Change Your Image
isbabo
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
We Were Soldiers (2002)
now we're glorifying Vietnam?
This movie just plain sickens me. It shows the Americans at their absolute worst. It's hard to even know where to begin.
For starters, it has every cliché in the book. The one soldier who has a pregnant wife at home, the black soldier who can't do his laundry in a white only laundromat but who will still fight for his country, the one soldier who spent a year in Africa with his wife building orphanages because "he wanted to help orphans, not create them" (so naturally he joined the army). Then to the battlefield where one soldier actually says before he dies "I'm glad I died for my country". Gibson bravely says "no man will be left behind" and sure enough, all are saved by the glorious teamwork and bravery of the American soldiers (after all, the U.S won in Vietnam right?.... read VERY sarcastically). The constant prayer gets annoying too, we all know Mel is a born again, and that''s fine, but it really doesn't have to be in every scene of every film he makes. In fact, at one point he's praying (for about the 8th time) and he asks god not to listen to the enemies "heathen prayer".
This isn't an anti-American rant, if Britain made a film glorifying the occupation of India or Germany the invasion of Poland I'd feel the same way. This film is little more then a recruiting poster for Iraq II. The only thing that gives it a 2 is the fact that they show the North Vietnamese commander in a human light, he does care for his men and wants to win. He also says at the end that now they'll have to fight the Americans, but that the outcome will be the same as it was for the French.
I don't want to knock the men who did fight in Vietnam (whether American, French, Vietnamese, South Korean, Australian etc.) but this is unnecessary. Go rent Platoon. Randal Wallace says in the commentary that this film is "getting Vietnam right" while making his sole source a Lt. Col who is portrayed in a very flattering light in the film. Platoon was researched asking privates and corporals in the U.S army what it was like. Better film and more accurate, rent it instead.
Reign of Fire (2002)
Great until the Americans arrive
Okay, this is not some American bashing review, but this film was getting really interesting right up until the Americans arrive and turn it into a cheesy action film. It starts out in Northern England after dragons have destroyed the world. A small group of people are trying to survive in this new world. The story follows them as they hunt for food, teach the children how to survive and hide from the dragons. Then Matthew Mcconaughey (sp?) shows up with a group of American dragon slayers and anything interesting about the film ends. His character is 1 dimensional (at best) and his adventures are boring and predictable. Eventually Bale, Matthew and a female companion (an American with a Russian accent?) go to London with a bunch of dragon slayers who all die in about 30 seconds. The 3 of them then kill the mother dragon and McConoughey (sp?) sacrifices himself in a bit of glory before Bale kills the dragon. It reminds me of the Matrix, where it was really interesting until Keanu Reeves says "we need guns" and the whole trilogy never recovered. In this film the line is, "Oh no, Americans". I give the first part of the film an * and the last part a 3 (so I wind up with 6).
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
why do people like this film?
I don't understand how even the most ardent Star Wars fan can watch this. To start off with, it is even worse than the Phantom menace, the acting is appalling, the chemistry between Padme and Anakin is non-existent. Even Ewan McGregor (who is normally fantastic) gives a very sub-par performance. Granted, the original Star Wars trilogy didn't exactly have a stellar script, but at least you didn't cringe. Plus, the performances in the old ones (considering they are action films) is actually decent. The problem with these new films is the lack of a Han Solo or Chewbacca character (Jar Jar Binks doesn't count). Alas, people will watch it (or will have to) in order to understand the third one. Although exactly what the plot was in this one is beyond me, nothing actually happened.
King Arthur (2004)
a unique take on history
Okay, Hollywood movies have often sacrificed historical accuracy for entertainment (Braveheart, Gladiator etc.) But none have claimed that they were accurate history such as this film claimed at the beginning. It starts with the Roman occupation in Britain fifty years after the Romans were supposed to have left Britain. Then the Saxons invade from the north (presumably Scotland)? Followed by a trek into the arctic wasteland that is the Scottish lowlands (see the film, it's like Everest there... apparently). Clive Owen (who is usually so good) gives a sub par performance and the rest of the cast follows suit. There's more historical problems, but it is worth seeing just to see how life was like as Rome was crumbling in the west (the transition to feudalism) but based on any sort of history, no.
Planet of the Apes (1968)
why did they remake it?
This 1968 classic is still a must see for everyone. It has Charleton heston (forget his politics for a while, he can act) giving one of his best performances ever (he says more than just "let my people go for six hours). It also has a strong cast playing the apes. The ending was in 1968 and still is today relevant and thought provoking. It makes me wonder why they polluted the big screen with an unnecessary remake with an ending, while closer to the ending of the book, misses the point the book was making and was thus pointless. If you've only seen the new one (or the 4 worthless sequels to the original) you've missed the only thing in this series worth seeing.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
alright but predictable
This film is alright. The performances are spectacular, which makes it worth seeing. However, like all of Shyamalan's (sp?) films, it is very predictable. Personally, I saw the ending coming with about half the film still to go, and i spent the rest watching just to see if I was right. I had the same problem with the Village, but unlike the Village, The Sixth Sense was made out to be some sort of ending that will shock you. It's worth seeing, if you don't know how it ends just to see if you can figure it out. If you do know how it ends but haven't seen it, rent it just see see Bruce Willis (among many others) give really great performances.
U-571 (2000)
Disgusting Fiction
How this film was even shown outside of the United States I will never know. First of all, how dare the Americans take credit for capturing the enigma machine. The British did it in 1941 BEFORE America EVEN ENTERED THE WAR! It was captured by British seamen who then took it to Britain where it was deciphered by a POLISH codebreaker. It would be like making a film that suggested that the British took Iwo Jima or that the French won the battle of Ghettysburg. The film does have descent acting but nothing special. Most of the characters are flat and boring. The plot is sub par (and not just for the fact that the U.S was nowhere in sight during that phase of the war). It fails to capture any suspense and is not a tribute but an insult to the seamen of both the Royal Navy and the American navy (why not show the U.S navy in a battle it actually fought and won, there are more than a few during the war that the U.S should be proud of). I am Canadian and I was beyond angered by this garbage, I imagine that no matter if your family fought to free Europe/Asia or was occupied at the time, you'll feel the same as me.
Timeline (2003)
One redeeming quality
This film is one of the worst book to movie adaptations of all time. In fact, all of Michael Crichton's books since Jurassic Park was a smash hit have been sub par to downright awful and this is no exception. First of all, the book is not one of his best, although the plot actually makes sense in the book. In less than five minutes, the entire "explanation" for how this time travel is possible is explained. However, the scientific explanation which takes several pages in the book to describe, and is reasonable if not far-fetched isn't used at all. The acting is also dreadful with one very notable exception. Gerrard Butler is fantastic (or as fantastic as he can be with this script). Even though the film itself deserves a 1 (or negative 7, but I can't seem to put that in). His attempt to save the film by actually acting forced me to give it a two. Don't bother seeing the film, but look for Butler in other things that have such crutial elements as a plot, acting and a script.
Die Another Day (2002)
Worst of Brosnan's Bond films
Silly film, Brosnan returns for what we now know will be his last Bond film. Too bad, because he was second only to Connery as being Bond and his first three films were pretty good. This one ranks with "Moonraker" in terms of being a ridiculous Bond film. The action sequences are good but not great. Halle Berry is also INCREDIBLY overrated as a Bond girl (Even Denise Richards was better). I remember hearing rumours of talks of having a spin off film with her character and I hope that they were just rumours, because the character was boring and she was two dimensional. The villain, a North Korean spy is also a two dimensional, yet boring and unremarkable villain. The ending will have you shaking your head (and give you awful "Moonraker" flashbacks). The one saving grace (and thus why it got a two and not a one) was how they, at the beginning of the film, made sure James Bond would not go down the same road as 24 and simply become an anti-terrorist or worse, anti-Muslim warrior (24 is, don't deny it). This movie proves that a post-Soviet Bond couldn't work forever. I hope they do better with the next Bond film (If indeed there is one....... anyone know who's playing 007 next?)
You Only Live Twice (1967)
A good but older Bond
Okay, this Bond film is very dated (and not just because he's trying to save the world from war between the U.S and the Soviet Union). The portrayal of the Japanese in this one will show people just how far we in the west have come. "In Japan men come first, women second" (Tanaka really said this).The plot is over the top although,unlike "Moonraker" and "Die Another Day", it doesn't seem to insult your intelligence. It also has a great villain (think about Dr. Evil). It moves faster than some of the other Bond films of the day and the location (Japan) was a great idea and suites the film well. If you can overlook the racial stereotypes, and enjoy it for what it is, you'll really like it. Besides, Connery is still the best Bond ever and all of his films (except the unfortunate "Diamonds Are Forever) are pretty good.
Thirteen Days (2000)
Fascinating for anyone who finds the Cold War interesting
For anyone who finds movies about the Cold War interesting, this movie is great for you. It manages to bring to life the 13 Days in 1962 when the Soviet Union and the U.S came very close to nuclear war. It does take certain liberties in telling the story, especially when it comes to U.S missiles in Turkey (I won't say how, but pay attention to Bobby Kennedy's meeting the Ambassador from the USSR near the end). Costner is great except for his unfortunate New England accent (didn't we learn anything from Robin hood: Prince of Thieves....). There is also several times when the film fades to black and white for no apparent reason. However, it is a good, interesting movie and to see it now that communism in Europe is dead reminds the newer generation just how close we came. rent it.
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)
Excellent
Okay, The acting is pretty sub par (although Keanu Reeves gives far and away his best performance, and the performance he has repeated in Speed, the Matrix etc.) However, if you like 80's films, you'll love this film. It is a teen flick, but unlike the teen films today, this one doesn't have to resort to poop jokes (Like American Pie) to be funny. In fact some of the jokes are borderline intelligent (like when Bill is talking to Sigmund Freud and say's "no thanks, I just have a minor edible complex). It's funny, it's cheezy and if you have any sense of humour and appreciation for the 1980's you'll love it. Especially when Henry VIII orders them put in the Iron Maiden. "Iron Maiden.... EXCELLENT!
Waterworld (1995)
A solid 5
The hype around this movie was the cost, it was the most expensive movie ever until Titanic came out (the single most overrated movie ever). The plot is full of little holes when you think of it. How did Costner evolve gills so fast? where is the dirt to grow tomatoes coming from? how does the plane, jetski's and other such devices still work? Plus, there has to be dry land somewhere as trees filter carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen (sorry if that's a spoiler). Waves on the open ocean are huge, not like the calm waters in this film. I can go on, but IF you can suspend all that (a big if) it's a fun action movie (with a million and one clichés, but hey, it's Costner). If it hadn't cost so much to make no one would analyse it so much. Enjoy it for what it is. Plus Dennis Hopper is always a great villain, no matter what.
M*A*S*H: Goodbye, Farewell and Amen (1983)
The end of the best show on TV
I can see why people didn't like the later episodes of MASH when it became very preachy and dramatic as opposed to a comedy series. personally I thought it was great from start to finish. the ending was sad in some ways and very happy in others. You knew these people would not be friends back in the states but here they are like family in Korea. I especially loved how Klinger had to stay in Korea after his years of trying to get out. The finale was, and still is, the most watched sitcom event in the world (in fact, only various FIFA televised events have drawn a higher viewing audience around the world) and I think that says a lot about it. It put the finale of Seinfeld to shame (now THAT was a let down) and no television show has ever come close to the quality of MASH. A great end to a great show.