125 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Muslims Good, Americans BAD!
21 January 2006
I always love reading reviews of anti-American movies by anti-American Americans who will almost always claim a movie is "brillaint" and "needs to be seen" just as long as the story has a string of anti-Americanism in it.

America is bad! Bush is evil! The world would be a better place without America in it! The only thing missing from "The War Within"? Poor Muslim children being beaten with clubs by Evil American CIA agents. What, don't you know? All CIA agents are eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Why, if it wasn't for America and the CIA, the world would be one big happy village! A regular campfire where we could all roast marshmellows and whatnot.

Remember, kids, Muslims Good, Americans Bad! CIA Evil! Bush dumb! Brilliant!
5 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Crow -- Stuff Ballotting
30 June 2005
Eh, a kinda bad movie, with not a whole lot to recommend. I dunno what they were thinking, but this barely makes up for the last one (with Kirsten Dunst) which was just awful. Anyways, I give it 3/10, cause it's so bad it's almost funny.

The really funny thing isn't even the movie, but all the "Crow" lovers (or are they Furlong lovers?) stuffing the movie with Perfect 10 votes. At last count, there were over 60+ votes for a Perfect 10. Either these people have never seen movies in their life, or they're stuffing the vote to keep the movie's score above 5. I'm going with the latter.

Then there are the comment stuffing, most likely by the same people stuffing the grade voting. Take a look at the 6 or 7 people who comments in a row, all of them with glowing reviews of the film, but here's the kicker: IT'S DONE BY THE SAME GUY/GIRL!

How do I know? Here are some evidences:

1) The "username" is a first name followed by random numbers. 2) They've only commented on one movie in their whole life -- this one. 3) They're all list "United States" as their location. 4) The reviews are all one paragraph, no more. (They're not only cheaters, they're also lazy!) 5) The fake reviews are all in the same time period -- I think half of them were in the same day!

Well, that's it. I thought it was funny, that's all. This movie should be a 3 in the grade scale if not for all the stuffing. It's really not very good.
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tis Okay, but Sort of Below Average
2 April 2005
This is another okay/maybe-below-okay action-comedy from Hong Kong. Stephen Fung doesn't really show any ability behind the camera, and really, any fight choreographer could have done all the fighting stuff for him. The script is pretty lame, not to mention as original as "Agent Cody Banks". The fights are okay, but you've seen them before in so many other movies, it's not even funny. Anthony Wong is the best thing about the movie, and choosing a villain that is confined to a wheelchair is the worst decision EVER. Overall, I'd give it a 2 out of 5. I wouldn't waste 90 minutes of your life on it, and I really wish I had waste 90 minutes of mine on something better. "House of Fury" is just too plain and uninventive to waste time with.
7 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shutter (II) (2004)
Been There Done That Don't Want the T-Shirt
2 March 2005
I absolutely positively can't believe my fellow IMDb reviewers. All the praise about how "original" this movie is, it's like they've never seen "Ring" or the million of imitations that's come out in the 10 years since that movie. And some of them claim to be horror movie buffs! I think not! "Shutter" is okay. Average, I'd say. I give it 5 out of 10, but there's just no way it's original and great and "the most frightening thing I've ever seen" as one reviewer said. Puh-leeeze, people. This one is plain. It's predictable.

I swear, if I see another ghost movie where the hero traces the past of the ghost in order to find out why she's so mad and after them, I'm going to scream.

"Original"? Give me a break. You people need to get out more. Or at least stop calling yourselves "horror movie fans".
15 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Over 100 "1" Grades for this one -- and only 1% have seen it
28 December 2004
Or probably less. Let's face it, kids, the fact that over 140 Michael Moore Worshippers found their way on this board to grade the film a "1" should tell you all you need to know: That Michael Moore sycophants HATE this movie, not because they've seen it, but because it dares to poke fun at their Dear Leader (sort of like how North Koreans will shoot you if you deny that their Great Dear Leader is a God, etc). Or at least they HEARD it pokes fun at their Dear Leader, thus it can't possibly be good, and thus they MUST DESTROY IT NOW!!!

Such is the state of political "discussions" in this country. If it speaks out against your "side", then it must be evil, and must be destroyed! But if it speaks for your side, then it is untouchable!

In fact, the sheer amount of childish posts in the movie's message board, particularly by one "fukwan", should tell you all you need to know. If you don't think Michael Moore is God's Gift to the Truth, then you'll probably like the film. It's funny and entertaining, and is in no way a direct attack on Moore, just as Moore's earlier documentaries (you know, before his "documentaries" turned into "propaganda" for "his side"?) were.

As such, the title is a bit misleading, as it really doesn't try to convince you that Michael Moore, in fact, hates America -- I suspect that's just a clever way to get the movie some PR, and it worked! Whatever your ideology, you must admit that the sheer volume of "1" grades for the film is ridiculous. No movie in the history of the world, probably, has gotten more "1" than this one, and the poor, sad fact is, that 99.999% of those "1" graders haven't even seen the movie. They heard the title, heard a bit about the film, and immediately attacked it like rabid dogs, determined to rip apart the flesh of the man/movie/thing that would dare question their Great and Dear Leader.

It reminds you a bit of a cult, doesn't it? These Michael Moore fanatics?
25 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bunshinsaba (2004)
Not an iota of originality in its big, bloated head
5 December 2004
Seriously, I don't know why they even bother. This film basically transplants every single cliché of the genre and throws it into one big melting pot, slap on a big budget and glossy look, and expect people to fall for it. If you're a clueless schmuck you'll be scared.

If you've seen even ONE little Asian horror in the last 10 years, you'll liable to roll your eyes and think to yourself, "Geez, can't they even try to be a little more original? Oh, look, the ghost has her long hair drooping over her head again. And oh look, she's doing the 'slow look up to reveal her ghostly eyes' gag again."

In fact, the whole movie consists of the ghost appearing with her hair over her face then slowly looking up to reveal her eyes while the director throws some "scary" music at you. Seriously, folks, it's almost insulting just how unoriginal and cliché this movie is.
11 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Paparazzi (2004)
Average Movie, Dumb "Commenters"
17 November 2004
This is an average B-movie, and like all B-movies, if you approach it right, it's bloody entertaining. That said, I found it curiously entertaining that some of the "reviewers" on this board (you know, those guys that spend 3 or 4 days writing their reviews?) hate this movie not because they hate THIS movie, but because Mel Gibson's name is attached as producer. LOL. One guy was gay, since he mentioned Gibson's name and politics about 90% of the time, and the other guy just hates Gibson. Dudes, this is a fun B-movie. Get over yourself and stop polluting the board with your childish rants against people you've never met, and will never meet in your life.

That said, Cole Hauser is the da man. I like this guy in PITCH BLACK and I like him here. Tom Sizemore is so good as the ruthless photog. Bloody hell, these guys make this movie!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
R-Point (2004)
Good, but not scary
11 November 2004
I've heard people comparing this film to APOCALYPSE NOW. Puh-leeze. It's a good little psychological thriller, but it's not scary at all, or very deep for that matter. PRetty straight forward, in fact. I liked the lead, but the rest of the soldiers basically crumbled into little pieces when the sh*t hit the fan. I mean, these guys are supposed to be hardened soldiers that have been in Vietnam for years? They act more like little girls! Also, the filmmakers wanted to have it both ways -- make it a horror movie, but also as a psychological horror (i.e. is it real or not?) Etc. But he kept showing things that undermine his own point. Why did we keep seeing things from the ghost's point of view? That ghost girl? Then at the end, he tried to give us a twist ending. This movie reminded me of THE BUNKER, which was pretty good, and had almost exactly the same story as R-POINT. Except THE BUNKER came first, so who stole from who? I give it 6 out of 10.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Familiar, Clichéd, Overwrought, and WAAAAAAY Over-hyped
1 October 2004
I don't think TAEGUKGI is a bad movie. In fact, I love war movies. Maybe that's why I can see all the film's faults, since most people who have seen it (you'll noticed that the bulk of the giddy and over-the-top compliments for the film are from nationalistic South Koreans -- that's never a good sign) seems to looooooove it, I just had to throw in my two cents.

Okay folks, here's the thing. YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. You've seen it all before in RYAN, in THIN LINE, and done at least 50 times better in BAND OF BROTHERS. Heck, even the TV movie LOST BATTALLION has already done this! So where does that leave TAEGUKGI? Well, not much ground to cover, that's for sure.

And here's my biggest nitpick with the film: if these soldiers got tossed into a train and drove immediately to the battlefield (i.e. NO BASIC TRAINING!!!) how the heck did they learn to fight, shoot, and even lay mines??? I mean, one guy is a shoeshine boy! The rest are just regular civilians! How the heck did these guys go from shoeshine boy one day to Rambo the next??? It doesn't make sense. And NO ONE has mentioned this.

Hey, maybe I've just seen all this before, but don't try to sell me hype and tell me to like it. I've seen this film 100s of times before. Just because it's made by a South Korean guy doesn't mean it's super brilliant and original, guys. Get a grip and wake up.
10 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Saved! (2004)
Kids love this movie
1 July 2004
Well, kids and anti-religious movie critics, anyway. Mind you, I'm not very religious myself, have gone to church exactly once in my life (I'm in my 20s) and that was just to get some free gifts on Christmas, and don't plan to pray to anyone anytime soon. I didn't see THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST because bible stories bore me, and I don't particularly care for those guys in the white shirts and black pants that seem to ride their bikes everywhere trying to "spread the word".

Having said all that, SAVED! is a very anti-Christian movie. Oh sure, say what you will -- "It's a satire!" or "It's a comedy!" But satires need some measure of respect, even a little bit of fairness, to be effective. This movie was full-on Christian hatred. Look, folks, as I said I'm not a Christian, Catholic, or anything, but even I, as a non-functioning member of the world, can see bias representation when it hits me in the face. And SAVED! couldn't even be troubled to try to hide its agenda.

In other words: if you hate Christianity, you'll love this movie. If you happen to believe God exists, you won't care for it.

Other points people have brought up are legitimate: This movie gets praise only because it bashes Christians. Try any other religious group and you'll get mass protests. Of course you wouldn't SEE HOllywood bashing any other religion except Christianity. In Today's America, Christianity is the only accepted religion to bash. Me personally, I think all religion is stupid.

Nuff said.
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Weak Documentary, Misses Opportunity
5 June 2004
I guess if you went into this looking for a docu that fawns over its subjects, this is the one for you. It certainly never addresses any real-life issues involved with being a stuntmen in Hong Kong. They tell you that Hollywood stuntmen are wimps by comparison -- true, but at least in Hollywood stuntmen are treated as PEOPLE, not PROPS in a movie only there to be used and tossed away, broken and damaged. Oh sure, everyone interviewed here claims to absolutely love it, but the docu never asks any of the hard questions, such as:

1) When they're injured, who pays the hospital bills? Answer: No one. The injured stuntman is simply SOL. 2) When they fall during a stunt, where are the doctors to rush in to save their life, if necessary? Answer: There are none. If they die, they die. 3) Why are stuntment treated like cheap prop? Answer: I wish I knew.

Now, you may look at the questions above and dismiss it, but remember that while YOU, the audience, demands bigger and better stunts, these poor saps have to actually do them, and when a stunt misfires, their lives are at stake. Does knowing that really make watching all those Hong Kong movies better? If so, then good for you -- you don't give a crud about these guys, so how nice for you. Me, I'd prefer to know that at least the stuntmen in Hollywood movies have doctors on location in case they get hurt, and if they do get hurt, they'll be taken care off. But hey, that's just me.

This could have been a serious, real documentary, but instead it just looks like a big advertisement for Shou's movie, which we see a lot of in the film. No big questions, no hard questions are asked. It's all fawning over Hong Kong stuntmen.

In journalism, they call this a fluff piece. It's certainly no documentary, that's for sure.
3 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lethal Ending
31 May 2004
In short: lame first 30 minutes, super duper middle 30 minutes, super duper lame final 30 minutes. That's it, in a nutshell.

Mel b can't act, and so can't the female lead. The male lead was Shinzon in Star Trek Nemesis, incidentally. He looks weird here, probably because the film had zero character development. And the girl using yoga to beat the bad guy at the end was funny. Funny in a "ha ha, that blows" sort of way, mind you.

The film currently has a 7-something rating. This is due to a low voting count. When more people see the flick, I suspect the rating will go down. Around 5-point would be my guess. Myself, I am giving it 6/10, just for the spooky middle. The rest isn't worth spit.

My grade 6/10, just cause I dig horror flicks, even if they're mostly lame.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Practice (1997–2004)
A show about scumbag lawyers and the people who love them
29 May 2004
Scumbag lawyers are all over TV. All the 50 "Law and Order" shows have them. You know the ones -- they'll come in to smirk at the prosecutors because it's all a big game to them, even if they know their clients did it. This show just spends more time with the scumbags instead of the 10 minutes the other shows gives them. Here, we know their names, see them having sex with people, etc. But it's still just a show about scumbag lawyers and how scummy they can be in the name of "preserving the law" or whatever they tell themselves at night to sleep better. If you love scumbag lawyers, you'll love this show. If you happen to think a person who will willingly lie and deceive in order to get a child murderer off the hook is the lowest scum, then you'll have these guys. Needless to say, I hate them, which is why I can't stand the glorification of their "occupation". So sue me. I can't stand scumbag lawyers.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
30 Minutes Too Long
23 May 2004
Not a bad cop film from Belgium/Netherlands. Good action, an interesting story, and fantastic performance by the fellow who plays the old guy/hitman. The action was good, and the suspense more than adequate. Alas, the bloody thing goes on for about 30 minutes too long. This film would have been PERFECT at 90 minutes. But no. They had to go and tack on an extra 30 minutes. Bad mistake. Film takes a nosedive at the 90-minute mark. Can you say, "padded?" Still, not a bad film from Belgium. P.S. Too bad the hot female cop (Linda was her name) didn't get more screentime. She basically just stood in the background or, like the other cop, spent her time delivering papers or reports to the two main cops. Filmmakers didn't know they had a good thing on their hands.

My score: 7/10.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Locals (2003)
29 April 2004
Methinks all the superlative comments for the flick is the result of nationalistic pride, cause it sure isn't because the film is as "awesome" or "super duper great" as all the Kiwis commenting make it out to be. At the most, THE LOCALS is okay. It's sometimes too amateurish. The acting is subpar, the script is pretty silly, and the direction ranges from okay to head-shakingly bad. The lighting, in particular, is just awful. Most of the film takes place at night, and you would think this is great for mood, but not so here. Completely useless lighting. Night is basically day, what with all the brightness. Their use of day-for-night is also horrendous. Take the kitchen scene early in the film. It's supposed to be an intense, scary scene, but it looked like a stage at a High School play. Did these Kiwis just decide to light EVERYTHING? I think so. Every single scene is lit to within an inch of its life. And it's not even good lighting; the mentality seems to be, "Put more light on it! More! More!" No creativity at all. Just grunt work.

Conclusion: If a film is made in a country not known for its films, have doubt when the only people throwing out the superlative comments are ALL from that country/part of town. That's a major tip off right there.

My score: 4/10 (just because I like cheap, schlocky horror films like this)
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Torque (2004)
31 March 2004
I gave this movie a "10" just to counter all the idiots that gave it such a low score that it ended up the 37th (as of this writing) worst movie of all time. Bull. It's not that bad. It's certainly better than that terribly dull BIKER BOYZ. Oh sure, it's not going to win any Oscars, but it's also as "good" as the other movies about racing cars FAST AND THE FURIOUS and its sequel. Heck, it's not like those movies were wonders -- they were just as dumb, slick, and pointless as TORQUE. And anyone who has owned or ridden a motorcycle before in their life will "get" TORQUE.

Real score: 5/10. Inflated score to counter the idiots that gave it such a low rating: 10/10.
29 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
More Gross Out Comedy from Korea
23 March 2004
i guess it's hard to expect korea to keep putting out quality movie. SSAGAJI is another SEX IS ZERO, with a lot of glitzy, polished "hollywood" look but absolutely no heart. it has a lot of lowbrow, bathroom humor. and i do mean A LOT. one thinks the director would have been better off doing a big-budget sci-fi or a serious action movie. is this the next MY SASSY GIRl? nah. even though it does basically repeat the formula down to a "T", it has none of SASSY GIRL's heart and soul. at least it's short. from now on, i guess we'll just have to call these movies "MY SASSY GIRL-LIKE", because south korea is really starting to churn them out one after another after another, and they're getting worst and worst with each one.

p.s. the female lead mugs like crazy in this movie. it's annoying as hell.

i give it 4 out of 10 for being slick.
5 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Wisher (2002)
Bad Voodoo, Man
21 March 2004
What a bad movie. The leading lady looks anorexic and her character is unsympathetic as to be quite foul. Add to that some dodge killings that makes no sense in regards to the movie's theme of "wishing". Not scary, not remotely entertaining, and everyone looks like they're either 25 or 35. You be the judge. Ron Silver is the only decent actor in the bunch, but that's a given.

And did I mention that the leading lady is really anorexic looking and very unattractive? You could do a better job hiring a skeleton to play the role. Sure wouldn't look all that much different.

P.S. CAn you believe 15 people gave this movie a perfect 10? Methinks 15 people from the movie production company signed up just to vote!
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
El Nominado (2003)
Derivative, Silly, and Just Plain Bad
18 March 2004
EL NOMINADO is nothing new. The whole Reality TV Show Gone Bad gimmick has already been done ad nauseam in better fares like MY LITTLE EYE and SERIES 7. This Chilean movie treads the same ground, putting 10 contestants in an underground bunker, and films them with cameras. Snooze. Then one of the contestants goes bunkers and shoots people.

Not bad, right? Wrong.

The bad guy is a skinny geek that walks around flashing a gun and showing his bony body. The guy is so skinny you can see his spine, for Christ's sake. Scary? Nah. Laughable is more like it. Even more laughable is that not a single one of the other contestants can beat this guy, not that they try. Mostly they just run around crying like babies until he locates them one by one. Really, it's pathetic.

Almost no gore to speak off, but they did manage to put in one sex scene, complete with bubbly fresh music. Geez, I wonder why the other contestants didn't run up and bop the skinny guy on the head with something while he's busy shagging some girl? Oh wait. It's a stupid movie with a moronic screenplay. Nevermind.

Watch SERIES 7 again, or MY LITTLE EYE. They're so much better than this tripe.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh Dear -- What Went Wrong???
25 January 2004
What a bad, bad, BAD movie. Barely an acceptable over-the-top action movie, worst that it thinks it's more than that. Erg, taking pop shots at the U.S. like some simpleton without any real-world understanding is perfectly okay. I don't mind people who get their "information" off the Internet making political statements, that's the price of living in our beloved "Information Age".

But oh dear, is BR2 bad. And I mean BAD. Coming off the first film, you'd think there would be more substance, not this terrible film where the action breaks so characters can have their "Big Moment" where they get to put to use all those groovy techniques they learned in drama class. Puh-leeze. I've seen better acting and better writing in a Junior High School play.

Here's a biggie: If the Japanese Government knows where the terrorists are hiding, and they're being pressured by the Big Bad Americans to deal with the issue, why do they send a bunch of high school kids that they have to FORCE in the first place? And these terrorists just blew up two big buildings and killed a bunch of civilians to boot? Duh! If the terrorists are holed up in a island, why not just bomb the blasted place? Or send some jets overhead with some napalm? You'd think this was obvious! But I guess not, because they send in a bunch of high school kids to deal with such a big threat!

You know, I can suspend my disbelief as well as the next mindless moviegoer, but when I'm at least 200 IQs ahead of a movie, there's a problem, people.

I could have done without the exploitation of 9/11. You know, there's a difference between making a good movie that makes people think, and making a crappy movie that exploits tragedies so you can sell some extra movie tickets. Shameless, I tell you.
7 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
September 11 (2002)
Trite, Dumb, and rather Pointless
5 September 2003
At best, many of the segments were mildly interesting. The one from Mexico for example. Nicely done, if you like to think that listening to people dying over and over for 11 minutes is what "entertainment" is all about.

The UK segment seems to being saying that "the Evil Americans had it coming." Really? By this logic, then the Chinese has the right to blow up a couple of 1000 Japanese people every now and then for the Nanking Massacre. Or for that matter, America has the right to blow up a couple of 1000 Japanese people for Pearl Harbor. Right, Mister Director? I mean, those things DID happen too, didn't they? Oh wait, I forgot. ONLY AMERICA should be held responsible for its past wrongdoings. Every other country should get a pass!! It's a good thing then that no one still blames the Germans for World War I AND World War II, otherwise the Jews would have the right to blow up a couple of 1000 Germans every other year for what THOSE guys did. Oh wait, I forgot. ONLY AMERICANS should be held responsible for past evil deeds. Nevermind.

INteresting to note that the only American segment is by Sean Penn, who is by no means a "great" or even "good" movie director. The guy has fallen on such hard times as even an actor that he can't even get on TV nowadays without having to fly over to Baghdad during the midst of an upcoming war, fer Christ sake.

It's also VERY interesting to note that the vast majority of people who thinks this movie is so good are either French or Germans. Man, those Germans. it's a good thing only America is held responsible for its past evil deeds, cause you know -- the Germans!! Heh heh.

God, I love selective memory. The fabled "the world community" does it so well. Forget about everyone else's evil deeds except America. NOW I get it.

And Mister Loach, if I were to count all the evil things YOUR country has done in the past, does that give every one of your victims -- say, all of the Middle East, all of Asia, and Africa -- the right to blow up a couple 1000 of YOUR citizens every other day? God knows you people ahve done some pretty evil things in your "empire making" days, no?

Skip this "film" unless you're French or German or a self-hating American.

And no, I'm not even white, but I am an American immigrant. Those of us whose lives were actually SAVED by America realize that this country has value. Then again, I'm sure the French wouldn't know about being saved by America -- Oh wait, nevermind.

Selective memory is so nice.
3 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Charly (2002)
Beautiful film
30 July 2003
It goes without saying that the same pretentious film critics (or supposed film "critics") on this board will take pop shots at this film. I guess in their twisted minds, life-affirming is the same as bad. I guess to get their approval you need to douse your film with misery and dead babies. Oh, and don't forget incest, rape, and gay themes. Pretentious film credits with delusions of sophistication loooooooooves incest and gay themes.

Sorry, CHARLY doesn't have any of that. But it's still an all-around better film than anything by Lenny Clark and his ilk. Anyone can make a film about bored kids having sex and bitching and moaning about how life sucks. Not everyone can make a movie that touches your soul. CHARLY does that.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Overhype British Nonsense
6 July 2003
I won't bore you with all the illogical happenings of this film, since most people here (at least the smart ones) have already mentioned it. What must be said, and I can't stress this enough, is how UNORIGINAL this tripe is.

But I don't blame Garland and Boyle. If I was surrounded by a world full of idiots who don't remember movies like THE OMEGA MAN and DAY OF THE DEAD, then i would steal both of those movies too and join them up into one movie. And oh yeah, throw in DAWN OF THE DEAD along the way.

To whit:

28 DAYS LATER steals from THE OMEGA MAN in its first 40 minutes....the 40 minute to the hour mark is stolen directly from DAWN OF THE DEAD......leaving the final hour to steal completely from DAY OF THE DEAD.

All I can say is, Boyle and Garland better get themselves a good lawyer, because a TRUE genius name George Romero is probably getting his lawyers right now for a lawsuit.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Recently stolen by 28 DAYS LATER
6 July 2003
I need to say it. I'm sorry if you've read my rantings before, but this entire movie has recently been remade into the second half of the Danny Boyle movie 28 DAYS LATER. I read people gushing about how Boyle has "deconstructed the human being" and other nonsense. Give me a break. Romero was doing that in DAY and DAWN OF THE DEAD before Boyle was old enough to even THINK about stealing from the master.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scarfies (1999)
Good movie ruined by bad ending
27 June 2003
SCARFIES is a good movie, with intense situations and even well thought out responses by the characters to said intense situations. Unfortunately the whole thing collapses with a 10-minute farcical ending that begs to be redone.

Also, I've read people comment that the kids were complex. Wow. Did we see the same movie? Let's see: The a$$hole guy/bad boy; the rich girl who falls for the bad boy; the sensitive guy; the weirdo kid who wants to get in the rich girl's pants; and the sensitive girl. Gee, how complex.

Nothing too great. Good, decent movie, but a really, really stupid ending that cheats. A better ending would have offered us something dark, something bloody. Instead we get an ending that "makes everything all right". I thought only Hollywood did crap like this. Apparently not.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.