39 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Interesting, enjoyable movie
25 July 2004
The Steven Spielberg-directed Catch Me If You Can (CMIYC) is an enjoyable, funny movie with a great cast and plot. Based on the true story, the movie follows a few years in the life of Frank Abagnale Jr (Leonardo DiCaprio), who runs away from home and imitates many professions, from a school teacher, to a doctor, to a lawyer, making millions of dollars along the way. Always on his trail is Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks), an FBI agent whose mission is to catch Frank. The movie features the cat-and-mouse chase between Frank and Carl, including the twists and turns.

Spielberg has made a great film that was good to watch. The actors did well in their roles, particularly DiCaprio and Hanks. There were a few laughs and many bits of romance. CMIYC is a fun sort of film that many people can enjoy.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
New York Minute (I) (2004)
It wasn't that bad, and it was enjoyable
16 July 2004
People need to cut New York Minute more slack. People attack it just because it is associated with Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. But really, despite the unoriginal and somewhat lame plot, it really wasn't that bad.

Mary-Kate and Ashley star as Roxy and Jane Ryan respectively. The sisters (twins, of course) are like chalk and cheese. Jane wants to make it to a speech that could ultimately give her a scholarship to Oxford University, and Roxy wants to give her band's demo tape to the managers of the band Simple Plan, who are shooting a music video that day.

Of course, things don't sail so smoothly for the sisters. Instead of their original plans, they are forced to spend the day together (a first after many years) as they face a culture-confused crook, a weird-looking dog and a truant officer. Oh, and the movie couldn't be complete without a cute guy for each twin.

It was an enjoyable film, and the Olsens did well to keep up their characters and hold the film. Yes, too many things happen to them, but I'm guessing they wanted to get a lot into their first (and what could be their last) feature film for cinemas. It was a fun movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
I enjoyed it
1 June 2004
When I went in to see Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, I expected it to be really bad with all the bad reviews labelling it as corny and ridiculous etc. So I was surprised when it turned out to be a better film that I expected. The acting was good and the dancing was hot. And even though the plot may have been unoriginal and predictable, nothing these days is really that new.

I thought Romola Garai (as Katey Miller) did a good job of keeping up an American accent. And Diego Luna (as Javier Suarez) does a great job of dancing and being a charismatic character, not to mention that he's pretty hot!

I haven't seen the original Dirty Dancing, but I think you should let this film stand on its own. Just because it uses the name, it doesn't mean they're linked.

On the whole, if you want to see a nice movie with lots of hot dancing, Havana Nights is for you. But if you're looking for something equal to the original, you may not like this one as much.
34 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Peter Pan (2003)
10/10
Just magical with a touch of pixie dust
21 December 2003
I really liked 'Peter Pan'. It was very colourful, full of life and overall a beautiful movie. The story has been done many times over, but this version definitely stands out.

The acting is very good. Jeremy Sumpter is great as Peter, Rachel Hurd-Wood is amazing as Wendy Darling, and Jason Isaacs is brilliant in the dual roles of Captain Hook and Mr. Darling. I even liked Ludivine Sagnier as Tink - I thought she did the role well. The rest of the cast suited their parts really well too.

'Peter Pan' is the story that never grows old. This adaptation has done the story very well - my only problem is I think they focused too much on a romance between Peter and Wendy, which isn't really in the original story.

Having said that though, it's still a great movie.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
This movie really rocked my boat!
13 September 2003
I loved "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl"! It had a bit of everything thrown in -- action, comedy, romance and very good special effects! I heard it was good, but not as good as I thought it was! It's definitely one of the best films of 2003 so far. Johnny Depp was great and carried the film very well. It wouldn't have been as good without him, because he really gave life to his character, Captain Jack Sparrow. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were also really good, and Geoffrey Rush was excellent as the evil Barbossa. Overall, a wonderful movie!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sugary sweet but unoriginal
9 July 2003
This movie is really good for true "Lizzie McGuire" fans but for those that aren't exactly fans then it's just another romantic comedy, with a pretty predictable plot and a girly theme.

Lizzie McGuire has graduated from Junior High and is going to Rome for two weeks. She and her pal Gordo "seek adventure" but what she gets is Italy's hottest pop star. Lizzie is then asked to imitate Paolo's partner Isabella, and everything unfolds from there.

It's great for young girls who wish they could be Lizzie, it's too unoriginal for teenagers and adults won't really find it that amusing.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Creative adaption of the play
16 April 2003
I think this version of "Romeo + Juliet" is very good because of its creativity and flair. The modern setting makes it look like an ordinary teenage movie, but the story compels it to attract a very wide audience. Heaps of things have been changed, but I think that's cool because there are heaps of versions shot in an older-style setting.

I think the lead characters are played really well by Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. I don't think it would've worked without them.

Overall, a different version of the famous tragedy, but I think Baz Luhrmann has done quite well. I mean it is pretty obvious that it's one of his films.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fantastic!
13 January 2003
This movie is excellent! The acting is really good again, and the graphics are heaps cool! But if you haven't see "The Fellowship of the Ring" or haven't read the books, you will be seriously lost watching "The Two Towers".

The second movie begins right where the first left off, with Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and his sidekick Sam Gamgee (Sean Astin) are making their way to Mordor to destory the Ring. The scenery is pretty much the same as the first - in fact, pretty much everything is the same apart from the story and the fact that this movie doesn't focus so much on Frodo but on Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli the dwarf (John Rhys-Davies).

The fight scenes are also realistic and the costumes are great.

Basically, if you loved the first film, you'll probably love this one too. It's very cool!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A good Disney sequel
30 December 2002
One thing I've noticed about most Disney sequels is that the storyline tends to be the opposite of the original. It's not different here. In the original "Peter Pan", Wendy has no intention of growing up too soon and instead goes to Never Land for a while, where she'll never grow up. But in "Return to Never Land", Wendy has grown up, gotten married and had kids of her own. Her son, Danny, who's still very young, is always intrigued by his mother's stories of Peter, but her older daughter Jane, who feels as though now her father's gone to war, she must protect her family, it means no more silly stories. And then the movie develops from there, when Jane is thought to be Wendy and is kidnapped by Captain Hook. Then, of course, Peter Pan meets her and then the story continues from there. Jane thinks she's really mature, and it's up to Peter and the Lost Boys to bring out her childish side again.

I think "Return to Never Land" is one of the better Disney sequels, as heaps of others have turned out to rip-offs of the original. If they thought this was going to be like the others, they would've released it straight to video. So, if you have to see a Disney sequel, then this is a pretty good one.
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as good as I expected
30 December 2002
I seriously wanted to see "Sweet Home Alabama", but after I did, I realised it really wasn't that big a deal. Reese Witherspoon acts really well, but she's just a really good actor. The others weren't that great. The story line caught my attention during the previews, but I had seen so much from the previews that when I was actually watching the movie, it didn't surprise me at all. So when I came out of the cinema, I wasn't that satisfied. Reese Witherspoon's acting made up for it though, only not completely.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Enchanting Disney cartoon
30 December 2002
This movie has really good animation, script and voicing, so overall it's a really good movie. I enjoyed it a lot when I saw it, however it's not exactly one of those films I can watch over and over again and not get bored. I see "Beauty and the Beast" as one of those movies that you watch after a long time, because then you can relive the magic and atmosphere of the film. I really like the animation too, and the voices. "Beauty and the Beast" is a beautiful and sweet Disney movie, and one the whole family can enjoy.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Peter Pan (1953)
10/10
Really cool Disney cartoon
19 December 2002
I recently saw this movie again, and I felt as though I was watching it for the very first time again. It's got a magical feel to it, and I didn't feel silly watching it, even though it's aimed at younger kids and I'm a teenager. I guess the one thing that often made me wince was Wendy's voice. She sounds way too old, and in the movie they say she's a child, so we're expected to think she's around the age of ten or something, except she looks like she could be fifteen. She's still very mature, and I didn't see the problem with her "growing up". She had to grow up sooner or later.

But overall, I like this movie, especially considering that it's one of Disney's earliest productions. It's one of those movies that's enchanting.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Typical high school movie
3 November 2002
This is kind of like your average high school movie, with a few small differences. It always seems to be about trying to fit in nowadays, in real life also. Even though in this movie Josie (Drew Barrymore) isn't exactly a real student, she finds herself within the process of trying to be cool. It's one of those movies where you're supposed to think 'I don't need to try to be cool', kind of like a feel-good movie. The thing is the movie has sudden story line changes - one moment Josie's trying to cool and the next moment she's writing an article about her first kiss. It has nothing to do with her original assignment. Oh well, guess that's what's supposed to happen. Overall, it's pretty cool, just like every other teenage movie in this world.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Stupid
16 October 2002
This movie is really pointless I reckon. The acting isn't even that good even though you would expect some good comedy since it stars Jack Black and Jason Biggs. Even they can't seem to save this dumb movie. The story line is pathetic. I don't see why they got normally talented actors to waste their time making this movie. This is a comedy gone completely wrong. What a waste of time and money.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dark Angel (2000–2002)
Good acting but the script is a bit of a let-down
13 October 2002
I began watching this series because most of my other shows' series had ended, and I was stuck with nothing else to watch. The show itself is hard to understand, especially if you don't start watching from the beginning. But as the show goes along, it begins to make some sense and it can become interesting. The acting is really good as well. Too bad it's been axed.
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Rumble Fish (1983)
It's pretty good
7 September 2002
Rumble Fish is a pretty good movie, but it's not as good as The Outsiders. The themes and story are pretty much the same, but Rumble Fish is rougher and is more violent. But the acting is all really good, especially by Matt Dillon and Diane Lane. The Motorcycle Boy is also really good. There's heaps of swearing too. They swear every second word, particularly Rusty-James (Matt Dillon). The movie's okay, but I reckon the book is better. You need to read it first though to understand the movie. It helps heaps.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Everybody Loves Raymond (1996–2005)
Always funny
25 August 2002
"Everybody Loves Raymond" is always funny and entertaining. It's great for laughs and the acting is also really good. It's cool how all the actors can keep straight and serious faces even when the scene is really funny. Robert is also very funny, because of his jealousy. All the acting is good, but I think Frank and Marie are a little bit better. They're funny in a different way.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Funny but not that sweet
11 August 2002
I guess it's about celebrity relationships - and the fact that they never seem to last. This movie is almost like a documentary. Well, sort of. Another thing is the ending of this movie is predictable, so don't be shocked with the outcome. The acting is great, because they managed to get excellent actors. The story line isn't all that great, but with talented actors, it makes this movie okay.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bring It On (2000)
Okay
11 August 2002
This movie is okay I guess. It's not the best in the world but it's not terrible either, so it's right in the middle. I guess I didn't find this as intriguing as I thought it would be because I'm not the biggest fan of cheerleading. I reckon the acting was cool, though, and Kirsten Dunst was great. The gymnastics involved was great too. Funny how there were hardly any pom-poms though, hmm?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Get Over It (2001)
I don't know about this one ...
11 August 2002
I didn't really like this movie but I didn't hate it either. I sat through it thinking "so what's the point of this movie?". It's got some great actors but it's really not that good. Sure, it's based on Shakespeare and you can argue that almost anything to do with him has gotta be good, but not in this case. (I didn't really think so in any other case, too.) See the movie if you're bored, otherwise don't bother.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pretty funny
11 August 2002
"The Emperor's New Groove" is another Disney movie with a pretty cool twist. At least it's not prince-saves-princess sort of thing. The voices are really cool, as is most of the story line. I think the coolest person is Kronk - he's so funny and silly and the movie wouldn't be worth seeing if he wasn't in it. The jokes are for older people but the characters are for youngsters - it's pretty much a movie for the whole family.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Old-fashioned but it's okay
11 August 2002
I have never been a fan of Shakespeare, but we had to watch this for school while reading the play. I thought it would be extremely boring and pointless. Well, it wasn't all that boring and not all that pointless, either. It's actually quite entertaining. The clothes are appropriate for the time, whenever it's set and the good acting can occasionally get a laugh.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Crossroads (I) (2002)
Um ... pretty bad
6 August 2002
Britney can sing okay, but her acting needs a little work. Okay, make that a LOT of work! This movie is mainly about Britney. This movie has too much Britney. Everything in this movie is practically all about Britney Spears. Can't they make a movie about someone else? It's not like Britney doesn't get enough publicity anyway. The movie was okay, but not as good as I expected (I didn't expect it to be too good). The plot's fine, but the acting is really bad.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sweet
2 August 2002
This movie is really sweet and pretty cool. It might be a little soppy at times but the movie is sweet. The acting is pretty good, but Mandy Moore is definitely a better actress than Britney Spears. She actually knows how to act, and unlike Britney, she doesn't play herself.

This movie isn't the best in the world, but it has talented actors and actresses and a good story line, although it does seem to have the same plot as heaps of other films. You know, the whole bad boy meets good girl meets Cupid.

This is a good film, so I recommend people watch it. It's sad and quite entertaining.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An okay sequel
25 July 2002
I think I thought this movie would be pretty bad, but it's actually okay. I guess the story line is kind of the same as the original movie, but it's pretty much just another Disney movie. Lately heaps of sequels have been coming up, but they haven't been as good as the originals. This movie was okay for a sequel. I guess I didn't enjoy it as much because I'm 13, but my younger sisters liked it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.