Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Much better than I expected. Really a great movie
29 July 2008
First of all I have to say that i watched the whole Batman movies and so far i really liked only the first 2 ("Batman" and "Batman returns"). Just now i finished watching the "Dark Knight", and i have to say that i am very impressed, I certainly expected much worse. One of the things that interested me the most, was to compare the Joker by Heath Ledger and the Joker by Jack Nicholson. These 2 "Jokers" are certainly different, but in my opinion both characters are created brilliantly by these two actors. Without righting any spoilers I'll just add that the plot isn't empty, simple or stupid like in many recent "superhero movies". Also, the movie isn't childish (in fact i don't think it's a good movie for children under 12-13 years of age). The Special effects are just great. Some people say that the movie is too long, but since i enjoyed it very much i don't agree with that. I really, really recommend it, 10/10.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Why did they tried to rewrite history? (May contain spoilers)
17 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My expectations from this movie were very high,first of all its about my favorite character in history and second thing its not made in Hollywood (so i hoped it would be historically accurate). However i was wrong to expect accuracy. I read few books about Ghengis Khan ad this period in history of Mongolia (both novels and history books) and the actual story is much more interesting then the one told in the movie. Lots of key characters of the period r cut out of the movie and some characters in the movie r representing 2 characters from real life ( for example Jamuha is representing himself an Khan Togrul which is not in the movie at all). Well i can understand that, after all the movie is only an 1:45 long but why did the writers have to come up with some nonsense that never happened? Temuchin never was Tangut prison, in fact he came to the Tangut kingdom as a conqueror. He never let Jamuha go like he did in the movie, but he broke his spine after Jamuha himself asked for it. I could go on and write this for a couple more pages but i think u already got my point. One more thing that i just have to mention is the inaccuracy of the battle scenes in the movie, at least in half of them the Mongols fight on foot, but the Mongols never fought a field battle on foot and laughed at th Chinese infantry that they encountered. Also main weapon of the Mongols was the bow, they were known for the great ability to shoot accurately while riding a horse and could shoot forward and backwards, while in the movie most of the battles hand to hand and we barely see the use of the bow at all.

All these facts really spoiled the movie for me but i guess u still can enjoy it it u don't care much about historical accuracy, however if u really want to learn about Mongolian history of that period i suggest u read books and don't rely on this movie. My personal favorites r the novels by Kurt David "Kara Chono" and "Tengery, son of Kara Chono" and historical books of Lev Gumilev.
20 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Movie for the children!!! And not the best one either
15 July 2007
Personally i think that only children at the ages of 5-12 can enjoy such a movie. Boring and predictable storyline, crappy acting (with no exeptions), horrible sense of humor (if these pathetic attempts to make people laugh can be called a sense of humor), pretty dumb and childish special effects and sci-fi tech. I would give this movie a firm grade of 1 out of 10, but since its meant for kids (at least i hope so), i guess it cold be a... 5 perhaps. (Eventually i decided not to rate it at all)

Back when i was a kid, even some movies meant for children had great actors (like the first batman or batman returns), and weren't all about guys and girls with pretty faces and nice bodies but with no talent.

Just for the record i did enjoy some movies based on comics, by which i mean the X men.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Yet another typical action movie
13 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I guess the best line to describe my feeling after watching this movie is, "pretty much what I expected". I expected a typical action movie, a sequel (which means there won't be anything new or original in it) and lots of action and effects with a little acting. I also expected some laughs, not because the movie will be funny, but because i was sure there will be some unrealistic and pretty dumb stuff (like in pretty much all the Hollywood action films). Just a couple examples (spoiler): The hero goes through explosions, gunfire, fights and car accidents and gets only few bruises by the end of the movie (how typical), while destroying, at least, a couple hundreds million dollars worth of property. The second thing that i found pretty funny is that some of the most important facilities of the US, that the terrorists took over, were guarded only by 3-4 guards each, and these guards had a mall guard training. In conclusion if u watched 2 or 3 action movies u know exactly what to expect during this one, from the beginning to the end.

Finally, you might ask why did i give the movie the grade of 6.

Two reasons: 1. I actually enjoyed watching it. 2. I didn't expect much, so i wasn't disappointed.

I definitely won't see it again but i recommend to watch it once, it'll take your mind off your life for an hour and a half :)
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The X-Files: The Truth (2002)
Season 9, Episode 19
2/10
very disappointing
13 June 2007
I just finished reviewing all 9 seasons of the X files (while watching the 8th and 9th seasons for the first time) and i guess that my comment is not only about the last episode but also about both last seasons.

The first thing that i realized is that at least for me the show was based on agent Mulder and his special non-romantic relationship with Sculley, the last 2 seasons totally ruin that, Mulder mostly isn't there and when he is the he deals with the romances with Sculley and their baby. Although i think Robert Patrick (agent Dogget) is quite good he is still no match for David Duchovny as an actor. I find the last 2 seasons lack the great acting and the great sense of humor there was in the first seasons (especially 1-6).

The last 2 seasons really turned one of the greatest series to just another sci-fi series, and thats why i think it would be much better the show would end with the ending of the 7th season (mulders abduction by the aliens). That would save us the 2 seasons that took the show down and also would be a great point to a sequel movie if there is ever gonna be one.
23 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Could be much better
11 April 2007
First of all i want to say that as a mister Bean fan i enjoyed the TV series very much. The first Bean movie wasn't bad but i really hoped for more and was exited about the second movie until i saw it. I can't say that the movie was awful, but one thing is for sure - thats not English humor and thats not mister bean. For my opinion its just another average comedy, perhaps more suitable for children, not much laughs, just another average movie, I really expected much more from Rowan Atkinson. If u r looking for a movie to see with your kids u might like it, but if you expect to see mister bean from the TV show don't bother to watch it cause u won't find him there.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Historical???
16 February 2007
After seeing this movie i just have to log in and leave my comment. I am no movie critic and don't understand much about the fine points of movie making, i may not notice bad acting or lousy work of the director. One thing i know is history. It happens to be that historical movies is my favorite genre and this movie can not be called historical. No matter what they think in Hollywood wearing a costume and riding horses still doesn't make the the movie historical.

Marie Antoinette is presented almost as some kind of a village girl that is amazed by the french royal court and the etiquette at the beginning of the movie.The rest of the movie seems to me like a modern teenage party in which all the participants r wearing 18th century clothes. No historical events, no historical accuracy!
24 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed