Change Your Image
budakhan79
Reviews
Ankle Biters (2002)
Absolutely DO NOT MISS THIS ONE!!!!
You know when people say "That is the worst movie ever!" Well, I don't say that much at all, but for this one, DEFINITELY! This movie IS the worst movie I've seen, and that's why I have it in my DVD collection. This movie is so bad, that it actually has a lot of redeeming value. It's the kind of movie that you will want to watch with your buddies while cracking open a cool one. Example for how bad this movie is: One scene called for a bar tender; so a real bartender (not an actor) was used and the set was his own bar! And vampires walking in daytime; yup, the filmmakers didn't have any lights for night-time shooting. And it's even shot in mini DV.
Worst movie ever, WATCH IT!
Alexander (2004)
Long, Boring, and makes me want to barf.
Let's get things straight here. This movie absolutely does not deserve anything over 5 stars. It's very long, very boring and extremely confusing. There are only two good scenes in this movie while the rest are a conglomerate of disjointed sequences plagued with confusing dialogue, over-acting, bad editing, atrocious music, mind-numbing cinematography and distracting effects (circle wipes and red filtering that do not support the scenes). I recommend that you do not rent or buy this movie on several levels. It is long so it will waste a lot of your time and it's not horrible enough for you to laugh at with your friends. Also, if you think that you'll see a plenty of be-headings and other awesomely violent acts like in Braveheart, you'll be disappointed. Save yourself from watching Ancient Greeks with Irish accents; Colin Farell's annoying puppy-dog eyebrows (and his dong and balls which unfortunately were in the movie) and Angelina Jollie's stupid accent and nasty collagen filled lips.
Alexander the Flop is NOT worth your time.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Not nearly as good as we hoped
I feel that the critic's reviews of this movie are in error. Let's face it; this is not a good movie. As much as people want to believe it's good it still falters when it comes to the core criteria of what makes an engaging film. Revenge of the Sith suffers from bad lines of dialog, un-suspenseful action, poorly directed actors, bad sense of timing, and horrible story boarding.
I'll go down the list I created. There are some awful lines in this movie. In screen writing classes, we are told not to have our character's spell out their their emotions in dialog and have them 'show' their emotions through actions and expressions. This movie is speckled with such poor dialog and in a very cliché manner.
The events in this movie are truly un-suspenseful. There are a couple of scenes where I was questioning if a character was going to die or go through some great change; but these were few and far between. To create drama, you must make the audience question whether a character will survive a certain conflict or event or undergo a severely damaging change. (We know that certain key characters will survive this film because of the sequels but having the audience question how they will overcome such severe emotional stress will still create drama).
The actors in this Revenge of the Sith are very good; I've seen them in other films, but they were given such bad lines to read that they seem to stumble over them. And their poor delivery of dialog shows bad direction on Lucas' part. Also, there is a lack of emotion in these characters in a film where a lot of intense events occur; lots of betrayal and inner conflict are in this movie, but there are very little emotional reactions to them. Isn't a film supposed to be about drama? There is only one scene in this movie where true drama existed, and it was in the only sequence with no dialog at all.
The timing in this movie is a bit of a mystery. After seeing the film all the way through, I realized that it takes place over several months. This you can tell with Padme's pregnancy. However, the characters in their actions and dialog don't portray this passing of time and neither does the script itself. The audience is carried from one scene to the next seemingly as if there is no great leaps and bounds in time (but there are). All serious filmmakers know that jumping through time in a narrative means dips to black or some other form of showing time pass. This did not occur.
The shot composition in this movie is really bad. I'm not asking for hugely creative shots, but there are far too many standard setups in this movie. Every scene consists of the standard two-shot (as if in a play) with very little coverage. There are hardly any close-ups to show emotional reactions in the characters.
General synopsis of the movie; it had so much potential to be a wonderful film. There are some very intense occurrences in Revenge of the Sith. Unfortunately, Lucas failed to create an emotional connection with these characters and how they deal with their conflict. And it's sad that it had to come to this. The Star Wars saga is so huge and such a big part of so many people's lives. But it has been marred by the poor legacy of the recent trilogy that has forgotten the key elements of what makes a good story which ultimately makes a good film.
Ghost World (2001)
I didn't like it
And I'll tell you why; because it was boring. I mean really; the story didn't pick up until an hour or so into it. Sorry, I just found this movie to be very monotonous. There were a lot of scenes where nothing happened and everything was totally expected. Also, there were some things that were supposed to be funny, like Doug, which were in a way but it just didn't hit. I felt this movie played out a lot like the show Daria where you have this pessimistic protagonist who is just too cool for anybody and it just wears so freakin thin. Anyhow, I like Buscemi and his character and some gags were cool but that's it really. And for those of you who say it's just an independent film, or criticize me for not liking anything other than Hollywood flicks; you're far from correct. I give it a 4 only because it isn't garbage.