money she won in various fights and tournaments. However her ungrateful mother throws it back in her face leaving Maggie to seek comfort in Frankie. As time goes on she takes part in more and more fights and even adopts the Gaelic term Mo Chuisle (which consequently means My Darling). Very soon she becomes famous among the Irish supporters who fly the green , white and gold at every match.

The films strong point is in the fact that the film is not primarily based on the popular sport of boxing. Many themes run parallel to this central event .It is because of these themes that the film is so good). As I said before the acting is top-notch . Hilary Swank won an Oscar for her excellent performance (her second prize for such a short career).Morgan Freeman also won an Oscar for his supporting role?narrator of the film . Although this is not his best performance it is a worthy accolade for a man who has previously been denied the big prize. If Jamie Foxx had not been in the running , Clint Eastwood would have a good shot at winning Best Actor but his awards for best director and best film more than make up for this. The film was also denied the best adapted screenplay award(which went to Sideways, which I have not seen so I cannot comment on whether it deserved it or not although director Alexander Payne has made such films as Election and About Schmidt).

Although this is one of my favourite films it will not suit all tastes. People who dislike boxing because of its violent nature should steer well clear as the boxing in this film is of a graphic nature(which earned it its 16 rating in Ireland).

Overall this is an excellent film so catch it if you can.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Home Alone 4 (2002 TV Movie)
22 April 2005
The first 2 Home Alone films were very successful in the early 90s. At this point Macaulay Culkin was one of the most sought after child actors in the business.However his success was short-lived and is now only known for his part in the Michael Jackson trial. The makers must have thought that Home Alone 3 was going to be as big a success. However the makers didn't realise that a new child star and a different formula was not what the viewing public craved .However regardless of this the third installment was a moderate success and actually was't that bad. Then in 2002 some bright spark decided to unleash another sequel onto the unsuspecting public. To make matters worse they decided to use the same character names and as a result Kevin McCallister looks even younger than he was in part 1.Combine this with the fact that he was't even "home alone" once during the whole film and you will see why the film is so bad .Worse still the acting is terrible and the ending so predictable you can guess what is going to happen from the opening scene. Avoid this at all costs as the first 3 (which were by no means flawless) are classics in comparison.
52 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Frailty (2001)
An excellent horror/thriller
11 March 2005
Bill Paxton stars in and directs this highly original film. Having watched the first time I was by how good it was. The reviews I had heard were OK . As a result I was expecting an average thriller at most .However because of Paxtons excellent directing and acting the film is well worth watching , especially if you are a horror film fanatic.The film is also helped by the plot twists which keep coming until the closing credits . The films strongest point is the storyline which I have to say is highly original and is like I have ever seen before. Well done also to the 2 young leads which perfectly convey the emotions if these confused boys. I give this film 9/10 and I highly recommend that everyone catches it.
80 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this