Reviews

19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Best. Movie. Evar.
31 May 2006
I laughed. I cried. Then I watched Battle of the Planets or whatever it was called. Seriously. Hilariously bad. This is sort of a spaghetti space western I guess. Extremely low production values -even for a 70s sci-fi flick. Really strange and bad acting complements the nonsensical story. I'm pretty sure that the stars were just white paint splattered on black boards or occasionally white Christmas tree lights. For the space walk scenes it appears that they just turned the camera on its side while people waved their arms around.

I got this movie as part of the 50 Classic Sci-Fi Movies pack available at amazon.com or that deep discount DVD place. I highly recommend getting one or more of those.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I never saw a trailer, just merchandising.
26 April 2004
The interesting thing about this movie was that I never once saw a trailer, preview, or ad for the movie when it was going to be released in theaters, while it was playing, or when it was released on video/dvd. What I DID see was the most disgusting barrage of merchandising and film/merchandise tie-in ads that I have ever seen. One day I watched TV for about 3 hours and EVERY commercial break without exception contained an advertisement for a product that had been cross-branded with cat in the hat. I can't remember them all now, but mostly it was Burger King™. I still have not seen any part of this movie.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
No where near as bad as they all say.
26 April 2004
The special effects were good. Some of the dialog was good. The plot was tenuous at best, and then fell apart more. L. Ron Hubbard is a dangerous weirdo, but this movie was entertaining.

I gave it an 8. I would give it a 6, but I think that it's place as 24th worst movie ever is just a bunch of unimaginative jerks jumping on the bandwagon. I think a lot of voters probably never saw the film.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
But for the last half hour, I would give it a ten...
26 April 2004
The last 30 or 40 minutes of this film were abominable. Jackson had made so many alterations to the story throughout the trilogy that were unnecessary, that I can't believe he didn't make the necessary alteration of editing out the last two chapters of the novel. That's a bit extreme, but as a film the logical post-climax conclusion of the movie would have been the coronation of Aragorn. From here he could have had a brief montage of Shire events, then a nice visually stunning ending of Elven ships sailing away at the very end. 5 minutes, not 30.

If he was going to cut something it should have been the painfully boring ending, and

NOT

TOM

BOMBADIL

!!!!

-Other than that, best movie of the year, best trilogy ever, best fantasy film ever, best story to film adaptation ever, best use of CGI yet, great performances, etc. etc. etc.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
My girlfriend loves this movie.
26 April 2004
My girlfriend loves this movie. She owns it on vhs. I like the movie enough to watch it occasionally. It's a funny, campy, stereotypically teeny bopper slasher flick. There's a little t + a, a lot of violence, and a lot of stupid Porky's 3/Police Academy 4 kind of nonsense. Don't pay to rent it, but if it's ever on cable or someone happens to own it, definitely watch it.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Mummy and Mummy 2, they were stupid and entertaining. This was just stupid. Walked out.
16 July 2002
First 5 minutes were like a rock video, then it got worse. It calmed down a bit, he churned out a few Schwarzenneggeresque lines, did some super-human feats, stopped being super-human at other times. I know it wasn't supposed to be believable, but it should have been consistent. There didn't seem to be any continuity. My date couldn't take any more. We left. I liked Mummy and Mummy 2, they were stupid and entertaining. This was just stupid.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I saw it at a late-run theatre for $1.25, so I wasn't disappointed.
16 July 2002
My date and I walked out of The Scorpion King after about ten minutes and went into this one. It was only marginally better. They took an average novel by an average novelist, added some typical Hollywood b.s. and some spectacular special effects and Ben Affleck for the ladies. The story is just some scary crap that seems to me to be ill-timed shock effect (affect?) riding on American fears of terrorists. The details are barely plausible and the way it is logistically constructed is many times quite ludicrous. The way that the various department heads, the president, and the agents react and behave during the crisis is unrealistic. The ending is also implausible. It was fairly entertaining and I saw it at a late-run theatre for $1.25, so I wasn't disappointed.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Another Dick adaptation arguably as good as the others.
3 July 2002
I won't say that this film is as good as Blade Runner -or that it will be considered a classic on the same level, but a case could be made for that. I will go as far as to say that it is as good or better than Total Recall, a movie I thoroughly enjoy. The special effects are, predictably, excellent. The action sequences are masterfully constructed, though obviously far-fetched at most times. They are also often laced with some comic relief which detracts a little from the overall believability, but I thought they were clever and were appreciated by the audience. The story had a few holes in it. There were a few times that the plot was furthered by some painfully unbelievable shortcomings of future technology. For a vague example, there are a couple scenes where even today's security systems at lower level institutions would have cut this story short. Oh well, it didn't ruin anything for me. Great eye candy. Fun story. Capable acting performances.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Hilarious, somewhat over-acted dark comedy.
27 June 2002
We saw this at a showing of all the short films, animated and non-, that were nominated for Oscars. With the exception of two of the animated films (Grey Area or Gray Area and the Pixar birds on the line thing) it was the best of them. The title character was a piece of genius, though a bit overdone in my opinion. This film, though in a rather dark comic fashion, addresses some fairly serious problems in the reality of America's heartland, American "culture", politics, and human nature. The last line of the film is a real Lulu that kept me chuckling whenever I recalled it for days.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Confused and disturbed, but not disappointed.
9 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Yow. I hardly ever find actual horror movies scary, whereas I find most David Lynch films to be extremely terrifying. This film is no exception, except in that it is more so. It is the first Lynch film I have seen on the big screen and I was not disappointed - confused and disturbed, but not disappointed. I get the impression from this film that Lynch really hates Hollywood. This film is an assault on many Hollywood clichés, while at the same time a showcase of Lynch's talent at using and transcending those same devices. There's some traditional suspense type stuff, romance kind of stuff, and some Tarantino-esque stuff all thrown in.

**SPOILER-ISH**

Speaking of devices, I must admit that I was just slightly disappointed in how Lynch fell back on some of his recurring themes and surreal/occult plot twist. Most notably seen in Twin Peaks and Lost Highway, Lynch's universe seems to include some shadowy network of sorcerer type people or creatures that somehow use human souls or emotions to fuel their time and space bending schemes. In this film it's "The Cowboy" who seems to be near the top of this cabal. His brief appearance(s) is one of the best scenes I have ever seen.

There's some seemingly gratuitous steamy girl on girl action too.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
awe-inspiring, awwwwww-inspiring, AAAAH!-inspiring, and A HA HA!-inspiring...
20 December 2001
It was impossible to not get too psyched up about it, so i didn't bother. I got really psyched up and saw the first (public) show in Maine yesterday at 11 A.M. I was not let down at all. It had really awe-inspiring moments, really "awwww"-inspiring moments, a couple "AAAAH!"-inspiring moments, and many "A HA HA HA!"-inspiring moments. The whole theater seemed to be as enthralled with the film as I was, but I know that's not possible. Noone could possibly like a movie as much as I liked this one, could they? I'm going to see it again and again.

OK, my girlfriend forbade me to say anything even remotely critical about this film, but she's not here now. The only criticisms I had were:

A.) I don't want to wait a year to see the next one

2.) The movie should have been 12 hours long so a lot more seemingly unimportant details could have been included. They had to sort of combine some scenes, and railroad other stuff to present it faster. Most notable: when Frodo puts on the ring, it's not very subtle, in the book it seems to start of with a vague sense of being watched - and when the Fellowship breaks up near the end they sort of combined some scenes. Oh well, had to be done.

III) There were approximately 2 moments where I didn't think the CGI was not perfectly seamless -lets see, that's about 100 fewer times than the next best heavily CGIed movie I've seen... Those were both in Moria.

I was going to say that if they were going to gloss over little details, they could have minimized the Aragorn/Elf (her name escapes me) romance -but in retrospect it was pretty much minimized, and the scene was aesthetically beautiful so scratch that one. That's just my preference anyway...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I thought it was a spoof, maybe still do...
18 December 2001
This movie was painfully good. After being exposed to movies such as Spinal Tap, Best in Show, Waiting for Guffman, I naturally assumed that this movie was of the same genre -only done better. I was literally holding my sides and smacking the ground during much of this film that I perceived as a "brilliant comedy". It was brilliant how the director and actors had so perfectly captured these characters and moments. I felt like I knew them =partly because I know people just like them . It was a couple weeks later that I discovered that these people were real. Dumbfounded. OK, not a brilliant comedy. A brilliant documentary.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Latcho Drom (1993)
10/10
Haunting music, haunting images.
18 December 2001
Beautifully filmed, mind expanding exploration of Gypsy culture in the context of their music. Travel across a continent, experiencing the amazing musical styles of various groups of Gypsy peoples. It is sort of misleading to say this movie is not narrated. It is masterfully narrated by the music itself, the soaring melodies and subtititled lyrics tell a story much better than a narrator would have. See this film.
21 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pitch Black (2000)
9/10
Best Alien movie since Alien.
17 December 2001
Fun, fun, fun movie. Suspenseful and scary, with great monsters and memorable characters. It was also not overly formulaic -although it did borrow heavily from other alien movies. Vin Diesel kicks butt. The use of lighting was especially noteworthy, a good friend of mine has a degree in theater directing or some such thing, and she was extremely impressed with that aspect. There were some failrly powerful social and ethical issues brushed upon during all the mayhem as well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shrek (2001)
9/10
Not very subtle jabs at Disney.
17 December 2001
I knew there would be jabs at Disney, such as Lord Farqua being patterned after Eisner, but I didn't know how obvious they would be. Pretty funny stuff. I sincerely hope that Dreamworks invests a lot of the profit from this film in the kind of insane graphics rendering power that Pixar appears to have. The superior graphics of Pixar's Monster's Inc. NEARLY made it a more enjoyable film. The story telling and humor of Shrek wins out in the end.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Beautiful, and a little creepy...
10 December 2001
I thought this film was spectacular. I thought the story line about childhood demons of the subconscious was somewhat disturbing in a surreal, David Lynch-esque sort of way... Obviously, the animation was the best of any film to date. I hope that Dreamworks makes enough movie from their (superior film) SHREK that they can attain the level of Pixar's animation.

Sully's fur was phenomenal, my jaw literally dropped at the first few moments it was displayed, and then later during the Himalayan scenes when refraction of snow and ice, and the influence of wind came into play. It was a funny movie too, and I usually hate Billy Crystal.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One big beautiful special effect.
10 December 2001
I don't know if I would suggest renting this movie unless you have a really big screen, or like cheesy movies in general.

It is a stupid movie that is absolutely stunning visually and well crafted as far as suspense and action sequences. I would have only given it an 7, but its combined score is lower than it ought to be... I would watch it again in the theater.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
In the theater, I want to see huge things moving insanely fast and then exploding.
10 December 2001
If I go rent a film for home viewing, it will generally be an intelligent foreign film or a well-crafted independent film. Sometimes I will rent a Hollywood film that received good reviews.

When I pay $10 or more to view a movie on the big screen, I am paying for Jurassic Park 3, I am paying for Monsters, Inc., I am paying for Star Wars 1. I want to see amazing special effects. **I want to see huge things moving insanely fast and then exploding.** I want to see junk movies that look really sexy. I want to see STARSHIP TROOPERS -a nearly perfect movie in that context.

The bonus prize is that the film is actually somewhat intelligent and humorous on the satire front.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Microcosmos (1996)
10/10
My jaw was literally dropped through some of this film.
10 December 2001
Amazing. There must have been millions of hours of footage shot to obtain these perfect sequences of magnified nature. Each segment was fascinating, beautiful, in some cases strangely emotional.

My jaw was literally dropped through much of this film. I even found myself wowing like a hippy and chuckling like Butthead many times. There were even some moments that I almost said, "No, that's not realistic. They made that up."

The soundtrack was almost non-existent, so you appreciated it more when the haunting music worked its way into a scene. The sound quality of the actual critters was very good as well. There is nearly no narrative or narration throughout the film -and that would be my only criticism -there should have been NONE. The movie was spectacular with no commentary, and the human voice for a brief moment in the beginning and end detracted from the alien environment.

This movie was not a documentary, it was just fine filmmaking that would only fall into the genre of "mind-f---".
26 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed