Reviews written by registered user
manonfire_jer209

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

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Best film of 2005 so far!, 15 June 2005
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have fond memories of Tim Burton's first Batman picture. I saw it when I was 9 and loved it to death but like many movies I loved during my childhood it just simply hasn't aged well. It's shallow, cheesy, and with the exception of a completely over the top performance by way of Jack Nicholsan has little to remember in the acting department. After the initial picture the franchise plummeted into movie hell with three sequels that are some of the worst movies ever created. This franchise was in desperate need of a reboots.

Well here it is ladies and gents. Batman begins is quite simply one of the best comic book movies ever made. Why is that you may ask; well it's because while respecting it's roots it realizes that films aren't comics and grounds the story pretty firmly in what could be reality. Finally you can believe that most of this stuff is actually happening. Christian Bale is hands down the best Batman/Bruce ever put to screen and thanks to the screenwriters he is given lots to work with. Finally Batman's motivations for becoming the bat are fleshed out beyond the sorry Joker killed my parents excuse. He is a fully realized character and Christian bale delivers one of his best performances yet.

Michael Cain is also excellent as the loyal butler Alfred. Cain delivers a warmth and sincerity that the obvious Alfred lacked. Again he is serviced by some great writing and he runs with it. Cillian Murphy as Scarecrow was a genuine surprise. The only thing I've seen him in was 28 Days Later and I wasn't prepared for how good he'd be. Liam Neeson has never given a bad performance and he doesn't fail us now. His character is simply one of the best villains I've seen in a comic movie. The other cast are equally excellent though they don't have much screen time. Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are quite good as the Q-Like Scientist and innocent police officer respectively. Kattie Holmes didn't annoy me nearly as much as I thought she would, in fact she was actually pretty good and I believed in her feelings for Bruce.

The one weakness this movie has is the quick cut actions scenes. Some of them are fine but most of them are cut so quick in such dark scenes that it make it really hard to tell what's happening. This is really a small complaint for me because I prefer a great story over action scenes any day and boy did this movie deliver. I will draw this review to a close by saying that this is the best movie so far in 2005 and it will most likely be at the top of my top 10 end of the year list.

10outof10

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
"The Two Towers" proved the Peter Jackson was a man of sheer brilliance., 27 March 2005
10/10

I was one of the people who waited to reserve judgment on these movies until I had seen them all. I was inclined to rave about them as each one came out but with major disappointments like the the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels, I realized that you couldn't just take one installments quality for granted. Well suffice it to say that now that I have seen all three the sit on the number two spot on my top ten only beat by "The Shawshank Redemption".

Peter Jackson deserves a thunderclap of applause for pulling these movies off so effortlessly. It's hard to imagine a time when I was actually skeptical on whether or not these films would be good. It seemed like a project doomed to failure from the start, especially when you look at Jackson's past resume. Making your name in cheap splatter films doesn't exact sell a person on you ability to handle one of the most epic undertakings in Hollywood history. I was utterly shocked when against all odds he pulled it off.

Of course you can't give Pete all the praise. He was added immensely by a extremely talented cast. They all delivered memorable performances and made the most out of a story that doesn't really have much for character development. When I walked away from these movies I felt like I knew all of these characters well and was extremely sad to see their story end. That is this trilogy's greatest accomplishment. It rejuvenated my faith that Hollywood could pull off a great movie such as this and no matter how crappy everything else was throughout the year we always had the new Rings film to look forward to.

I'm sad I can't feel that way anymore. 2005 has many films coming out with great potential but I have a hard time getting my hopes up as I have been let down so many times before. "Rings" eliminate those fears as I always had that one ray of sunshine waiting for me at the end of each year. These movies made me feel like a kid again as I gazed in awe at the cinema screen like I hadn't done since I first saw dinosaurs walk the Earth in "Jurrasic Park".

I will cherish these movies for years to come and I look forward to being able to introduce my children to them when they get old enough. I only hope they can appreciate them as I do. Cheers!

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
"The Fellowship of the Ring" is a most excellent start to a landmark trilogy!, 27 March 2005
10/10

I was one of the people who waited to reserve judgment on these movies until I had seen them all. I was inclined to rave about them as each one came out but with major disappointments like the the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels, I realized that you couldn't just take one installments quality for granted. Well suffice it to say that now that I have seen all three the sit on the number two spot on my top ten only beat by "The Shawshank Redemption".

Peter Jackson deserves a thunderclap of applause for pulling these movies off so effortlessly. It's hard to imagine a time when I was actually skeptical on whether or not these films would be good. It seemed like a project doomed to failure from the start, especially when you look at Jackson's past resume. Making your name in cheap splatter films doesn't exact sell a person on you ability to handle one of the most epic undertakings in Hollywood history. I was utterly shocked when against all odds he pulled it off.

Of course you can't give Pete all the praise. He was added immensely by a extremely talented cast. They all delivered memorable performances and made the most out of a story that doesn't really have much for character development. When I walked away from these movies I felt like I knew all of these characters well and was extremely sad to see their story end. That is this trilogy's greatest accomplishment. It rejuvenated my faith that Hollywood could pull off a great movie such as this and no matter how crappy everything else was throughout the year we always had the new Rings film to look forward to.

I'm sad I can't feel that way anymore. 2005 has many films coming out with great potential but I have a hard time getting my hopes up as I have been let down so many times before. "Rings" eliminate those fears as I always had that one ray of sunshine waiting for me at the end of each year. These movies made me feel like a kid again as I gazed in awe at the cinema screen like I hadn't done since I first saw dinosaurs walk the Earth in "Jurrasic Park".

I will cherish these movies for years to come and I look forward to being able to introduce my children to them when they get old enough. I only hope they can appreciate them as I do. Cheers!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
"Return of the King" is a bittersweet conclusion to the greatest trilogy ever put to film., 27 March 2005
10/10

I was one of the people who waited to reserve judgment on these movies until I had seen them all. I was inclined to rave about them as each one came out but with major disappointments like the the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels, I realized that you couldn't just take one installments quality for granted. Well suffice it to say that now that I have seen all three the sit on the number two spot on my top ten only beat by "The Shawshank Redemption".

Peter Jackson deserves a thunderclap of applause for pulling these movies off so effortlessly. It's hard to imagine a time when I was actually skeptical on whether or not these films would be good. It seemed like a project doomed to failure from the start, especially when you look at Jackson's past resume. Making your name in cheap splatter films doesn't exact sell a person on you ability to handle one of the most epic undertakings in Hollywood history. I was utterly shocked when against all odds he pulled it off.

Of course you can't give Pete all the praise. He was added immensely by a extremely talented cast. They all delivered memorable performances and made the most out of a story that doesn't really have much for character development. When I walked away from these movies I felt like I knew all of these characters well and was extremely sad to see their story end. That is this trilogy's greatest accomplishment. It rejuvenated my faith that Hollywood could pull off a great movie such as this and no matter how crappy everything else was throughout the year we always had the new Rings film to look forward to.

I'm sad I can't feel that way anymore. 2005 has many films coming out with great potential but I have a hard time getting my hopes up as I have been let down so many times before. "Rings" eliminate those fears as I always had that one ray of sunshine waiting for me at the end of each year. These movies made me feel like a kid again as I gazed in awe at the cinema screen like I hadn't done since I first saw dinosaurs walk the Earth in "Jurrasic Park".

I will cherish these movies for years to come and I look forward to being able to introduce my children to them when they get old enough. I only hope they can appreciate them as I do. Cheers!

149 out of 215 people found the following review useful:
"Deep Impact" is extremely under rated!, 26 March 2005
8/10

5.9!? I can't believe that. I know disaster movies are usually crap such as The Day After Tomorrow, Armageddon, Godzilla, Independence Day, etc. This however was not crap. It boasted a fine cast that did great work the standout being Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall. The rest of the cast though also did quite well. The story was handled in a fairly realistic manner and didn't require me to roll my eyes at the many plot contrivances the way the others I listed did. The only major flaw for me was the casting of tea Leoni. The usually dependable actress was extremely bland in this film. She has done much better work in her career. Despite that flaw this is another fine movie that for some reason is really under rated.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
"The Shawshank Redemption" is at the top of my top 10., 26 March 2005
10/10

Whis is quite simply one of the finest motion pictures ever made. The most surprising thing is that it comes from one of the most unlikely of sources, Stephen King. I have never been a fan of his horror work and doubt I ever will be but his serious side has proved to be quite excellent. Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins were robbed by the Academy when this movie came out. They both deserved to win awards for these performances. Morgan Freeman that comes as no shock as he can elevate most anything from trash to gold so when you give him a good role it becomes practically transcendent.

Tim Robins was more of a surprise to me. I have seen him in a few movies but he never really left much of an impression on me. In this film though he provided one of the 90's best performances. The rest of the cast also filled out quite well. James Whitemore was heartbreaking in his role as the elderly librarian. This movie deserves its spot on at #2 on the IMDb top list and I would actually argue that it should bump The Godfather out as I think that movie is highly over-rated but then that's just me.

If you haven't seen this movie than I suggest that you go out and rent it now. Better yet just buy it as I doubt you will be disappointed. Cheers!

Robots (2005)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
"Robots" is a under rated gem!, 26 March 2005
8/10

What can I say? I really enjoyed this movie. The story is simplistic but contains the kind of messages that kids should here. The standard adult humor that has worked its way into these movies since "Shrek" set a new standard in irreverence is also here but much more subtle this time. (This is good as I don't feel guilty about laughing when surrounded by fifty little tykes.) We live in such a cynical age when a good hearted sweet movie likes this gets bashed so heavily by the critics. Damn people, lighten up.

The animation is awesome. It is one of the most inventive worlds ever created since the new wave computer animation was started back with "Toy Story". Granted the animation isn't quite up to Pixar's very high standards but its close and what it lacks in polish it makes up for in imagination. This world is a wonder to look at. My suggestion to all is whether you have little ones or not, get out there and see this entertaining movie while you still can. The big screen was made for movies like this.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
"Enterprise" had its ups and downs but in the end lived up to the name "Star Trek"., 26 March 2005

Enterprise has been a good show but it had three things working against it from the start.

1.) UPN. The show just doesn't fit with the other trash they play on that network and as a result got little to nothing in the way of advertisement. What commercials they did show looked like they were put together by monkeys and probably scared more people away then they drew in.

2.) Exec Rick Berman. I will be the first person to say that back when he started Rick did a good job running the franchise. Most of TNG was under his run and it was when he took over that the show really took off. At that point though he was just the producer. When Voyager started he began to take on a bigger role on the creative side of things and that is when he began to falter and take the show down with him. Enterprise has had many great episodes but barely any of them had Rick's name attached to them.

3.) One of the most annoying self-righteous fan bases a show could ever have. I have been a Trekkie for a very long time now but have only recently really started paying attention to what the other fans were saying about the show. I wish I has never looked as I discovered that most of them are the most vicious, ungrateful, egotistical (Thinking they could do it better), morons I have ever seen. There is no satisfying the majority of them.

The show it self started strong with one of the best premiers of any "Star Trek" show. It went on to have a fairly strong first season. It was definitely better than TNG or Voy's first season. Then in season 2 it went into a bit of a slump with a strong first 4 episodes followed by a very mediocre stretch lasting until about 2/3rds of the way through when the quality kicked back up again. Then in season three the show really took off with a very strong "Earth-In-Peril Arc" that was some of the best Trek since the end of DS9. Seaon 4 though it really what makes it ashame that the show has been cancelled though.

Thew new producer/writer Manny Coto has proved that he really knows what Trek is about and has delivered one of Star Trek's strongest seasons ever. The min-arc format works great for the show and has provided the opportunity for some of the best stories Trek has ever seen. I'm sad that the show has been cancelled right when it was on route to becoming a great series in the vein of DS9 but at least I have another four seasons of Trek to go back to over the years.

This isn't the end of trek. It will be back in some form and I will be there from the start. I just hope that it can be as good as "Enterprise" is now. Watch this great series. Check it out on DVD and realize why Paramount is a company run by monkeys. They are idiot for canceling this show.