Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Excellent
23 May 2011
I didn't watch this show much when it started but after I caught a few episodes here and there throughout the season, I wish I had watched the entire season. I found each of the episodes I watched to be very entertaining and exciting. I watched the last 4 or 5 episodes regularly, which was very easy since I was watching House in the time slot immediately before Chicago Code. While watching the final episodes, particularly the episodes during the last 2 weeks of the season, I couldn't help feeling extremely frustrated that the show had been cancelled by Fox. I think it had a lot of promise and that promise was thrown aside. I wish that Fox would have taken a chance on a show like this and ditched some of the stupid reality shows that seem to permeate every network's schedule now-a-days. Hopefully Fox will replace it with an equally entertaining or more exciting show next season and not more of that BS reality garbage. R.I.P. The Chicago Code
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
disappointing
9 November 2010
By today's horror standards, the original Nightmare on Elm Street is rather tame and corny. I didn't even seen the movie until I was about 25 yrs old. As I consider myself a big fan of horror, I decided it was time to see NOES, so I finally rented and watched all 7 of them in 2002. I had heard many stories from friends and family about how scary the original NOES was, but when I saw it, I was not scared at all. In 2002, I didn't find the original Robert Englund Freddy Krueger very frightening.... but compared to this new Nightmare on Elm Street and the new Freddy, Robert Englund was about the scariest thing ever. This new movie is a big disappointment. Don't bother and the new Freddy looks pretty lame. That is all. THE END
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Push (2009)
3/10
no sense
7 July 2009
This movie was terrible. I was halfway through the movie when it mostly stopped making sense. The special effects could have been cool but they took the backseat to the lousy and broken story. The movie breaks its own rules and continuity in order to continue the story... whatever that story is... It is almost 2 hours long and therefore, about an hour and a half too long. The ending is so lame. I don't even want to waste my time with anymore specific details because it was so bad.

I don't even know what else to say because I don't really have anything positive to say about it. Oh wait, Camilla Belle is nice to look at. There's one positive!

Don't waste your time or money, rent something else.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Best Batman movie ever
22 February 2009
I loved Batman 1989 with Michael Keaton when I saw it at age 12. I mean I absolutely loved it, but in my opinion, there were some weaknesses. Those weaknesses have become more apparent over time. Michael Keaton was a fantastic Batman, but a very unconvincing Bruce Wayne, while Christian Bale has nailed both roles in Begins and Dark Knight. The sets, city backdrops, and scenery was very painting-ish and too Burtonesque-hokey in 1989in the current Batman series, the city is gritty, realistic, and convincing. While the soundtrack by Danny Elfman from the 89 Batman may be one of my favorites to this day, the music is not nearly as epic as the soundtrack from Begins and the Dark Knight. With The Dark Knight... and Batman Begins, Chris Nolan and Christian Bale have taken all the bad things about Batman 1989 and made them excellent. Of course, no good Dark Night review is worthwhile without a mention of how great Heath Ledger was as The Joker. Jack Nicholson's goofy portrayal of the Joker in 89 was great in its own right, but Heath Ledger disappeared into the insane killer. This movie is an awesome action movie and the best Batman movie so far. Here's to making many many more fantastic Batman movies.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Transformers (2007)
5/10
a solid 5 out of 10
5 July 2007
I should first mention that I am a hardcore old-school Transformers Generation 1 (TF G1) fan. When I was about 8 or 9, TF G1 was my favorite cartoon. Only two other cartoons since then have had any kind of impact on me, those are GI Joe, which ran about the same time period as TF, and Batman the Animated Series which ran in the early 90s after I became a big Batman movie fan. Take my review as you will...

I think that this movie was neither an incredible embarrassment to the old series, nor was it a great tribute either.

Let me start with what I thought was bad. There were many things that upset me about this movie. To begin with, I was never an advocate of a live-action TF movie at all. I felt that if another TF movie was made, it should be all CG, like Cars or Toy Story, or it should be animated just like the original series, but using fancy new animation techniques of course. I always thought that TF in a live-action setting would end up being pretty hokey, and I think I was right.

I was never too happy with the new TF movie designs. I thought they looked like insects. Optimus Prime and Jazz were the only 2 robots that really looked decent because they were similar to the originals and not so much insect-ish. Megatron and Starscream were the worst and just looked plain ridiculous.

Except Peter Cullen w/ Optimus Prime, I also thought most of the voices were lousy. In the original series, Peter Cullen also voiced Ironhide, and he was already in the movie... why couldn't he voice both characters? I must admit that Hugo Weaving made a pretty good Megatron Voice. Jazz's voice sounded silly and bumblebee speaking through/as the radio was annoying and made me angry.

The dialogue was so cheesy! Why did they have to cheese it up so much? Prime steps on something and says "My bad!" STUPID! The odd-looking girl didn't recognize Sam through 10 years of grade school? What the heck was that all about? Well anyways, I could go on and on about designs, dialogue, voices, etc... but I digress.

The good parts of the movie? The action, battle scenes, and storyline were pretty good and in my opinion, balanced out all the bad things from this movie and pulled it up to an average score from me. The plot was good, simple, standard Transformers fare and its something you could see in the old animated show. The action and battles were pretty outstanding. Even though Michael Bay knows absolutely nothing about developing characters, he sure knows how to blow stuff up!

Although I went into that movie expecting it to be awful, it wasn't THAT bad. It also wasn't THAT good either. I suggest you set your expectations low, and you probably won't dislike it so much. Of course unless all you want out of movies is thin plots and lots of explosions and special effects... if thats you, this movie should be right up your alley. Well thats all I have to say about that.
14 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
At least Linda Blair looked good...
30 October 2006
I'm going to keep this as short as I can because I could go on for hours with a long barrage of insults on this movie. I must note that I am a supporter of the original Exorcist, not because I think it was a wonderfully scary movie, but because it was original for its time and it is now a classic. I just really like old horror movies. Of course, when you like a horror movie, you're drawn to watch all the sequels in hopes that they'll live up to the original. humph...

Basically I thought this movie was stupid. I have reasons, but the main one is that I just found, after watching it twice that it made no sense. If the story did make sense, it was so buried in the twisting storyline that I lost the point less than halfway through. Acting was bad, the movie was too long, and the hypnotism machine was a horribly hokey idea. Seriously, what the heck was this mess? Oh well. At least we get to see Linda Blair look hot in her late teens.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Um... bad
11 May 2006
I had seen the first three Return of the Living Dead movies and consider all of them at least 5 out of 10 stars. This one is poo. The special effects are overdone. When a zombie bites a person's head, blood sprays out all over the place. The dialogue is cheesy. The acting is lousy and unbelievable. I still don't understand how high school students know how to do moto cross, use high powered automatic weapons, are expert marksman, practice martial arts, AND are capable of repelling down the sides of skyscrapers without batting an eye. Somehow the zombies also learned kung-fu and the ability to fight hand-hand and now have become intelligent enough to hold coherent conversations with living humans. Lastly, this Return... movie breaks the rules of the other movies in the Retun Of The Living Dead series. The zombies could only be killed with electricity or fire, but now, according to this movie, head-shots will also kill them. How can you create rules and then ignore them? Lame Lame Lame Oh well, at least the girls are nice to look at.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed