Reviews written by registered user

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

Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
54 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Show has promise after season 1 but has flaws, 19 April 2015

First the bad:

I am not sure why, but I feel the acting is poor in this series. Which is incredible to say because good actors are in the show. Vincent D'norfio who is an excellent actor falls flat in this series. His take on Fisk has a forced Shakespearian quality as he delivers his lines with not much realism. I also blame the writing and character development. Again with Fisk; it's like I am watching two different characters. Many episodes depict Fisk as a caring nice guy who only wants his city to thrive. Yet in seldom episodes we see how much of a maniac he is. The problem is that there is seemingly no correlation between these two dynamics, so his character overall isn't believable.

Foggy Nelson is meant to be the comic relief and this also falls flat, with jokes not being well made, or the I mind is off and the joke falls flat. The girl who is introduced in the first episode has really just been reduced to a character that pouts and criesa lot.

I can't tell if it's the writing, the acting, or maybe an overbearing director or producer. But something is prevent pretty good actor delivering believable lines.

Now the Good:

Charlie Cox is excluded from this poor acting critique. His monologues are well done, believable, and carries the emotional weight they should. particularly when he is giving a monologue about justice. Here is where the series shines. With a couple of episodes in the first season such as episode 8 I get a sense that I am watching The Wire ( which is what I believe the makers of the series are striving for), a crime drama.

Scott Glen is also very good although he doesn't carry much screen time.

The blood and gore was surprising and appreciated. The fighting is well done although always done in the dark so it's hard as hell to see what's going on. What you can make out looks good though. One particular scene is a single continuous fight scene about 1-2 minutes long, very impressive.

So in conclusion, if you're a fan of the comic book series you should watch this show because it may have been the best attempt at Daredevil that we have seen as of yet. However if there is to be a season two like I read that there is going to be where they will introduce Bull's-eye and Elektra they need to fix the writing on the show in such a way that the actors can illustrate having some gravity.

Otherwise this will be a short lived franchise.

Prometheus (2012/I)
4 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Great Graphics, poor writing, actors did what they could, 11 June 2012

I am always wanting to delve deeper into mythologies, and so I couldn't pass up the opportunity to get into the mythology of Alien.

To sum it up, the movie was a large disappointment.

First the good: The graphics. The graphics were great. The acting was pretty good but they had to deal with the horrible script.

Now the bad: The script was awful. The plot holes were so numerous, so ridiculous, it was just awful. For example, Prometheus is the story of a trillion-dollar mission to discover the origins of human life on a distant planet. Basically, this is supposed to be the greatest exploration undertaken in the history of mankind.

So who do they send? A gaggle of fractious goons whose collective scientific nous is rivaled only by that of the Three Stooges. Within minutes of touching down (conveniently beside the only 'man-made' structures on the planet, ala 1960s Star Trek) the 'scientists' are yanking off their helmets, on the basis of 'it seems fine to me', dipping their fingers into strange organic ooze, and lugging a severed alien head back to an unquarantined spaceship in a sandwich bag.

The music was my first indicator that this movie was going to be bad. It was music fit for Gladiator not a Sci-Fi genre movie. Very poor choice.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Tree of Life....abstract film or mesh of ideas?, 9 December 2011

I give this film a 7 because I love Terrence Malick's films. I also gave it a 7 because I thought it was disappointing overall and thats why he didn't get a 10.

This is a synopsis IMDb wrote of this film, read this:

"The impressionistic story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith."

So first the Bad:

I am a reasonably intelligent man, understand these art-sy films fairly well and for the life of me could not bridge these gaps. Terrence usually makes his films that reflect the human condition juxtapose with nature. I saw these correlations however, I couldn't find the connections. The synopsis was what I was expected, but my overall interpretation was foggy, because I couldn't see the message the film.

Now the Good: As always, the film was beautiful to watch, a bunch of beautiful scenes placed beautifully together. So the film was aesthetically please to look at. Brad Pitt, I feel, is getting better and better as an actor and he was phenomenal in this film as were the children in this film. The "meaning of life" part in the film was my favorite.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Weak-sauce Certainly no Batman Begins or Dark Knight, 10 August 2011

OK, First the GOOD:

My favorite part of the film was the beginning when Steve Rogers was a frail weakling in stature but had a huge heart. That entire chapter was great. You know, Chris Evans I am convinced is a great actor. Hugo Weaving is awesome as a villain, always was, always will be. The mask he had on was very cool too, the makeup or whatever it was, was not so much that it restricted his expressions. Hugo Weaving is one scary dude. The graphics were fine and the entire supporting cast was very good.

Now The BAD: Well...the story which had a lot to cover was stuffed in a 2 hour movie when it felt like they either should of changed the script of the movie entirely or made the movie a 3 hour movie. There was no big Hero versus Villain showdown, or maybe there was but I blinked and seemed to have missed it. I didn't feel like there was that big huge action scene that you see as apart of the format in other action films. This movie just fell flat with the stuffed story and basic outline of the movie.

Special note: I was most afraid of all, that this movie would be way too Pro-America (Think Team America but serious) and with times like these I am glad that was an aspect of the film that I 'didn't' feel they went over-the-top with. So like with all the other action Summer Movies of 2011, don't expect too much, but see it if you want to support these fine actors.

Green Lantern was an OK summer Movie, but fell flat, 10 August 2011

First The GOOD:

The graphics in the film were some of the best I had seen. The ultra villain was very very cool looking, of course I saw it in 3D so that probably helped. The Green Lantern was very cool looking. My favorite part of the movie is when Hal Jordan visited the other planets.

Also the entire supporting cast is what I thought carried the film, minus the leading lady. The other Lanterns, the lead Lantern especially, of course all these other Lanterns was really a testament to the CG.

Now The BAD:

Unfortunately, everything else. Ryan Reynolds was.... Ryan Reynolds (think Van Wilder). So he wasn't acting he was playing himself, playing The Green Lantern. It was really hard to care anything about 'Hal Jordon' at all because I felt like I never saw what Hal Jordan was supposed to be.

The story or plot also felt very rushed, the epic battle in the end was over before it began, or at least it felt that way. With such an epic villain, you would think the final fight would be just as epic. Thank god I saw this movie in 3D! The female lead had a story-line that wasn't developed very well or maybe she had crappy lines to work with, either way she didn't work almost as much as Ryan Reynolds didn't work.

Overall I was really impressed with the look of the film hugely disappointed with the main characters. I thought all other supporting class kept me engaged with what the story was supposed to be. So don't expect too much this is Comic book movie does NOT belong in the same realms as, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Thor and the IronMans.

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
5 stars for good debates -5 for a crappy documentary, 23 April 2011

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to both debaters, if only all arguments in politics for example could be so civilized. Ironically it was the film itself that prevented my entertainment and made it hard for my intellectual curiosity to be aroused.

Major concept problems with the film.

Shaky camera work, crazy zoom ins and zoom outs, deliberate focus adjustments, but I think the worst crime is I never really heard the argument. The film chopped the debate up so everything the both of them said was out of context, meaning you didn't know what was said before or after to set up the discussion.

Rock music was also injected at times, which was cliché at best.

Overall, I could obviously tell the film makers were trying to make what would be a debate on one topic, exciting. So they sold their artistic 'souls' if you will, to the devil, by putting in all these random film techniques, none of which met the real style of the film. They would have been better off sitting those two guys down at a table and just let them have at it. I was more entertained by watching youtube videos of Chris Hitchens and the other guy (sorry I forgot his name).

1 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Ethical Concerns regarding this Documentary, mixed signals, 14 April 2011

I have concerns about how they tell, describe and illustrate how you can go about getting, transporting, smuggling bomb materials. Overall the movie calls for the destruction of all bombs, which is of course a great idea and worthy of praise.

In fact the entire movie is worthy of praise. The movie is well put together visually and stylistically.

It calls for action as well from the viewers, but like I said there are some parts, I feel, that it seemed like the movie was daring us to do it. I am not ignorant of the strong possibility that the powers the be and wish to set off NUKES already know these things, but still..... I just didn't like that.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Sherlock Holmes looked dumb, but I watched it and Loved it., 2 February 2011

When I saw the trailers for this film and I saw all the fight scenes I instantly thought they had ruined the movie, because for me, thats not how I saw Sherlock Holmes (as some pit fighter).

I like the two actors Downey Jr. and Law, but I couldn't get over the fight scenes.

Well then I saw the film, like 2 years after it came out.

I loved it. Everything about it. But for me mainly, I loved how damn funny the film was, I found myself cracking up every 5 minutes or so, it really was that funny. It was smart, quirky and yes those fight scenes are totally explained and fall perfectly within the Sherlock Holmes mythology.

The film had a great theme as well that most of my Sherlock Holmes experience had, and that was; there was always a battle between the supernatural versus Holmes' logic and reason.

If you felt the same as me and were stand-offish with the film because you may have felt they betrayed the mythology....WATCH IT. It will blow you away, make you laugh, and have you begging for a sequel.

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
A feel good documentary, 24 January 2011

When I read the synopsis I almost rolled my eyes, thinking the premise sounded hoaky. But I remembered how awesome Maynard was, the lead for Tool and other bands.

So I did addition: Maynard + Wine = The was relatively low budget movie, but you couldn't tell at all. It was well made and well conceived. I tell you the show stealer was not Maynard but his partner in the wine business, Eric. Eric was a geologist and you can feel his enthusiasm for all things that grow. Listening to him made me inspired about the technical aspects of making wine, geographic location, etc.

Maynard inspired me on why 'he' or 'one' should make wine. It is about the journey within yourself, so basically there was a duel message in the film that I thought was a perfect message.

This movie was also quite funny and I won't give any of that away. So for an hour and a half I was totally entertained and felt inspired to drink wine, specifically wine from Arizona.

I gave it an 8 because nothing gets a 10 unless with very few exceptions.

Predators (2010)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
It Depends, either a 5 or 7., 11 January 2011

Personally where I come from in all this,

I loved the Original, loved it. Predator 2... a decent effort The AVP series to me is garbage with a few hints a insight. This one, the mist of how I feel about the others.

It was also garbage. Which is a shame because I like Robert Rodriguez. All this movie try and do is pay homage to the original, instead of 'being' original. And all along I got the sense the movie was trying to set itself apart from the original. Oh well.

I liked the opening scene and that was about it. Everything else was hard to swallow, I thought they even screwed up on the costume for the Predator. The graphics and the green blood was awesome, can't say much about the story or the acting, which again is a shame because I like pretty much everybody in the film.

So if you loved all the other spin offs then this one might appeal to you, otherwise don't expect much at all.

Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]