Reviews

34 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Kung Fu Panda (2008)
7/10
Good
22 May 2008
I am not a big fan of Dreamworks' non-Aardman movies after Shrek. They used too many jokes, pop-culture references etc. instead of serving real story with real characters. The only exception is, I think, Over the Hedge, which, while not really Pixar-standard, is one where they didn't overuse pop-culture references but gave us lovable characters and a good story. I think Kung Fu Panda is closer to Over the Hedge than other Dreamworks-movies. Actually I didn't find real pop-culture references (while there may be a lot of references to martial arts movies - I lack knowledge of them - there is nothing that does not fit to the story and the characters) at all. Slapstick is very childish in the movie; I can understand that, they wanted to sell it to the little ones too. But other than that, and most of the time, it is a beautifully-animated kung-fu movie with great scenery that is more for adults and kung-fu movie lovers than for children. They even give time for character building, although it is only for the Panda and the two masters; others are really one-dimensional (they even don't really have too much screen time for more). The story is nothing new, but maybe that's not something you would expect from a Kung-fu movie. All in all, the movie is much more fun and sensitive but with less jokes than its ads suggest. i did like it even if I didn't love it - maybe you should be a kung-fu fan for the latter.
30 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Milky Way (2007)
3/10
Not enough
4 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
10 scenes, each of them with static camera. In all these scenes something happens (usually quite far from the camera). But not really much. They all seem to have some point but usually they are not interesting enough for the uncut 8 minutes (per scene). Just an example: in one scene a very old lady walks to a bench. She sits there for a while, then starts to walk back but then she collapses. A guy comes out from a building and takes her inside. Or another scene: two boys are jumping on a stone pile with their bicycles and then the tree that can be seen in the middle on the picture catches fire. Nothing else, no words etc. I like slow movies but only if they are worth it. It is called an "ambient film" by the creators but I did not feel too much of the ambient, the mood either (e.g. check Kornél Mundruczó's Delta made at the same time: that one has really strong atmosphere). So it would be the little stories that make it worth anything. But these stories are mostly also not worth it. These uninteresting stories which are not even connecting should have had a 1,5-2 minutes length and then all the movie would have been 20 minutes. Maybe I still would not have understood a word from this movie but would find it okay. This 85-minute way it is only a waste of time.
2 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
We are not children any more
8 January 2008
Did you see Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace? Did you like it? No? Then you were probably not a kid in 1999. Kids loved it very much. Actually they loved the new trilogy more than the old one (22 years difference). Fans of the old trilogy loved the old one more than the new one. It is not too surprising as all these movies were made for 12-year-olds of the time. And it is the same with Macskafogo 1-2, with almost the same time span between the original and the sequel (21 years). Is it weaker than the original? Yes, but just a bit. The story is a bit less and it is less creative (and yes, the middle part drags a bit). Otherwise it's fine, maybe not on the level of Macskafogó but on the same level as e.g. Az Erdö kapitánya or Sárkány és Papucs from the same time. Nice new addition to Hungarian animation. I watched it with children in the cinema. And yes, they loved it.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Worst of the three
8 January 2008
The first one looked good but just could not get the humor right. The second one was quite good; close to the sense of humor of Gosciny (and Uderzo as well). So I was hoping for something good. Now the third one is kind of terrible. The visuals are okay (yes you see the CGI but it's not a problem in a funny movie based on comics) but almost everything else... The humor is worse than in the first one, the movie is just too long, the cameo-filled last ten minutes seem to be shot only for the end credits (they just don't make sense in the movie) but somebody must have thought they are funny enough for the movie - they are not. There are strange parts meant to be funny (e.g. the laser sword you could see in the advertisements - if they had to include a star wars joke again then why not make it at least a bit funny?), even the time between intended (forced and overplayed) gags is too long. Alain Delon is moderately funny as Caesar but his part is also overplayed, overly long. The new actor playing Asterix is a, as high as Obelix... b, never as funny/witty-looking as Christian Clavier. So what could go wrong did go wrong with this movie; maybe children will enjoy it but probably it will be too long for them as well.
56 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
I was expecting much worse
5 December 2007
A CGI+ live action movie from the director of Garfield 2.? Also, once again a movie with a loser "dad" character and some very bad children (okay, they are chipmunks but behave just as children as they are kids) like Daddy Day Camp and others? Actually, the chipmunks make all the difference and save the movie. What does not work with Garfield (warm Hollywood-emotions and the animal as a fast rock star-type) works perfectly with the chipmunks. Also their animation is never off-setting as it quite often was with Garfield. And even after almost 50 years, it still makes you smile to hear them singing. When you watch the trailer you can see that poo-eating part which I see is in the movie just to bring in that type of audience - I think it is a bad idea as it makes others think twice before buying ticket for this movie which has only one fart joke and this poo joke of this type of "humour". Otherwise it is watchable and the animated characters are even lovable (Jason Lee is not so great in this). It was a fun travel back in the time when I watched them as a child. Not a big movie, also there are problems with the pacing but it's much better than expected.
58 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
McClane is, surprisingly, really back!
5 July 2007
Welcome, John! Before this project came out I had no high hopes. McClane is an old guy, the movies were great back then but time is changing; people want to see something different than old-fashioned action scenes. Luckily, I was wrong. What's more, I was also wrong when I thought 12 years means this movie will have only the name of John McClane as the filmmakers will not be able to make it worthy of the Die Hard title. This is really a Die Hard movie, at least in the most important aspects: action scenes, humor and characters. I don't care if the action scenes are improbable (it's not the reality what we want to see in a summer action popcorn); they are spectacular and also full of ideas (unlike the spectacular-but-boring action sequences in Transformers). The new characters are all right (even if I did not find the baddie that interesting) while the old one really behaves and reacts just like in those old times. This movie is close to being an action comedy as between (and sometimes, even during) the action sequences the audience was laughing a lot; this shift of tone is only a continuation of what could be felt in the previous sequels. Also, nice continuation in opening the space: first a building, the second time an airport, then a city and now the States are the target of the terrorists. But they have to face John McClane...so they don't have a ghost of chance. One of the best movies this summer has to offer.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Transformers (2007)
6/10
Plants or fans or both?
5 July 2007
I just can't understand how this movie can get 8,4 (this is the score it has after more than 10,000 votes; I guess it will get lower later). Of course the movie has been released only some days ago; there must be studio guys who want to sell their product. But I guess there are also fans who enjoyed this movie very much. Good for them. I don't say I hated it but I really can't understand the hype.

This movie consists of three types of scenes:

  • Teen movie - these parts do work (even if the girl is too hot for being believable); nothing special but okay (while the humor is really not that great). 6/10


  • spectacular non-action sequences - they are the best part, maybe 10/10. The robots look really great, the effects are superb, the story is alright (yes you have to suspend belief to enjoy seeing the size differences when transforming - not only the transformers but the cube as well - but if you can't suspend your belief when watching a movie about giant robots you are helpless). These scenes really show Spielberg is the producer.


  • action sequences - they are totally Michael Bay. But not his finest (like The Rock) but his most maniac. Yes, the movie is fast, spectacular and loud, but these scenes are simply too much; in the end these even started to bore me as hell. If Bay was able limit himself and not include endless boring sequences of loud, mindless and superfluous destruction, that would have helped the movie very much; these sequences are 4/10 for me.


(sorry; I am not a Bay-hater - even if Pearl Harbor was terrible - but it is strange to find the action scenes to be the weakest part of a Bay action movie.)
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
I was expecting better
5 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is not a bad movie. It's just... I think this was the first case when a HP movie could have been better than the book, as the book is simply too long; it has too many plot points that it has to tell as an exposition for the last two chapters; too many new characters etc. (don't get me wrong, I love all the HP books but I find OotP the weakest of them). This movie runs through the story which results in a very long hour of talking. After the unexpectedly dark, thrilling opening sequence it's all about talking maybe until 1:35 or something like that in the movie, which is actually necessary for the 7-book story but a bit...dare I say, boring. Yes, we can say it is more 'grown-up' but grown-up does not necessarily mean boring; even if politics take part in the conversation. As this is the shortest movie of the five, maybe this time they should have included some quidditch in ten minutes just for fun and excitement (the quidditch story line is, once again, totally missing); maybe there should have been a little more emphasis on the romantic part as well. We see all the necessary new characters like Tonks or Bellatrix but they get way too short time on-screen. During this talking part the director tries to add some momentum several times but usually fails; maybe it's all because of the mentioned 'too much plot, too many characters' problem. It should have become a kind of thriller but even the nightmare sequences can't help creating real tension. Then, in the last 30-40 minutes, action begins and while this action is not really awe-inspiring, it is on par with the spectacular action sequences of the previous movies. So... It's not a bad movie, it is functional and I am sure the next one will be better (partly because that has a much stronger story).
16 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ratatouille (2007)
9/10
Truly excellent
27 June 2007
Nowadays I don't believe the first reviews that appear here on IMDb; most of the time they say the movie is excellent etc., yeah, as they are written by plants, studio people who want to generate excitement and make the movie successful. It was a relief to see Ratatouille is really, truly excellent. The reason I did not give it 10/10 is simple: maybe some of the dialogues should have been trimmed a bit; sometimes the talking parts seemed to be a bit slower and longer than they should have been. And that's all what I can say on the negative side. Ratatouille is great. It is heartfelt, it is moving, it has style, great French feeling, it has lovable characters (especially Remy, of course), great story and, again, except from some man-to-man dialogues, every second of the movie shows creativity, care and a really high skill that the team at Pixar has. I loved the talking scenes with Remy as his gestures are great, also seeing his little heart pumping all the time etc. makes him instantly lovable. And the non-talking scenes (call them 'action scenes', not as if it was an action movie) are always so skillfully directed and effective that I was totally amazed. I haven't enjoyed an animated movie like this for years; I think it is among the three best Pixar movies (the other two being Finding Nemo and The Incredibles). I just can't express how much I loved it. Pixar is really the heir to (Walt) Disney as Remy is for Gusto - as both really do know how to serve food that is perfect even for the most hateful critic...
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Too much... once again
23 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
After Spider-man 3. (which could have worked very well if Sam Raimi was not pressed to include the character of Venom) and Shrek the Third (with about 10 new characters taking away time and plot from the heroes) Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End suffers from the same fate: too many characters, too many story lines in one movie. It is not a problem for me that the series transformed from the pirates/horror/adventure genre to pure fantasy by its end; the problem is in this movie we have about ten characters who have their own storyline, their own aims and it's a, hard to follow and really care b, simply too much for a movie (or two movies cut in a half); this many characters should have a TV series not a movie. Of course this also means that the characters from the original have a bit less screen time than they should, while the new characters don't necessarily bring too much to the table. For example, Chow Yun-Fat's character is simply not too well developed and you can see even the writers could not really find out what to do with him. About the 'old' characters: Davy Jones is more interesting now than in the previous installment (and his f/x is even more credible); Will Turner is still not too entertaining (but at least he does not have too much screen time), Elisabeth is okay, Barbossa makes a really welcome return, and Jack Sparrow... Well he is Johnny Depp. I felt his role was overplayed (not by him; by the direction) in Dead Man's Chest; now this is not the case; now he is simply not as entertaining as before due some post-mortal craziness. Actually these 'crazy' scenes are a bit bizarre (but at least this is something really new, not only rehashing old jokes). Compared to Dead Man's Chest: 1. there are less jokes (and still there are some bad and badly played jokes just like in the first and second movies), the tone is more serious which is okay for me 2. no classic fun actions like the one with the wheel or the bone cages; instead of them the last one hour of the movie rocks; very spectacular. 3. between actions and Jack Sparrow scenes DMC had totally boring and senseless dialog's. This one still has lots of quite boring dialog's in its second third but they are acceptable (they could have been trimmed by deleting some less interesting story lines; as I have mentioned in the beginning, this is the biggest problem with the movie).

But unlike Spider-Man 3. or Shrek the Third, the movie is not lower in quality than the previous one; while in some aspects it is even slightly better, for the first two thirds it is a bit less entertaining. Still, quite a good ending for the series.

(By the way, if you are a Pirates fan, watch Sinbad - Legend of the Seven Seas. You will be surprised how many elements were 'stolen' from that movie alone.)
27 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Shrek getting average
17 May 2007
Shrek the Third is fun. If you watch it in a cinema full of admirers of the green ogre, Donkey and Puss in boots, you will be entertained. Still, it has its flaws. I can understand and appreciate that the producers realized their series is too much filled with jokes that won't stand the test of time: in two decades, most of the movies that are evoked will be forgotten so the jokes will not be understood. Also there are too many movies that copied this method. So they decided to make the third outing almost totally devoid of movie in-jokes (yes, there are a few but you can watch the movie without realizing any of them really was). No Matrix or Mission:Impossible this time. And it is not a problem. The problem is they could not find out what to give instead of these movie jokes. (Yes, there are jokes and even good ones, but actually when you will laugh in the cinema will be mostly when they reprise jokes from the first movies - you will laugh because they were funny at the first time so they are still funny, but not because they are original.) And what they found out is just the opposite of the spirit of the first two episodes of the series. They give morals, they give speeches about taking the responsibility and being yourself no matter what others think, and they provide a new positive hero who is a handsome average boy. No, this is not usual for a Shrek movie, it is usual for the movies and stories Shrek made fun of previously. And what about fairy tale bad boys helping the bad guy and fairy tale good girls ("Disney princesses") helping the good? Is it how it should be in Shrek or maybe only in Happily N'Ever After? In a real Shrek concept it would be the princesses who plan an attack on the "ugly ogres" and the bad guys who help the ogres. Still, I can accept the story while it is not that revisionist take we could get used to in the Shrek movies, but all this leads to a movie, which, like the once much more ogre-ish main hero, is becoming old, family-friendly and sticking to conventions, like an average man when he gets a family.
8 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
(Too) Colorful, a bit too much in a too short time
13 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It could have been that kind of quite stupid, quite meaningless but watchable Disney CGI as Chicken Little: very fast, full of possibilities, full of ideas thrown on the screen, full of jokes that partly fall flat... Actually, it still is (except from the flat jokes). But John Lasseter changed it a year ago. As we know, he told the director he didn't like the bad guy (didn't find him too scary) and didn't understand why the main character was an orphan. 'Because I was an orphan too', the director said, so Lasseter asked him, okay, then make us feel what it means to you, being an orphan. So he did. The result? The movie got depth - the scenes about being an orphan and getting a new family are really quite touching. The bad guy's sidekick became really evil with own diabolic plans - well, I think it created a little bit too dark aspect to this mainly pastel-colored kids' movie. There is one scene where we can see the evil sidekick's world; it looks like a scene stolen right from the floor of the editing room of The Matrix, and the family our hero loves turns into a group of kind of zombies for a minute. Even if it is not without reason (this way we can feel how much is at stake), it is simply too much, too dark.

I felt some problems with the pacing too; maybe it's because I am 30 and not 10, some scenes seemed to be too fast (e.g. meeting the Robinson family is just crazy, a total mess, the most annoying part of the movie - maybe the only annoying part) while at the beginning sometimes it was all talking heads. Also I felt for a 102-minute movie there is too much story to tell, too much crazy detail from the antagonist's and protagonist's past to the family and the dinosaur and and and..., which might be the result of John Lasseter's involvement. On the positive side, actually every scene seems to be working; the only thing this movie really needed was...time. Ten more minutes for the running time, one more year for John Lasseter perfecting the movie even more.
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Eragon (2006)
5/10
Unfortunately mediocre
13 December 2006
No, the effects aren't bad; they are simply nothing special (the dragon looks good but the fx quality is not better than 3-4 years ago). No, the acting isn't bad, but it can be seen the director had no real experience in telling the actors what to do. No, the pacing isn't bad, but it simply isn't too interesting. Sorry, Eragon fans, but this movie - differing a bit from the book which it runs through - shows even more clearly that the story is simply a rip-off of Star Wars IV: A New Hope. No, I don't think it would be a problem if it was spectacular enough (e.g. the castles and cities are only 2-second inbetweens; it's like in TV shows when you see actors in studios and for some seconds they show the city/building they are supposed to be in), if it had enough tiny details that could make us amazed and let us forget the way too obvious similarities in the plot. Patrick Doyle's music is dynamic and emotional; too bad the movie is not - and as they just run through the story we really can't feel anything for the characters, we can't even know the world of Algäesia (we can hear there are elves and dwarfs etc., but can't really see or separate them from humans). There is nothing really bad in this movie; but certainly there is nothing memorable. If they want to make a trilogy they should try harder.
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Monster House (2006)
8/10
Scary fun
6 July 2006
Well, I think if I saw this movie when I was ten years old, I would have been totally scared and could not sleep for weeks. Now it seems time has changed: ten-year-old children are playing horror-video games so probably what was too scary for them in the eighties is just right and fun now. Actually this is just what you could expect from a movie about a monster house: funny, spectacular, sometimes frightening. Quite a well-developed story - even if it is full of clichés, or should I say homage? - with the usual "two boys, one girl" trio as seen in Star Wars or Harry Potter. The animation is strange at first: they seem like rubber dummies, but thanks to the motion capture, their movement and expressions are first rate. While they look like having plastic hair, there is a great development since Polar Express in one field: their eyes are constantly moving - full of life. And the whole movie is just a typical and fun Spielberg-Zemeckis production with elements of Hitchcock. Besides the extraordinarily dark scenes it just feels like those very entertaining Spielberg productions of the eighties.
90 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
The Meltdown (minor spoilers)
28 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The prehistoric animals are again on a journey, this time escaping from a flood (the solution is borrowed right from the Bible). Their journey is not without dangers as predators watch them go. Each of the main heroes of the previous installment have a character arc of their own: the mammoth Mannny is still lonely and wants to find a female mammoth which is not easy in a race destined to extinct), Sid finds small relatives, and Diego has to overcome his fear from water. While the story is a bit sketchy just as the first one, there is much less seriousness and drama (mostly thanks to leaving humans entirely out). The effect is lighter and easier to accept by the kids: there are more animals (better animation - see their hair), more colors. Probably it's also the kids who will be the happiest to find a song in the movie (it's like the revue musical numbers from the Golden Age of Hollywood). The action sequences are really thrilling - maybe a bit too intense for the smaller ones (the monsters are really scary; they could be involved in Jurassic park movies). At the same time I think there were more childish jokes than in the first one and none of the scenes were as funny as the one with the dodos in the first one. But poor scrat's misadventures with its acorn are again incredibly funny in a merry melodies style and this time they are also better serving the main story. So if you did like the first one probably you will like this one too - and if you didn't? Probably you didn't even bother to read this review.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The Great Adventure for Children
5 September 2005
Let's get clear with two things first: 1. I have not seen anything of the original show so my childhood could not be ruined by this movie. 2. This is a movie for children and children only. Parents may not enjoy the jokes and the plot as much as the children accompanying them, but I say at least we see a movie that is not too "grown-up" for those some-year-old. And with the lively characters they can emotionally connect to, surprisingly nice CGI graphics and enjoyable music it's sure they will not be bored for a second; rather be fully entertained by the big adventure story that playfully steals scenes from other adventure movies - but from the greatest ones, namely Indiana Jones and The Lord of the Rings (okay, and from other movies too). If I was a kid, I would have loved this movie. As an adult I see it's a great and spectacular children's movie.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A War Drama with UFOs
5 July 2005
If this movie will not be as a big blockbuster as e.g. Independence Day then it will be because it is not really a dull audience-serving popcorn. This is a war drama about a father who learns how to protect his daughter; it's a war of worlds not only between aliens and the Earth but the father and others, the father and himself. We can see lots of typical Spielberg moments in this movie (from his war, adventure and also sci-fi movies) which shows it is way more efficient (viscerally) to show explosions and flying cars in their actual speed than the very slow-mo spectacle that Emmerich's movies show. The keyword is "realistic" this case: the sights make us remember all human catastrophes from our memory (from wars and holocaust to 9/11 and tsunami) and righteously so. In the end the movie becomes a bit more popcorn-y as the father becomes a hero and helps in the war against the aliens but still not in an Emmerich-style dumb way. Maybe my only concern is that we could not see anything "revolutionary" or fresh and new - but maybe that's too much to ask from an adaptation of a hundred-year-old book.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Lovable, Forgettable, but fine
21 January 2005
Very simple Movie with no big tension, no very big dramas, no very unforgettable scenes but it still works. This movie is for women, who will no doubt enjoy it more than men as this movie is about young (30-ish) women and their problems, their relationships, how they see men, women and the world. The book which it is based on was no doubt influenced by Bridget Jones's Diary: it is about a single girl who seeks The One. Still, the movie is much better than how the terrible second entry of the Bridget Jones series was; of course it is just not a straight stupid comedy but rather a sometimes funny, sometimes sad, melancholic, nice and light depiction of the female soul in the beginning of the 21st Century. Light but precise entertainment; nothing special but still a very enjoyable way to spend your time and money.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Least magic, Most fun and content
14 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Great movie, or should say, the first real movie of the series. Of Course darker but also has the most fun and laughter for balance. Some very personal details I loved; in the first movies you could not see something like ***SPOILER*** the students having fun with special candies or Hermione behaving like a young woman: "does my hair really look like this from the backside??"***END OF SPOILER***

The wonder is gone, as is from the book. Magic and special wizardry, creatures of Hogwarts are not the most important part of the story: just as Harry is not amazed by them anymore, nor we are. These are only the background for the most important story - the story that is told in 7 chapters, say, seven books. The first two were the introduction, but now the story really begins.

The only thing I missed was the explanation of the 4 names on the map- the names of people who made it. With one or two explaining sentence we would also have understood the patronus creature in the end.

But except from this I really loved it. It also had lots of little fun in the background just as the book or the original Star Wars trilogy. One more thing: the Hippogriff. Well the F/x could be seen sometimes but the concept was great, as the two different "parts" of it behaved just as they had to (the bird part as a bird, the horse part as a horse). Great!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Van Helsing (2004)
4/10
Terrible, plain terrible
1 June 2004
Incredibly fast-paced videogame. I have never ever before agreed on the saying "it is like a videogame" about any movies. But this really is. Why does Mr. Hyde move like a stupid Chimpanzee? Why do we hear fast action music eve when we should not? It felt we have that inappropriately placed (otherwise not bad) music in some places just because the director could not come up with anything explosive in those scenes. But however fast this movie was, it was quite boring. it is easier to start sleeping during constant gunfire than when we do not have explosions every minute. Before Van Helsing and The Day After Tomorrow I thought Emmerich and Sommers are just the same poor Spielberg-imitators. But Emmerich is much higher quality, and this is not a praise for him...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Terrible jokes, happy audience
12 February 2004
This is a story of Hungarian history. The seven leaders of the conquerors wake up a morning after drinking...and they can't find the 600.000 Hungarians that they led just to the border of the future Hungary. So they go to find them and take a fun journey through our 1100-year-old history. Most of the jokes can be understood only by Hungarians or those familiar with Hungarian history and Hungarian movies. Fun to see, a totally crazy movie with Hungarian stars and lots of (sometimes unnecessary) songs. The audience is really willing to like it so mostly they are laughing during the most terrible jokes (as well as the imaginative and really good ones).
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great, funny
9 December 2002
...but about half of the jokes have their meanings only in Hungarian so it might be really hard to translate it into English.

The Unique Adventures of Mézga Family is about a family where the son (Aladár) invents lots of stuff (well, like Dexter in his laboratory but in a less idiot style) and gets in contact with his great-great-greatson from the far future. In each episode, they try to solve some (quite simple) problems not by solving them by common sense but by asking for special future objects, machines etc to help - and of course, they get in a much bigger trouble...

The first spin-off series was about The Adventures of Aladár Mézga, who made a spaceship for himself and secretly travelled to space in every episode. The second spin-off series was The Mézga Family on Vacation where the Mézgas were invited by Hufnágel Pisti (see in the review below) so they travelled across the world in 13 episodes. I don't even understand why these masterpieces can not be found here on imdb...
14 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
I hate this weighted rating
9 December 2002
In case of movies that were commented by a lot of users, it might work, but to give 5.8 for this movie when out of 40 votes (at present) only 3 was below seven, and 42% voted this movie 10, it is really not working. This movie is simply great, beautiful, moving, I loved it with my all heart as a child and cried together with the other kids in the kindergarten...I don't repeat the story, but this is really a uniquely nice movie and it is really a shame that it seems to be some 5.8 crap only because of this weighted rating.
27 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Beautiful, moving
15 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know what's the problem with this movie being politically correct. It only means white men had a kind of barbarian behavior to animals while native Indians had to learn how to live together with them. There's nothing depicted in this movie white men did not do with horses. Okay, is it stereotypical? Yes, in a level, yes, but come on, this is a movie, this is an animated movie, aimed mostly for kids; world is more black&white for them than this movie shows. By the way, the colors of the movie are incredibly beautiful; just as the pictures. Maybe not always really interesting pictures but lovingly beautiful. And the action scenes are better than any in the last two episodes of Star Wars (I had the same opinion about Tarzan after The Phantom Menace). That train sequence... And when ****spoilers*** before the very final scene, Spirit is aimed by guns but is not shot, you can see this movie isn't half as stereotypical about white men as you thought. If you still think it is, you have missed that scene. I personally am sad that this tale could reach only a smaller part of the movie-goers; this might mean that stupid (even if funny), poorly drawn animated features have future and ones like this do not. I certainly would love to see more of this type. 8/10. (p.s. Mustangs are really wild European horses...true)
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Obviously good, but...Dunno yet
22 May 2002
I dunno... I just know that the first watching of these big, spectacular movies full of ideas usually makes me disappointed. It was the same with Harry Potter (reading the book first, it killed the movie and I had to see it once again to like it), Men in Black (seen the trailer thousand times), and even Lord of the Rings (I heard so many praises that I was expecting some orgasm-generating thing while it was *just* very-very good).

Also, I always expect something impossible; I expect the miracle that SW1 provided, or at least the miracle I felt when I saw the first giant dinosaur in Jurassic Park. Of course these miracles can't be repeated; we won't see any f/x so earth-shattering, won't see any incredible good new story elements in this crowded marketplace of movies - I was just so young when I could see SW1 I did not know it was a chain of quotations from other movies and books (Lord of the Rings).

Probably those who say this is the best of the five Star Wars movies watched Empire Strikes Back only on video or the SE in cinemas. Which is not a problem; it seems Lucas is able to make something digestable for the next generation too.

I enjoyed watching the movie, it was incredibly spectacular (even if the f/x was not always the best, sometimes it was better than anything we've seen before). I like the story, actually this non-Black&White movie seems to be more mature than any of the series. I like the sign of the future empire on Obi Wan's ship. I like the irony of the speech of our wise old kung fu master...C3PO is sometimes a bit annoying, but he has the funniest sentence of the movie as well. The love dialogue is really epic. I can't say I really love it; it actually annoyed me a bit, but I can accept it as it is an emotionally really serious part of the movie. I love the usually present background stories (like the droids replacing a window).

I can't say more now; I know I have to watch the movie again to have a more developed opinion on the case. I know I did it wrong when I spoiled the movie for myself reading the book and the comics, watching several trailers before going to cinema. I just wish Lucas forgot marketing aspects and kept everything secret. Of course this is really nice to see these large numbers and records but... PLEASE DON'T DESTROY THE THIRD PART FOR ME, PLEASE!!!!!!! Without seeing any trailers, pictures, books etc. in advance, I promise I will watch that three times, OK?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.