Reviews

16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
It's a completely different movie
30 December 2006
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut I just bought the DVD last night, and watched it at 2 a.m. Despite my overall unawareness, it's hard not to see Supe. II as a completely different movie now that it has been shown as it was intended. Right from the opening credits, which have been updated both visually and audibly, with John Williams' original score replacing the high school band responsible for the opening titles in the Lester version, and the names themselves looking altogether sharper. The effects, from flying to heat vision and other small things, are vastly improved, although that could be a function of advances in technology.

The big part of this movie are the scenes with Brando. It's almost surreal to view completely new material performed by a legend who's been dead for a while now. His scene to restore Kal-El's powers almost brought me to tears; the same music from the space ship launch at the beginning of the original movie is playing; it's a very moving scene to say the least.

A big plus for me? NO MEANINGLESS "S" SHIELD TOSS THAT DOES NOTHING! You remember that, right? Non takes off at Superman, and he whips what appears to be a plastic bag "S" at him, sending him to the ground, but nothing more. Family Guy put it best, where Non gets up and says "What was that?" Superman triumphantly says "Ha! How'd that taste? That's right!" and Non responds "That was a minor inconvenience!"

The ending leaves a little to be desired and completely screw up the timeline for "Superman Returns", but that being said, it's still far superior to Lester's version.

I will say this, however. The Superman franchise is in dire need of a classical transformation sequence, not just a shirt-pull and then cut to a disaster. Take that for what it's worth; Lester at least had one. It wasn't great, but it was there.

9/10
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I don't get it
30 May 2004
I fail to see what makes this so appealing. Way too over-the-top, bad screenplay. I didn't care what happened to any of these people, and the fights were not that mind-boggling. Some say that the Bride's battle with the Super 88 puts the Burly Brawl to shame, but that is simply not true. If you want a movie that does this kind of thing well, watch Crouching Tiger, because this movie blows. Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb

2/10
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Powerful and overwhelming
23 March 2004
I'll get this out of the way right now. There were scenes from this movie that I simply could not watch. I flinched during several scenes. I am one of those moviegoers that doesn't flinch for anything. I didn't really feel a connection to William Wallace when he was disemboweled, but I could not watch Jesus Christ being whipped and tortured like that. The most horrifying moment in the entire film is not the money show of the nails being driven through Jesus' palms, or even the dislocating of his shoulder while he's on the cross. No, the most horrifying moment in "The Passion of the Christ" occurs while Jesus is being scourged with a kind of mace/whip/claw weapon. The weapon lodges in his side, and the Roman soldier savagely rips open his side. I was this close to screaming at that moment. I think that the difference between this film and a film like "Braveheart", which is equally gory, is that the audience feels closer to Jesus than they do to someone like Wallace or Maximus. Many in the audience will no doubt have grown up hearing the story of Jesus every Sunday at Mass. I doubt any of them have EVER thought that the suffering of Jesus is anything like that which is depicted in Mel Gibson's masterpiece.

I also don't think that many people thought Pilate would be cast in such a sympathetic light. After Jesus is beaten and whipped to a bloody pulp and is brought before the high priests again, I found myself wishing that they would just let him go. The film is not Anti-semitic, and I felt that the only possible instance of this is when Caiphas calls for Jesus to be crucified. Pilate's eyes go wide, and his expression basically states "Are you out of your mind, you f*cking barbarian?". This too was a powerful scene for me. Abenader is also played masterfully by Fabio Sartor. The audience is given a breath of fresh air through Pilate and Abenader. Here you have two Romans that, amid all the violence and brutality forced upon Jesus, have taken pity on him and do not really wish to see him dead. I mean, you see footsoldiers getting drunk, beating the crap out of a man who has committed no crime, whacking a crown of thorns into his skull, and then you have Abenader, who rescues Jesus twice during the film. This leads me to another point. It was Jews who killed Jesus. Not all Jewish people. But the leaders that swayed the crowd, that pressured Pilate, were Jewish. Remember, I am not an Anti-Semite. However, Jesus was no threat to the Romans. King Herod did not deem him a threat. ("Prove to me that I'm no fool. Walk across my swimming pool!") If the Jewish leaders had not threatened Pilate with a revolt, or even brought Jesus before him in the first place, do you think the Romans would have gone to the garden and arrested him? No.

There are those who will say that the violence is needless. That Gibson went to far. My response is this: It is a crucifixtion. The Romans were well-known for their ability to inflict ENORMOUS amounts of pain of their victims while still keeping them alive. Yes, the film is violent, but I think it needs to be to get its point across. Take, for example, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus is almost completely clean throughout the entire crucifixtion scene. It looses a lot of its impact if it is to P.C. or watered down to be taken seriously. I didn't think there was any part of the movie that seemed watered down. This had a profound impact on me as a person, and I pose this question to you: Are we really all that different now than 2000 years ago? Are we really so civilized that we are above pain and suffering like Jesus felt? Are we?



10 out of 10.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It was not really so bad
26 January 2004
Honestly, I don't know why people are so bent about this movie. It was a fun popcorn matinee-style movie that has all the cool elements of the original trilogy. I personally enjoyed the frequent use of lightsabres in this movie, I thought that they weren't used as well in the original trilogy. There was a fair bit of location shooting and sets that were not just blue screens (The conveyor belt in AOTC!) Character development was shaky but, as Roger Ebert said, "if you want non-stop character development, watch a Star Trek movie." That and the lightsabre duel at the end was kickass. There's no way that this movie is as bad as people say, like Gigli. NOT THAT I'M COMPARING THIS MOVIE TO A BENNIFER FEATURE. sorry.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Honestly, not that bad
4 January 2004
I don't see why people hated this movie. I mean, it was not a brilliant movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it wasn't terribly awful. I thought it was funny. And I go to a lot of movies. I guess whatever movie a critic hates, I usually like. Like, and cried laughing during Scary Movie 3. Any comedy Roger Ebert hates is awesome, trust me on this.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hart's War (2002)
Trying to do too much
9 December 2003
Hart's War was a very good novel but the movie was a bit of a disappointment because it tried to be too much. We have a plot similar to "The Great Escape". They're tunneling out of a German P.O.W. camp, albeit for different reasons. Second, we have "To Kill a Mockingbird" where a black man is put on trial for a crime he did not commit. We also have a nice little bit from "A Few Good Men" where Colin Farrell goes all 'Tom Cruise' on us and goes on a roll before the really stupid move of confessing that HE commited the murder, when in fact he didn't. Also, they crammed two characters into one. In the novel, the Commandant is Oberst von Reiter. There is the chief of security at the camp who is Hauptmann Heinrich Visser, who has only one arm. I think it was lazy for them to eleminate a key character and then give us a two-in-one guy who falls short of a good role. In short, read the book, you won't be sorry.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Vintage Cherry
4 December 2003
This is pure Grapes. Bone-crushing hits, dynamite saves, beauty goals, and more hits and fights. And who can forget Don's trademark outrageous suits. This is Canadian pride and entertainment at it's finest; LONG LIVE THE KING
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Max (I) (2002)
Interesting
2 December 2003
I thought this film was fairly good if not a bit boring. But it was inventive. I don't think there has ever been a movie that portrayed Hitler in a way that would make an audience feel sorry for him. That took a lot of guts and whether or not it is historically accurate is beside the point. The point is that these filmmakers took a chance and I think that it paid off.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watched it a lot when I was six
1 December 2003
When I was six years old I borrowed this movie from my cousin in Montreal and I loved it. I watched it about fifty times and never got tired of it, and then I had to give it back. I saw it again recently, and some things just didn't sit right. First of all, there's no way that an American Midget team like that could beat an All-Star team from Canada. Secondly, the people who did this movie decided for whatever reason to make the most menacing team in this tournament Iceland!!! Iceland hasn't even been to the World Juniors in years! Or made the Olympics. They may have all of ten players in the NHL right now. How did they suddenly become so good? Forget Russia, forget Canada, ICELAND!!! Holy crap what a mistake! And did anyone notice that the team from Iceland had an average player age of about twenty two? That being said, the hockey scenes were pretty well-done for a movie, unlike the abomination Screech Owls series, which took a good series of books and handed the 'acting' credits to a bunch of kids who couldn't skate! And one more thing: Who the hell decided to give JAMAICA a team in an international hockey tournament. That's a joke! If you're gonna get blown out of the water every game you should never have made the cut to get in in the first place! But I loved the movies when I was a kid. Now I think that the first one is the only one worth watching.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Politically Incorrect (1993–2002)
Don't worry, you still have the Daily Show
25 November 2003
I confess to never having seen Politically Incorrect, but I have seen Bill Mahr's stand-up and read some of his monologue-style jokes on the internet. It seems to me that he was unjustly cancelled, and thank God that a quality network like HBO had the balls to pick up a show like this. Comedy Central let Bill on the loose, and he went to ABC. Now they have a new prodigy in the form of the Daily Show. For all of its hype as a "Fake" news show, it was a more accurate report on the war than any of the 24-hour news channels (CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC). Stewart doesn't make nearly as much money as say Jay Leno or David Letterman, but I hope that he never leaves Comedy Central. One of the reasons that he is able to say and do what he does is because he's on basic cable and on Comedy Central, so people won't be as easily offended by his material. It's weird, you could watch CNN for ten hours after something important has happened to get get a rudimentary, conseratively-biased account of this event, and then watch the Daily Show for ten minutes and get a report with different perspectives represented in it and something to laugh at at the same time, i.e. Stephen Colbert or Ed Helms.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trading Spaces (2000– )
Hate it all you want, it's still the number 1 show on Saturday night
6 November 2003
Just what the summary says. It's still bringing in more than 10 million viewers every Saturday, and that makes money. The words of a few thousand people on the internet can't compare to the millions of people who idol-worship this show. (I'm not one of them)
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Angel (1999–2004)
10/10
Smallville and Angel make for a kick-ass Wednesday Night
23 October 2003
I only saw this show for the first time two weeks ago after watching Smallville, but I have to say that I almost like this show more than the adventures of a young Superman. I never watched Buffy so I donn't know any character histories, other than the fact that Spike was unable to bite people for a while. I haven't got a clue about the whole storyline, but as far as I can tell, it's a pretty well-written show with sharp dialogue (Spike, to me, just has a lot of charisma; he would be a good politician if he wasn't a vampire. Wait, I guess that's what qualifies him for a job in politics!) and some pretty good fight scenes, and the acting is confusingly good for a vampire show. The most recent episode, which involves the Grim Reaper coming to take Spike, who is passing in and out of the real world as a ghost, to hell. In the scenes where Spike tries to tell Angel where he is, there is some real tension, and especially during the 'follow the blinking light' sequence. This is a great show for the WB who, for too long, has produced total and complete crap (Tarzan, anyone?), with a few shining lights that end up getting canceled anyway. More shows like Angel and Smallville!!!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Top Gun (1986)
7/10
I wonder what the RPM is like in a fighter jet?
21 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
this is without a doubt, the best guy movie ever. Fast machines, a hot chick, and explosions. The one flaw would have to the **SPOILERS** death of Goose, played flawlessly by Anthony Edwards. Tom Cruise is a solid fighter jock, with Val Kilmer playing the good guy/rival bit perfectly. Some lines fall flat, but the superb flight sequences make up for any flaws.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Investigation (2002 TV Movie)
7/10
Surprisingly gripping
9 October 2003
I saw this movie a few weeks ago when my mom brought it home for work. I liked the movie from the start, I found it to be kinda like a Law and Order Special Victims unit for Canada. Anne Wheeler does a great job not showing Clifford Olsen's face until the very last scene of the movie. Nicholas Lea, who you will remember played Krycek on THE X-FILES, is great as Les Forsythe, a desperate detective who is blown off by the brass like some batty old lady who hears noises all the time. He seems very at home in this kind of movie, and his frustration is evident as he struggles through the beaurocracy of the RCMP. Overall 10/10. Don't miss this movie if you have the fortune of finding it.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good, but FELLOWSHIP was a more enjoyable adaptation
8 October 2003
This movie was incredibly good in its own sense, but being a complete nerd about these books, I have to say that the movie is woefully inadequate. Danial Radcliffe seems too wimpy for Harry Potter. He should be a little awkward but in this movie he's a complete pansy. All in all, it was a pretty good book to movie transition but it was not anywhere near as good as the Fellowship of the Ring
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Better than the first, but did anyone realize...
8 October 2003
This was one of the best sequels I have ever seen. THe fights were spectacular and the characters had much more depth than the last movie. Some have commented that it takes too long to get going, but I disagree. In the original Matrix, it's nothing but Neo waking up for half an hour straight and laurence fishburne talking with a weird smile and sitting in a crappy red chair. They talk a lot in this movie too, but what they say is interesting! IT answers so much that the other film left hanging. There were only two flaws that I could find: The awful sex scene during the rave (That really wasn't necessary). The other involved the car chase. NOw don't get me wrong; the chase itself was excellent and well-choreographed. But I realized about halfway through that all the cars they were using were made by GM. A twin shoots through a chevy tahoe, the cops all drove Chevy Impalas, and the agent jumps on an Oldsmobile Intrigue. The only non-GM car in the movie was the Audi A8 taht the Agents drove.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed