Reviews written by registered user

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

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

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
The fun discontinuous..., 30 May 2010

The first part of Librarian was a good project (a lot of humour, pretty good plot, Sonya Walger great as Nicole No one) and I really enjoyed it. Fortunately they've made a sequel, unfortunately they've taken completely different author for the scenario which was a huge mistake.

In the second part the casting wasn't impressive (especially Gabrielle Anwar didn't fit in), the plot was weak, another huge mistake was moving toward the family themes (his father, uncle, etc.) and together with Nicole No one character the chemistry was gone and the humour just wasn't good enough.

It was a good try, but creators missed the first movie example by miles.

Jury Duty (1995)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
could have been good... if they wouldn't take Pauly Shore, 11 April 2010

In my opinion the Jury Duty isn't as bad as people say/write - I actually liked the idea for the script, but the main problem is... the main actor. I just can't stand Pauly Shore's overacting in any of his movies, which is sad that he spoiled this promising idea with his lack of skills.

I mean what bad can be said about Tia Carrere, Stanley Tucci, Brian Doyle-Murray or Abe Vigoda? They all are great, but why oh why they had to hire Pauly Shore? They could hire anyone (well, almost anyone, I don't think Rob Schneider or Adam Baldwin would make much good) in his place and the project would turn out well.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Absolutely loved it!!!, 29 March 2010

I've just seen the whole series available on DVD and I'm really surprise that: 1. I haven't heard about this series before 2. anyone could find this racist or politically incorrect 3. British don't seem to find it funny 4. it was canceled so quickly

I simply loved the series - all the characters are sympathetic (even the principal played by Zara Nutley), the writing was great, dialogs funny and the whole show very entertaining.

Perhaps some people only see stereotypes in the characters, but I think they were all presented in good light and the differences between them created space for the humour. Pity they didn't have chance to continue the series...

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
should be a follow-up, 24 January 2010

Perhaps it's just me, but this movie seemed more like sequel or follow-up than the separate project. Why? When it was filmed (just few years after the war) most of the viewers probably knew why Rommel was so famous, why his death was so important to Allied, why he was Hitler's favorite general, but now, 50 years later, it isn't so obvious anymore.

"Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel" is a decent war movie, but it's just isn't in any way explained how Rommel did get his nickname, what was he doing that Allied considered him as their best general, why their soldiers were so afraid of Afrika Korps? That's what is missing in this movie - we see his fame, his character, his way to treat soldiers and enemies, but f.e. we also see that Hitler was complaining about his achievements in Africa, calling him coward, etc. So, we're missing the big picture here - it is "The Story of Rommel", but unfortunately the "Desert Fox" part is missing.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
absolutely horrible, 18 January 2010

I really enjoyed "Candid camera" with Dom DeLuise and I was surprised to see that after the years Suzanne Somers have becomed the co-star of the show. But that was the only positive side of the show - the whole studio, the intro, the hosts - all that give the new meaning to the word "pompous".

Well, that would be OK if the materials weren't so cr*ppy - I mean come on, the best you can do is show few men that have problem with getting ketchup out of the bottle, Suzanne Somers walking with Halloween basket in July, ice cream place that sells only vanilla...? I've seen few episodes and each time it was horrible. They were posing like it's the greatest show ever and then fill the time with scenes so dull that I really felt embarrassed to watch. Even the people in them looked bored and that just can't be good.

12 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
10 stars for idea, 2 stars for the delivery = 6 stars, 15 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've watched 10 episodes and everything was great, until I came upon guy named Benjamin Radford, who was posing as a great expert on everything and was just skipping the parts that he didn't have arguments for. Other "sceptics" were doing similar things, but he was just awesome - he just denies everything, no matter what.

Especially: - in "Big foot" he states that "eyewitnesses are not reliable"... well, great, so every single one case held in the court should be trailed once again without any whithesses

- in "Psychics" he said "there isn't a single example that any psychic ever helped police" - isn't it nice to meet someone who knows every single case in every single police in the world and in whole history of human kind...?

- in "self Combustion" he said "the wick effect is explanation to those cases"... well, almost - why people who are on fire for about 10 minutes DON'T WAKE UP??

But rest of the "sceptics" aren't much better: - in "Psychics" they said that one of them claims to do services for Scotland Yard, but Scotland Yard denies it... right, like British ever admit that they do have MI5, they admit Bloody Sunday was policemen fault... if you claim to be skeptic, then be skeptic all the way, not just when it meets your expectations

- in "Psychics" one of them have done some test with good result, but they just mention "it wasn't done properly" - why?? who said so?? what was wrong with the test??

- in "Circles" they have "proved" that complicated thing like that could be done in 5 hours... yeah, but they've done in almost 5 hours in the middle of the day, so what kind of prove is that??

- in few cases they took up a really lame examples to show that there isn't such thing as the topic, f.e. in UFO they took up some examples from Mexico that were easy to explain, but what about commercial movie of Comet (I think) when something was flying next to the plane... in "Psychics" this woman from Scotland who teaches how to be a psychic - oh, come on! besides she pointed out some place and they say she was fraud... so, who exactly checked this place she pointed out?? she was wrong because you say so??

- in "Big foot" some guy told about something that he saw on the side of the road and the explanations is... he was in shock, he didn't know what he saw... I don't know, but he didn't say anything about the shock, he just said that he saw something, but they said he didn't, so there - it is proved

- in "UFO" the explanation for everything is suggestion based on sf movies during cold war... wow, that explains everything, even the reports from countries that weren't under any pressure during the cold war, like Mexico, Chile or Brazil

After watching those episodes I was really disgusted by the level the creators presented - I mean in many cases they are right and all of this is a lot of cr*p, but they really should take more care about details and don't treat everyone as an idiot, because if I would believe in all of what this Benjamin Radford say (who btw. said that there are no such thing as lake monsters which doesn't stop him from publishing books about them) then I would say that people have never landed on the Moon!!!

Why? Because there are no proves that they did. Afterall eyewitnesses doesn't count, the samples could be rocks form some part of Earth, video material could be just illusion or fabrication... Besides I've never been to the Moon, I don't know anyone who were on the Moon, so there you have it - people have never landed on the Moon, because I said so... What's more there isn't any prove that this, so called, Moon even exists... This it the level of discussion that "Is it real?" represents most of the time.

15 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
what will be next - both Americas in 4 days?, 15 September 2008

So far I really enjoyed Michael Palin's travels, but since some point they begun to look rather like postcards from the world than real documentaries. "Around World in 80 days" was spectacular, "Pole to pole" was just amazing, but when I started to watch "Full Circle" and then "Sahara" one question kept popping into my mind - "what's the hurry???". I mean in "80 days" and "Pole to pole" it was obvious - travel arrangements were pressing on the hurry, but on Sahara?? Come on...

Later "Himalaya" was step in right direction - a lot of great views, a lot of people stories, different views on the world. Since I live in Poland I was exciting when I first heard that Palin is gonna make documentary about Poland, although it was rather strange when I heard he is gonna spend only 2 weeks in our country... Then I became more and more disappointed when I found out that first informations weren't exactly correct - he is gonna make trip through few other countries from Eastern Europe, f.e. Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria... Still this looked like a good idea, but when I found out that he is gonna spend 2-3 weeks in ALL THE COUNTRIES not in a single one strangely comedy title "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium" popped into my mind...

Palin have done what many people failed to do - show the world of today not like travel brochure, but simply as it is - with common people, not so spectacular hotels, etc. But "New Europe" is I think just too much, I mean in Poland there are about 40 million people, Poland is larger than Great Britain (Romania is as large as UK) and you really want to tell me that you can show Poland in 2 days? And Hungary, Romania or Bulgaria have even more complicated cultures than we do...

Let's see - it was just like making documentary about UK and show that they eat haggis, breed sheep, wear vests and have queen. Perhaps they do something else or even have some history, but that's all we had time for...

"New Europe" was a big disappointment for me.

12 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
now I'm a believer!, 15 June 2008

When I first saw "Dad's Army" on BBC Prime I thought that this is really corny one and since it was going on and on with only few laughs I gave up. Then after few weeks when I put BBC Prime again it was "Dad's Army" again, same episodes and again it wasn't as funny as other British comedy series, so again I gave up.

But lately I've seen the whole series from the beginning (since black & white episodes) and this time it all finally began to make sense. Finally I've seen the light and what kind of approach you need to like this series - usually it isn't LOL-funny, but with more subtle kind of humor. After seeing the whole series even the episodes I've seen before and didn't like make sense and I know what was funny about it.

Now I can say that "Dad's Army" is really great series with wonderful ideas, great cast and leaves something within you - now when I watch some films with people in uniforms I usually expect to hear "do you think it's wise", "stupid boy", "they don't like up them" or "permission to worry you, sir".

A really "must see" kind of TV history!

10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
one of the British finest, 15 June 2008

I know what some people will say - it's not "Fawlty Towers", it's not "Monty Python", so it's can't be that good. And here's where they will be wrong - England have produced at least dozen great comedy series on level that none of the US series would ever reach.

And "The Detectives" is one of those series - funny, entertaining and not too pushy about the humor - that's all I ask from comedy :) Despite that fifth season was on a little bit lower level still this is one of my favorite comedy series. Perhaps because there isn't unnecessary vulgarisms or boring "action" scenes - just simply stories with plenty of memorable quotes and hilarious situations.

If you haven't seen it you don't know what you're missing!

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
this is... actually great!, 11 June 2008

When I had first glance at this series I presumed that this is some old American series about brave lawyer who fight for their clients, fight the system or do some other out-of-reality tasks. But after just few scenes I realized that this can't be old - there are too many modern things. Then I realized this can't American series - it's interesting. And at the end I realized that this can't be about lawyers - it's entertaining.

I don't know how to describe this series in other words than "great idea, good actors, interesting cases", etc. It's hard to point out any downsides of this series - it reminds me of US series "Queens Supreme" (which died too early) where you can feel that this is the real thing and real people in court with their real life problems.

And on the other hand creators have left aside lawyers private lives which would make the series sink instantly (like in Grey's Anatomy). Instead of the my-sad-personal-life stories there are loads of humor in scenes which makes the whole idea work just great, f.e. when Nancy Dao lost her first case:

NANCY (to her client): You see what you did? You made me lose my first case! And... to him! I hate you!

JUDGE: May we proceed to the sentence?

NANCY: Whatever...

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