Reviews written by

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
12 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

First is better, 25 May 2008

I liked this movie when it first came out, but now, two years later, I watch it again and wonder why I liked it so much. It seemed to me that they dragged what could have been a half-hour flick into two hours with about eighteen twenty-minute fight scenes, and it seems to me that the directors were more preoccupied with making Kate look sexy in a sassy, up-yours kind of way. Characterization is weak, and compared to the first movie, the setting and storyboard is flat. Don't get me wrong, this movie has many redeeming graces, but overall it pales in comparison to the first. A lot of the characters that made the first so great are gone, and the fact that only Michael and Selene survive makes the whole movie a bit unbelievable.

One more thing--Michael's "death" was strange and, as far as I can see, unnecessary, except that it evokes more humanitarian emotions from Selene than are seen from the rest of the movie--reminding us she's actually a person and not a robotic fighting machine.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
When a viewer shoots herself in the head..., 7 August 2007

I came in about fifteen minutes into the movie. I'd been sort of interested, even after seeing all the bad reviews, since it came out. So tonight I finally got the chance to watch it on TV. The first half is just Jill wandering around the house with a bunch of suspenseful music that leads nowhere. I was bo-o-o-ored. To tears. Every time the phone rang I thought, "Okay, here he comes", but so much was it just another one of her friends or something that I actually began to expect that. Meanwhile, as other users say, the director extends the movie by making Jill walk around in a scared trance and using every scary movie cliché in the book.

So finally halfway through the movie starts to get in to itself as the stranger finally starts speaking when he calls. The end was exciting enough, but seriously, this entire movie could have been cut in half. If you want to see a mild entertainer, come in halfway through. If you want real suspense, see Underworld or Flightplan...just something else! 4 out of 10.

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Adaptation...?, 28 January 2007

Good in its own right, but my God, if they only changed the title and the names of the characters, they wouldn't get sued for copyright infringement because no one would notice any similarities! I have officially decided that if I want one of my novels adapted, I have to be the director or the whole thing will be screwed up badly.

No similarities. Whatsoever. Now, I didn't like the book much; the movie is how I believe the book should have ended. But if you're going to make a book a movie, follow the plot of the book. Because with this many differences, they could have gotten away with an "inspired by" note in the credits.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen!, 2 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

That's what I kept wanting to say throughout the movie, but couldn't because my little sibs were watching it and I just happened to be in the background working. But seriously, this movie is a piece of crap. Not only is every line forced and every situation unbelievable, but the acting is horrendous. And each scene of peril is highlighted with corny, clichéd one-liners that only a four-year-old would deem funny, such as--oh, look, we're being thrown to our death in this car. I sure hope it has airbags! Jesus. When any sane person would be screaming, these creepy lines are popping up by the second. It's just goofy, unbelievable, and stupid. Don't waste your time.

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
Plot less? Check. Clichéd? Check. Stupid? Check. Boring? Check. Okay boys, bring it to the big screen!, 3 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I can't believe I'm even offering this movie more of my precious time than the 93 minutes I already gave it. I must have checked my watch ten times and I considered walking out not once but twice. Everything other haters said is true in my book. Every joke was old, clichéd, and lame. There was no creativity in this movie WHATSOEVER. Many parts of the movie made no sense and the whole thing just generally...well, never mind. Of course, we couldn't go on without the disgusting potty humor--the falling into camel s*** and then getting puked on by said camel--and, oh, look, there are the fathers being stupid again. How come in every one of these movies the father is always the one being selfish and stupid? And I'm not a father saying this, I am a sixteen-year-old GIRL. But seriously. I have both a father and a stepfather and neither one is inconsiderate or selfish or stupid. And don't even get me started on the "message". It's really pathetic how these producers try to put heartwarming "messages" into their pieces of garbage. You wanna make me cry? Throw out another Titanic. Or some equally dramatic TEARJERKER. Not a shallow comedy about a couple of rich guys fighting over who's King of Christmas. Movies like this are supposed to be shallow; they're supposed to make you laugh; they shouldn't try to make you cry and say "oh, how deep" because it NEVER works. And with this movie being just a bunch of cods wallop thrown into a ninety-minute roll of film, any "deep" issues thrown in were just as sudden, random, and uncreative as their solutions. Generic, generic, generic. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Save your money. Use it to rent--no, buy--Elf instead.

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Stupid, pointless, and stupid, 10 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:

A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless

First of all, the "dress up the nerd to look cool" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?

The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her,

A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.

The End.

HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.


Okay. I'm done with my rant.

Aquamarine (2006)
44 out of 71 people found the following review useful:
Great sentiment, especially for a chick flick, 4 March 2006

Chick flick, I know. But don't let that stop you. My first instinct when I saw the preview was, "Here's a real movie." And I was not disappointed. I was amazed at just how great an actress Jojo turned out to be. In contrast to Hilary Duff and Lindsey Lohan, she may be one of the few teenage actresses who has a great prospect for an acting future. Plus, she's really cute :) Sarah Paxton is also amazing, and Emma Roberts also does well. I thought that Raymond was slightly stereotypical, and I I wished there weren't so much giggling, but hey, whatever floats the filmmaker's boats. It does start out very flirty, so "shallow" that my heart sank as I began to lose hope. However, it quickly grew into a beautiful, sentimental story of beauty, friendship, and love. Two thumbs up.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Oh Geez, 16 February 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am sitting here as this movie plays, yawning with boredom. Treadwell is obviously insane; touching bear's feces, for cripe's sake! And then, crying over a dead bee...oh my God. If he is such a "nature lover" then how come any reality of nature, such as the death of a fox, causes him to break down?

The whole movie seems like an attempt to drone what could have been summarized in twenty minutes into a feature-length film. We watch the same things over and over and hear the same sentences over and over. It is so boring and after one hour I asked my mom "How long does this go on for?" You're the protection of the bears. We've heard it a hundred times. Treadwell also seems very egocentric and delusional. Why was he bashing the park service? What on earth? The park service protects these bears he loves so much! What the **** is his problem?

P.S. Prostesting the U.S. government? What is there to protest? I don't see what he thought was going on with these bears. If he needed something to protest, he should have protested something like discrimination against homosexuals, not "bear rights."

I feel very sorry for his girlfriend, Amie. But he gets on my nerves so much, I feel almost no sympathy for him.

24 out of 46 people found the following review useful:
The Best Combination of Abnoxiusness and Comedy I have EVER Seen in My Life!!!, 17 December 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I give it a three just because it gave me side-stitches from laughing at its sheer awful-itity. It's downright corny!

Good job, Steven Spielberg! You FINALLY managed to produce a horror film that was not horrifying, but left me laughing myself to tears at the dumb characters and the corny effects!

I loved the scene with the Corpses in the swimming pool, as it was so hilariously absurd and "just what the woman deserved!" As my mom said, "revenge of the bulldozed corpses!" OH YEAH!

I found the movie to be pretty horrible, and the parents exceedingly annoying. This is what the parents did in basic:

Carol Anne: "Mommy! Help me, Mommy!" Mom: "Carol Anne? Is-is that you, baby?" *slowly approaches* "Are-are you okay?"

Then later: Mom: "Oh, Steve, look at that shiny door." Dad: "Oh, I think our kids are behind that door." Mom: "Do you think they're okay?" Dad: ", probably not." Mom: "Oh. Okay. Let's make out." Dad: "I'm game."


I think that if I were them, I would grab Carol Anne and R-U-N. I mean, put those kids back in the room where Carol Anne was sucked in? Oh, yes, and let's have the mother take a bath. And dry her hair so she can't hear her kids' desperate cries for help! Yeah! That's perfect!

Good job, Steve. You finally managed to produce a movie that matches "War of the Worlds," your other terrible movie, in its own horror. I'm not sure which I'd rather watch, "War of the Worlds" and puke because of the images or "Poltergeist" and yank my hair out while writhing on the floor and screaming at the TV. Really, if the first "Poltergeist" was this bad, I'm scared of what the next two are like.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful: head...., 18 November 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Was it the length? Maybe. The special effects? Perhaps. But let's not worry about my headache now. Let's focus instead on the all new, one-and-only Harry Potter Four the Movie.

Where to begin? Haow about I start with the first bad thought that popped into my head upon viewing this disgrace: this is going way too fast.At the beginning of the story, J.K. Rowling takes, what, 70 pages to describe the World Cup? while the movie World Cup takes all of twenty minutes.

Then there're the leave-outs. No explanations. No real Sirius. No Lupin. No sphinxes. No dementors. No Her-mo-ninny. It's a crime against humanity, it is. Because I LIKE the dementors (I'm morbid and insane like that). And at this rate, the movie series will be so choppy and lacking in explanation that those without background support from the books will be left scratching their heads.

They needed to remove the Dursleys and Molly Weasly due to time restrictions. Riiiight. Half the time Harry spent rolling around on the floor, trying to avoid computerized lights, could have been used to develop (or just include) the characters. But noooo. Gotta have those blinding special effects. Without them, the movie is nothing.

As the credits flew across the screen, some clapped, but I was left muttering "well that was a rip-off." If you have any chance of salvation, then I beg you to spare yourself this utter package of excruciation. If you are as pathetic as I and reading this review has just peaked your curiosity, bring sunglasses and a pillow to the movie. And if you would like to see it but can wait, save your three-and-a-half hours for Blockbuster and use the money to see Corpse Bride instead.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]