Reviews written by registered user

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

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Amazing!!!, 5 September 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Warning!! This review, may have spoilers!!!!

This is an overall dark and morbid yet ingeniously written show. CSI is more than just a murder mystery; unlike the usual cop show, the evidence and the technology they use to track down the killer are the major focus in this series. Forensics enters a whole new dimension of fascination and discovery in this show; though personally, I thought the science and the cases were particularly intriguing in the earlier seasons; for one thing, you were always learning something new. The overall episodes are overwhelming, in a good way, especially the earlier ones; there is so much to take in and the endings are not always predictable.

It is an extremely complex series, but its complexity does not only dwell in the science and story lines per episode(s). For the past nine years-sometimes it was obvious, other times it was so subtle that you had to watch an episode more than once, or just pay careful attention to see it- most of the former main characters (CSIs Gil Grissom, Sara Sidle, Warrick Brown, Greg Sanders, Nick Stokes, Catherine Willows and Homicide Detective Jim Brass in particular) each had their own depth, personality, perspective of the job they do, and each developed/matured in their own way over the seasons. Despite that Grissom and Catherine were/currently are the leaders of the main CSI team, also referred to as the Graveyard or Night Shift (Grissom for nine seasons before he left the show in the episode "One to Go"),-in most ways-there was no lead character.

Although the overall focus on characters was never as grand--in other words, the characters' personal lives, any growth/background that the writers would give them; even the relationships between the people on the show, whether romantic, platonic, or just plain friendly, were either hinted, shown briefly in various scenes, or rarely revealed at all. Although there were a few exceptions in the show, such as the friendship between CSIs Nick Stokes and Warrick Brown, or the relationship between Catherine Willows and Gil Grissom; perhaps the two most prominent were the Grissom's romantic involvement with Sara Sidle, and Catherine's chemistry with Warrick, which had romantic potential- -as some other drama shows I've watched, and even now-in some ways- it still isn't ,you will see it nonetheless, especially if you become attached to CSI. However, having the cases become primary and the characters secondary decreased any chance of melodrama; that, and it kept the show true to its general theme for the past eight and half years, finding the murderer through the evidence.

As of now, the show has gone in a different direction. It seems as though there is slightly more action, the emphasis on science has decreased, and the team is no longer portrayed as an ensemble, where all the main characters have their own stories and decent amount of screen time. Additionally, the latest season has mainly focused on their newest character, CSI Raymond Langston, thus pushing some other major characters into the background such as Greg Sanders the former lab tech who turned CSI almost six years ago. However, CSI has not ended yet and according to news updates, it intends to run for much longer, so there is no knowing what the creators have in mind for the show's future. Whether its current direction will remain, alter or change drastically, fans and viewers in general have yet to find out.

Excellent! quite a masterpiece!, 7 August 2006

I have read all seven books of the chronicles of Narnia and they are are one of my favorites. I am always picky when it comes to movies being made into books though, yet when I saw the Chronicles of Narnia the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, I really liked it. Yes, they did change some parts in the movie, some scenes from the book that they put in the movie were changed around a bit, but they only cut out parts from the book that were only really minor and not that necessary. Otherwise the whole story and the characters (their personalities and how they looked) were very true to the book. I especially thought the actors who played the four children and the actress who played the white witch did a really good job, the way they acted was pretty close to how I imagined them in the book. The visual effects and the whole set design of the movie was absolutely gorgeous and well done, WETA digital once again did job, though I still think their best was with Lord of the Rings (in my opinion). The costumes were alright; they weren't the best medieval clothes I've seen, though I liked the royal clothing the four children wore. Anyway, I think those who are fans of the Chronicles of Narnia or who have read the books and like the stories will like this movie as well. I wonder if they'll make movies out of the rest of the series.

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Wow!!!!, 15 August 2005

I read the books first and I loved them (even though it took me so long to finish them)! When I heard that they were making movies on the books, at first I didn't want to go see it because I always believed that The Lord of the Rings, because of the style it's written in, and because the story was very complex, could not be made into a movie. But when I saw the trailer for The Fellowship of the Ring, I reconsidered going into the theater with my friend to see it.

My god was I impressed or what by this movie!!! Even though the movie makers left some parts out and changed a few things, they really captured the heart of the story and the whole plot was true to the book, the characters were well done and portrayed the same way they were in the book and I liked it that they put in some characters from the Appendices, like Arwen (which are in the back of the third book). They also chose really good actors for this movie, they did a good job, being true to the characters and all.

The visual effects were just wonderful, the creatures in the movie hardly looked like fake electronic beings, they looked almost realistic. The set design was almost how exactly how it was described from the book but it also brought out more of the story and the characters of creatures that lived in the pieces, like the Shire or Lothlorien, and it's hard to believe that it's all built on actual pieces of land, instead of man made backgrounds and only some digital equipment (or so I found out from the special features of the movie). And the costumes were just gorgeous and well done; my favorites were the elven costumes!

Overall it's better than how they make other movies off books! I absolutely loved it!

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One of the best animated films I've ever seen!!!, 15 August 2005

when I first saw this movie (first English then in Japanese), my aunt who loves the environment recommended it and I was just blown away! Although kids (maybe not children under seven) can watch this movie. it is definitely a break from the traditional childish films that animation brings, especially anime! Princess Mononoke is more than just environmentally aware, this movie happens to have a lot of themes to it besides man and nature's relationship. It's a story about love, loss, and most of all, being alive! This also not a movie where there is good vs. evil (even though the humans and the forest gods are fighting against each other) all the characters are complicated, everybody, even the animals are human, which makes this movie more realistic.

I especially like Ashitaka, because he not like the usual hero in an animated film. He is wise and sensitive and because he cares for both humans and the forest,( he especially has feelings for San the wolf girl, who is the main heroine and another likable character), he will do anything to stop the bitter battle between the two.

Overall this is great a movie and I highly recommend it!

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Pure comic genius!!!, 9 August 2005

The first time I saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail was in fifth grade, the last day my class was learning about the middle ages, and this was before I ever knew what Monty Python really was. This is a classic comedy! Probably one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen! It's definitely one of my favorites, the humor is rather crazy (Then again, Monty Python humor is very silly), but it's ingenious and I loved it! The six actors were really good, (not to mention they played most of the roles in this movie), and the entire story was simply a satire of King Arthur's Quest and the middle ages in general. I liked the killer rabbit, the "obviously" fake visual effects (throwing a stuffed rabbit at an actors head, blood looking like orange juice etc.) and their idea of pretending to ride horses and the use of coconuts. If you like British humor, then you will probably like this movie!