Reviews

47 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Has to be the most boring 5 hours I have spent watching TV
22 April 2013
I picked this up as a "blind buy" because I love all the actors involved and enjoy a good period picture. This seemed right up my alley. Hell no. The story petered along at molasses pace with the final hour being the most painful to watch. The story really went nowhere. Thinking this is about Mildred Pierce is only half true - and the last two parts are mainly about her oldest daughter, payed by Even Rachel Wood.

Guy Pearce is terrific. Winslet uses the same accent she mastered in Revolutionary Road but this character is much more boring. If we are supposed to be rooting for Mildred, I can't figure out why. All I wanted was for something interesting to happen at some point in the film. The most exciting event takes place in the last 10 minutes and then it stops just short of making it interesting. I would recommend watching The Reader or Revolutionary Road instead of this. Or for Guy Pearce, watch the Proposition or Memento. Evan Rachel Wood was great in Thirteen, and okay in the Wrestler. Not so impressive in anything else.

Sorry. I really wanted to like this but have to be honest. It really sucked.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thor (2011)
9/10
EPIC! Every bit as good as Iron Man
28 April 2011
Although an avid Marvel comics reader I never once read Thor comic book. I was hooked on X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man, Alpha Flight and others, but for some reason Thor never interested me much. So when this movie was announced I wasn't all too interested. The trailers weren't much help, though they perked my interest. A few good television spots and the final trailer convinced me to give it a try. So yesterday I took my 3 teenage kids to see it on opening night here in Oslo, Norway at (allegedly) the biggest screen in Europe.

I was effing blown away! Maybe because I wasn't expecting much. Or maybe because it was a great film. I like to think it was great.

Remove your biases and (even if you didn't like the trailers) if you loved the first Iron Man movie you will LOVE this!

Personally, I didn't much like Iron Man 2, didn't like either of the Fantastic Four movies but loved Iron Man 1 and all the X-Men, Spider-Man and (Nolan) Batman movies. (Just for your comparison with taste.)

Only word of caution/advice is to see it in 2D if possible. We watched it in 3D and though the 3D was pretty good (comparable with Green Hornet if you've seen that) it made several of the scenes blurry. Our projectionist said it was because the theater is so big and the screen is too far from the projector for this particular movie to work in 3D, but that others (Avatar, any animated movie, etc) work just fine in that theater. So either watch it in 2D or on a medium or small screen in 3D.
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Iron Man 2 (2010)
7/10
Very good, but sadly not as good as Iron Man 1
30 April 2010
I'm really torn between a rating of 7 and 8 and should probably see it again before a final verdict. But my initial feeling is this one had too much talk and too little heart.

While there certainly was more action, the action scenes - especially the last - did not feel threatening at all. The one possible exception to this is the first battle between Iron Man and Whiplash - the one on the race track from the trailer.

The main problem is probably too much dialog, possibly too much happening, and too little heart. Too few quiet moments. I'm not sure.

My guess is the film makers heard that people loved the humor from the first (which was mostly ad-libbed from the actors) but missed more action. So they apparently gave the whole cast (of GREAT actors all around!) free reign to talk up as much as they want in each and every scene. And they added action sequence after action sequence to make up for the mere two major sequences from Iron Man 1.

The end result was slightly underwhelming, yet almost satisfying.
20 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watchmen (2009)
8/10
Can barely be called a movie at all
10 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
More aptly, "An Experience" (as a friend pointed out during the end credits)...

Opening Night with 3 friends: One knew NOTHING of the film or book (had seen the trailer, that's all) and expected this to be like X-Men (boy was he in for a shock!), one was an old-school fan, like myself, and one (his girlfriend) was newly introduced to the book and had read it a few weeks before the film's release.

I was mostly worried about how my uninitiated friend (who was expecting the X-Men) would react. I was nervous throughout the film - especially during the more wordy scenes - that he would not like it or not understand it. This guy is a Truck Driver. Mostly into horror movies like the new Halloween and Devil's Rejects and he liked 300. So he really digs hardcore violence, action and gore and isn't usually so big on story. However, one of his favorite movies is No Country For Old Men, so I knew there was hope! :)

Well, he says he loved it! He realized about 10 minutes in that this was not going to be anything like he expected. He changed viewing modes from "sit back and enjoy the popcorn" to "pay attention, this is deep and important." My other two friends loved it too. The girlfriend is the one who said, "This is one of those few movies where you want to walk out, buy another ticket, and go right back in to watch it again." And "This is hardly like a movie and more of An Experience".

She's right. Absolutely. But I'm not sure I embrace it whole heartedly. Part of me thinks it would have been better if it was in fact more like a movie and less like a graphic-novel put to screen.

For one, there was far too much dialog and not enough emotion or "acting". While Rorschach, Manhattan and Dan/Night Owl were great, Laurie and Veidt were hardly watchable. Really!

Laurie was played as a shallow, naive, sex-dependent, childish brat. Granted, she was never that exciting in the book but I would have preferred a more interesting character than a shallow facsimile of the graphic novel.

Veidt played as a monotone, emotionless, brainiac villain. He never seemed convinced of his own convictions and always appeared to be bored out of his mind.

The scenes with Dr. Manhattan (especially on Mars) were far too stuffed of dialog. The movie could have been cut down 20 minutes if more time was spent showing emotion and less on exposition and pointless dialog. Did we really need to hear philosophical exposition on quantum mechanics and physics? While it might have worked in the book (I had to force myself NOT to skip over it to get to "the good stuff") it could have been avoided in the film, replaced with music and the flashbacks. Did we need more?

One very minor gripe is the need to call the group "Watchmen". I was hoping that Dan's line in the trailer was the only time we would hear it, but I counted 5 times, spoken by Dan, Rorschach and Veidt. So it's not just a subtle line thrown in but a part of the story. No more "Crime Busters" (which was intended to sound silly).

And then there's the "old" makeup. Unforgivably bad. Gawd Awful! Just plain amateurish. Seriously, how they could get so much right on the visual side, but completely drop the ball on makeup is beyond me. And since I'm not alone in spotting it (Garth Franklin, etc) it's more than just a minor annoyance.

My final complaint would be the overly exaggerated action scenes - particularly during the finale at Antarctica. These guys are SUPPOSED to be normal humans. NOT real superheros. That's part of the point and it's completely lost during the last battle sequence. People are thrown 10 feet in the air, smashing pieces of concrete without pause. It really just looked ridiculous. Like one of the old Batman movies or worse the Batman TV show. All we lacked was the "Wham!" and "Pow!" blurbs.

One complaint I have heard which I can NOT AGREE with is that the music was terribly bad. That the songs almost never matched the scenes. This is so completely wrong that I wonder why one would even suggest it. To me everything worked so well I was absolutely stunned. I was skeptical about the music going in but agreed with every single piece I heard. All the songs worked perfectly with their scenes, from Simon and Garfunkel to Jimmy Hendrix to Philip Glass. Absolute, pure Genius!

So why do I rate the film 7/10 with so many complaints? Really, I did like the film and could write more good about it than bad. But so many other reviewers have done that and better than I could. I agree with much of what has been said. The main point in its favor is what my friend said when we walked out. It's unlike ANY movie I have ever seen before. It's more of an "experience" - one that should be repeated as many times as possible in the ideal format of the Big Screen. Preferably, I presume, on Imax (we don't have one in Norway).

EDIT: After a couple weeks I have increased my rating to 8/10. It really grows on me over time. It may even go up more but for now I think 8 is the right score.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sky-Guy, Stinky and Snips
18 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I took my kids, ages 6, 9 and 11 to see this. With that in mind, here's my take, based on their reaction and my own experience.

My background is: I saw SW on the big screen back in 1977 and have been a fan ever since. Today I am a member of the Star Wars fan club (Hyperspace, on sw official site) and follow along with SW news, buy the video games and novels, and have a VAST collection of the toys (invested over $5,000 I'm sure - but hey, I have kids!). So I suppose you could say I am a "fanboy" or at the very least a more than average fan. :) I knew this was being made for television - NOT for the big screen - and thus viewed it as a pilot for a "made for kids" (Nick or CN) television series. With the budget and baggage that implies.

With that background, and thanks to some scathing reviews (AICN Harry, CHUD, etc.) my expectations were phenomenally low before entering the theater. (Basically, I was just watching this for the kids' sake because they were begging me to take them.) Verdict: It was actually pretty good! Yes, there were parts that sucked, there were even a few things I hated (just like there were in the prequels and ROTJ), but for the most part, I was very impressed and even blown away by the shear scope of this made-for-TV movie! I couldn't believe the quality (again, for a TV-show). It was funny, exciting, even engaging at times. And considering the budget and target audience, it was really very good.

Here's what didn't work for me:

1) As much as I tried, I really didn't like the new teen-padawan, Ahsoka. She was annoying and imo inconsistent with the established rules for Jedi: They are always (Anakin being the sole exception) enlisted as infants or toddlers. They grow up being indoctrinated by Jedi teachings. They learn respect, humility, patience, etc as "younglings" long before being assigned to a Master. Thus Ahsoka's rebellious high-school attitude is very much askew.

2) The bantering may have been OK, but the pathetic (American High-School style) nicknames got old REAL fast. Not one single time did Ahsoka call Anakin by his real name (Skywalker or even Anakin). It was always "Sky Guy" - complete disrespect! I can't recall one single time Anakin referred to Ahsoka by her name either (though a friend of mine disagrees), he was always calling her "Snips"! WTF? And the final straw was them both constantly referring to Jabba's son as "Stinky". All. The. Time. (Just thinking of it raises my blood pressure.)

That's pretty much what I hated. There were some other very minor annoyances, but easily forgotten in the big picture. Now, here's what really worked:

1) Beautiful animation. I dig the style. I've read lots of reviews that diss on the animation and even on the style. While I agree that the characters look like they've been chiseled out of wood and hand-painted, I really liked it. Yes, the quality is no where near as good as Pixar or Dreamworks, (and close-up shots look more like a video game cut scene than a movie,) but this was MADE FOR TELEVISION! The budget was probably about a tenth what any Pixar film costs to make. So put it in perspective and appreciate what they can do with such a low budget! It would be more fair to compare it to an episode of Jimmy Neutron (not the movie, the TV show). If you still think it sucks, then at least you are making a valid comparison. It's not Shrek 2 or The Incredibles. It's Hoodwinked.

2) The music! So many have complained that "This is not John Williams" but why does that have to be a bad thing? Williams' music was respected, and even used in the opening and closing sequences, plus a few times between. The music was GREAT! It was engaging and beautiful, and at times had me wanting to hear the rest of the song! Seriously, I can't imagine it being any better. It baffles my mind that people can complain about it. Really. I don't get it.

3) The Clones. We see clones as Imperial (um, I mean Republic) officers, wearing the green officer garb (woo hoo!), and the ground troops showing ways of making themselves unique (mostly by tattoos and haircuts). It's just as it should be and makes them more human and real.

4) The humor (overall)! I laughed my eyes dry every time a droid had any dialog. I didn't much like the slapstick humor in the films, but as a cartoon it fits a lot better. Like when two clones are surrounded by an army of battle droids: Droid: "Surrender" Clone: "But we have you outnumbered." (Droid looks around, "What?" (counts droids) "One, two.." And then out of the sky comes two clone ships filled with men, blowing the droids away "Kaboom!" And when a droid is looking over a cliff through binoculars to see the approaching clones, but loses his balance and falls down the cliff. His droid commander says, "Come back here, soldier!" Very funny stuff! Yes, it's "kiddie humor" but it works here and got me laughing.

In addition, the story was engaging for a TV cartoon. Compare it to a throw-away episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender (my fave kid-TV show by far) and it stands up pretty well. Remember "The great divide", "The Fortuneteller", "Avatar Day", "The Beach", "The Ember Island Players", etc. etc.

For a TV show, I would rate this 8 out of 10, but for a "movie" only 6 out of 10. And since it's kind of both, I give it a 7.

I can't wait to see more of this series on TV! But hope Ahsoka dies a long and painful death. :)
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
MUCH better than I even hoped!
16 June 2008
After watching the first couple of trailers for this I was very unimpressed and even began to doubt (big time) that this would be any good. Thank goodness I was SO wrong!

Let me start by admitting I actually liked HULK (2003) aside from Nick Nolte and the last 10 minutes or so. Sure, it was a little short on action and heavy on drama, but I thought the effects were awesome and the acting very good.

This Hulk blows that one completely away! It is so much better I couldn't even believe it! Maybe the reason I liked it so much was because of my very low expectations but this movie delivered in every way a comic-book movie should!

Before watching I read the first 15 or so comments here on IMDb to see how people were reacting. Most of them positive, there were still a handful of negative reviews that had me questioning. However after seeing the film I must wonder what those people expected. I just can't imagine it being any better! Seriously. It freaking rocked!

Marvel, I can't wait for more!

If you want to compare your tastes with mine, here's my opinion of some other comic book films (rating out of 10)... Spider-man: 8 ::: Spidey 2: 9 ::: Spidey 3: 5 ::: X-Men: 7 ::: X2: 8 ::: X3: 7 ::: Superman Returns: 4 ::: Batman Begins: 9 ::: Iron Man: 9 ::: Hulk (2003): 6 ::: The Incredible Hulk: 8
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Dull, Preachy, Beautiful
23 May 2008
Suffers from being too preachy, too long, and far too unexciting (until the last 20 minutes).

The first Narnia was interesting and exciting. This was just plain boring - even though it looked stunning and beautiful!

But worst of all was having to feel like I was sitting through a Sunday school lesson. Honestly, it was that "preachy" to the tune of:

"Have faith in what you have no evidence for - even when all else points to it being false." and "Even if everything is against you and all is bleak, if you believe you will come out on top."

The Good: * Amazing visuals, including costumes, sets, locations, and effects. * The newcomer lead who plays the young Prince does a fine job.

The Bad: * WAY too long (2½ hours) for such a simple story. * Slow pacing and uninteresting (too many?) characters. * The sermons. * The child actors (Lucy excepted). * Annoying animal characters. None as endearing as the beavers from the first film. * Crappy bad-guy. The White Witch was sorely missed. Spaniard king was just plain annoying. Too much of the movie was based around his character. * Too many characters to follow and too much happening.

The book kept the story simple and told it in a brisker pace. The movie tried to add too much more to "flesh it out" a bit, but this hurt it rather than helped. Too boring and far too long.

Sorry for the long review. I hope you find it balanced and honest. I could have spent more time on how beautiful the film was and how excellent the effects were (for the most part) but that is kind of a given. Even with a higher "production value" this film just isn't up to par with its predecessor.

Unless you're a huge fan of the books, loved the first film and don't mind a slow-paced preachy film, skip this one and watch Iron Man, Indy or even Speed Racer instead.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Incredibly disappointing!
20 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I am a huge fan of the books. I own a popular fansite, snitchseeker.com, just so you know I'm more than an average fan.

At the same time, I have enjoyed the other movies, in spite of the many changes from the books.

Admittedly, I have been skeptical about this film since the announcement of the director, David Yates.

However, when two from my site's news team got early peeks of the film, they both had overwhelmingly positive reviews! (One slightly more positive than the other, but still!) If you want to read their positive reviews, go to snitchseeker.com and click the reviews links (one contains spoilers, one does not).

So I decided I would watch the film, completely unbiased - even excited about it!

** SPOILERS START HERE **

It starts out very well: Harry sitting on a swing in a small park, watching some kids playing, the kids and mums leave, Dudley and gang enter, Dudley teases Harry about crying for Cedric in his sleep, Harry gets mad and threatens Dudley with wand, the sky clouds up real quick, Dudley's gang flee the scene, rain begins to pour, Harry and Dudley run under an overpass for shelter, Dementors attack.

This is where it goes downhill.

I wonder if Yates has even read the book. He says he has, but maybe he only skimmed through it quickly. He certainly missed the details and nuances other directors have picked up.

Mrs. Figg was not in the slightest annoyed or frightened about the attack. She was casual, nonchalant, not really caring about Harry at all.

The Advanced Guard scene was hacked to bits with only the bare necessities remaining - and without Lupin. I swear, the entire affair is about 30 seconds long.

In the movie, the guard consisted of Tonks, Moody, Shacklebolt and a silent Elphias Doge. (Nice to see him!) However, it left out the other witches: Hestia Jones and Emmeline Vance. And no Lupin! Fine, I can live with that. But they arrive in Harry's bedroom, they don't explain anything, only say he is to come with them, and then it shows them lined up outside the house with their brooms and they take off! That's the whole scene!

On the positive side, they made the flight more interesting by soaring them through London rather than high up in the clouds.

The arrival at Grimmauld Place was done well enough. I liked seeing the houses magically stretch to make room for number 12. But the house was a MAJOR disappointment: No Mrs Black, no house-elf-heads on the walls, no disinfecting, no Buckbeak, no murderous ghouls, and hardly any Kreacher. While Lupin was present here, he had only one or two lines and Tonks had even less. Sirius Black gets all the dialog here.

On the positive side, the "extendable ears" and the twins apparating were cool and Mrs. Weasley was terrific. It was also nice to see Tonks changing her face a bit to resemble a pig and then a duck, with Ginny laughing at her.

After about three minutes of "The Order" we are whisked off on a speedy journey to the Ministry for Harry's trial. This was another major disappointment as it wasn't explained to the audience exactly what they were doing nor why they were traveling as muggles. I missed a line from Arthur along the lines of, "Harry, we must travel as muggles this morning, using no magic because we want to give a good impression before your trial." Instead we get a 5-second glimpse of their trip (a subway station and a sidewalk) and then the phone booth.

Perhaps the most disappointing of the whole film was the lackluster design of the Ministry of Magic. Supposedly a Governmental establishment and yet ALL of the walls and floors of this place are simply BLACK! It's just ridiculous! Not only that but it looks so small compared to how it read in the books. Supposedly 10 levels, my house looks bigger than this place.

Department of Mysteries? They only show the Hall of Prophesies and the Death Chamber (the room with the infamous veil). No exciting ROTATING ROOM (which you'd think would be a major part of this since it's even pictured on the cover of the US edition of the book!), no Time Room, Planet Room or Brain Room. Very, very sad.

I just realized this review is turning into an essay, and that's not the point here at IMDb. So let me finish off.

Here is the order in which I place the films (best to worst):

Goblet of Fire (9) :: Prisoner of Azkaban (more Marauders would have placed this on top) (8) :: Chamber of Secrets (7) :: Philosopher's Stone (better CGI would place this one higher) (7) :: Order of the Phoenix (6)

I fear for the end result of my second-favorite book so far: Half-Blood Prince. It's a shame Yates will be directing that one too. Let's hope the franchise ends with a bang by allowing another director in for Deathly Hallows.

Thanks for reading! :)
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Transformers (2007)
7/10
Toy commercial with a HUGE budget, still loads of fun!
7 July 2007
Whoever says this is "not a kids movie" is fooling them self.

I really liked it. I enjoyed it emensely. But it is so clearly just a toy commercial with a HUGE budget.

Shia steals the show as far as the actors go. I laughed my head off at some of his lines. He did a great job delivering some cheesy dialog and he has a natural talent that sells the story.

Aside from him, it's the toys that steal the show! Those GIANT ROBOTS are AWESOME!!! This movie had more action than all of the other summer films this year combined! (The only exception may be Die Hard 4, which I haven't seen yet.)

I was one of those kids who purchased the very first Transformer toys back when Optimus Prime was a gun, and one of the characters was a cassette player. So my affection for the Transformers franchise goes way back.

Without making this very long, suffice to say that it is well worth your money as long as you can appreciate that it is a Michael (explosions) Bay movie, full of cheese dialog, a ridiculous story, and its main purpose is to sell toys.

Heck, I bought four Transformers after watching this. (For my sons, of course.)

BRING ON THE SEQUEL!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
6/10
BEST effects, yet WORST movie
7 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed Spider-Man 3 quite a lot. However, there were so many problems with it that I ended up only "liking" it instead of loving it like the first two films.

Let me get to the pros vs the cons:

THE GOOD

The Effects: Birth of Sandman is the coolest effect on any film I can remember. Amazing! The fight scenes were also incredibly well realized.

The Humor: J.Jonah.Jameson had some hilarious moments - especially his first scene. Bruce Campbell plays a waiter (Maitre D really) in a French restaurant, and it is probably the best scene in the whole movie! Peter dancing!

The Action: The first Sandman vs Spidey scene was very exciting. Maybe the best battle sequence from all three films. CGI-Venom looked great in the whole four-minutes of screen time he got. All the fight-scenes were EXCELLENT, well choreographed and exciting.

The Acting: James Franco has improved much as Harry. Gwen Stacey was much better used than I expected. (And she was beautiful!) Thomas Haden Church was perfect for Sandman! Topher Grace did a fine job as Brock, not so great as Venom.

I guess that is a good intro for...

THE BAD

Venom has WAY too little screen time. His story was too rushed. Sandman is made to look like a good guy, then bad, and at some points we're not sure what to think. Do we feel sorry for him? Fear him? The filmmakers couldn't decide, and it shows.

The Costumes: Harry's mask was just ridiculous! Seeing Brock's face in the Venom suit looked stupid. And the Dark Spidey suit wasn't "alive" enough. It just looked like a suit, not a living organism.

The Score (music): Some parts were OK but some parts were SO bad it ruined the scene! An example is the over-scoring of the first Dark-Spidey scene (where he's hanging upside down looking at himself in a building window). It was painfully bad, screaming out for the audience to be amazed. Like holding up an applause sign. Tacky. Then there were plenty of similar moments, mostly in other action scenes.

American Cheese: Spidey landing in front of a HUGE, randomly placed, waving American flag. The camera panning back from a crying MJ and Peter atop a huge building, to make sure we see a sunset in the background, etc. Manipulative tripe.

The evil-dudes team-up in the end was very contrived. I didn't buy it. How Spidey deals with Sandman in the end was also quite silly. Not cool at all.

The biggest problem is trying to squeeze too much into one film. Spider-Man 3 should have been about Sandman and Harry/Goblin. Venom should have been held back for the next one. The fourth film could have been all about Venom, giving him more screen time and the treatment he deserves.

I know this was Sam Raimi's original plan (not to include Venom in this film) but Avi Arad convinced him to add Venom into the story, for the fans, since everybody loves Venom.

Too bad Sam didn't follow his plan. I doubt he'll come back for more now. Let's just hope he gets to make The Hobbit (unless by some miracle Peter Jackson gets to do it after all).

Thanks for reading! :)
513 out of 759 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Definitely the best of the three!
24 May 2006
I didn't think it could be done but Brett Ratner has made X3 even better than X2 - which says a lot! (I gave X2 9/10)

The characters are more like we remember from the comics. Storm flies and messes with the weather a lot more. Wolverine goes Berzerk three times and gets thrown by Colossus twice. There is a Danger Room sequence. We have a lot more mutants. etc. etc etc.

At the same time, while it was not a problem for me at all, I can see how perhaps some fans might dislike certain aspects. For example: Storm does have a lot of "street talk" rather than her African Goddess style from the comics. Wolverine is very much a part of the team and even acts a bit in a teacher or team leader role at times. Angel and Cyclops are hardly in it. But all of these choices were for the better of the film in my opinion.

Some of what made this film really great: 1) Phoenix is incredible! Amazing! Perfect! Absolutely brilliant! And fortunately the whole story really revolves around her, so she gets plenty of screen time. 2) Beast is spot on how most fans will remember him from the comics. 3) The mutants in general are more like the ones from the comics. 4) Juggernaught is cool! I never really liked him from the comics but Vinnie Jones really made the character. 5) Angel's story was very well told in a concise way. 6) Iceman finally gets to be Iceman.

There are lots of new mutants and the three or four that we get to know a bit are well fleshed out considering the amount if screen time they get. Plus they have cool powers! The whole Brotherhood (Magneto's team) is very cool!

But the thing that makes this film truly great and the best of the series is the story! And we are treated to some astonishing surprises! You will never ever guess to the fate of some of the main characters. Some die, some lose their powers. And believe me it will surprise you.

There is so much left in the X-Men series that can be told. This movie alone opens about three possible future story lines.

I hope that there will be more X-Men movies, and I hope Brett stays on as director.

If you liked the first two you will LOVE this! :)

10/10
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Much better than the film version
17 March 2006
I almost wish I hadn't seen this before watching the newer "film" version. I am sure I would have enjoyed the film version much better had I not seen this one first. I had a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy of this in VHS version the year it came out (1985) and thought it was the funniest thing I had seen in years! Definitely the funniest "Mormon" movie I had ever seen. Well, that may be because his was the very first "Mormon movie" I had ever seen. But it is great none the less. I can only think of one thing I wish could be improved: The picture and sound quality. The picture is grainy and the sound is low with "noise" (like a soft wind in the microphone) throughout the whole film. Alas, we will have to live with the quality we have.

For those who may not know (probably nobody), this is the original STAGE VERSION of the film, The Best Two Years (2003). It was recorded in front of a live audience using two or three cameras, placed at different spots in the theater. This makes it possible for the close-ups different angles.

In this version, Scott S. Anderson (the writer who based the piece on experiences from his own mission in Holland) plays the role of Elder Rogers - and does a SUPERB job! He is much funnier than KC Clyde (who plays Rogers in the film version), though Clyde may look more the part age-wise and play the angst and dramatism better.

Elder Michaels (the "flip" Elder) is much funnier in this and the cocky ladies-man Elder Stevens (renamed to Elder Van Pelt in the film version) is brilliant as the know-it-all aspiring kiss-up. The two companions have even more funny moments in this than the film version and will have you rolling on the floor laughing! As in the film, the character of Elder Stevens (renamed to Calhoun in the film) gets the most laughs. He is played much more as a geek in this than the film, and though it is arguably a bit over-the-top, he pulls it off so well he totally had me believing him as a real person. His sincerity, humility and naivety appears genuine and makes you fall in love with his character.

I guess I have spent enough time writing a review that will probably never be read by anybody, but I had to comment on how much I love this stage-play, and wish the film version could have remained truer to the original.

(For the record, I also liked the film version, but was disappointed to see the script changed so much and some of the funnier moments left out completely.) One very cool thing is that everybody can watch this now because they included it as supplemental material on The Best Two Years DVD! The quality is still quite bad (as described above), but it is still far superior to the film in many ways.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Actually a lot better than I expected!
29 March 2004
I took the kids to see the first Scooby Doo movie 2 years ago. We all liked it okay, but I was very disappointed with the ending. And I HATED Scrappy Doo!

Now on to Scooby Doo 2:

Being a huge fan of the animated series, I wish they had stuck a bit closer to the character appearances (Fred's hair and voice, Velma's attempt at femininity, Scooby's whole body). In addition I didn't like the "Mystery Machine Limo" that cameo'd in the opening scene, or their ultra cool hipster clubhouse-hideout loaded with expensive gadgets. I haven't seen every single episode of the cartoon, but I don't remember them having a "clubhouse" at all. Didn't they just cruise around in their van all the time?

But these complaints are small things that I can accept and overlook in view of the "bigger picture" which is: the story; the effects; and the delivery (acting and directing) of the presentation.

On these merits, the movie scored very well! Director Raja did an especially decent job sticking to the visual and storytelling style of the animated series: There were at least three of the infamous Scooby-trademarked chase-scenes; two scenes where Shaggy and Scooby royally screw things up; Shag and Scoob eating ten times their weight in junkfood; the typical "bait and switch" technique in finding out who the baddie was; and NO Scrappy Doo! (Yes!!)

The monsters were all taken directly from episodes of the cartoon. Their realization on the "big screen" was exceptional in every case.

The special effects - while not "Oscar-worthy" - were very well done. The opening-credits scene alone (where you follow a pterodactyl flying it's way through a maze of alleys and back-streets to the museum where we meet the "gang") is worth the admission price!

Go see it if you like the cartoon series AND are open minded enough to accept some lewd humor (fart jokes, puking, and the like) and some slight character differences from the cartoon.

My 7 year-old son loved it too and was quoting some of the funnier lines as we walked to the car after it ended.

I gave it 7 out of 10 which is about the most a movie like this could possibly expect for a rating. (I believe I gave the first Scooby Doo movie a rating of 4 or 5 out of 10.)

Can't wait for another sequel! :)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An overlooked Gem that was snubbed by the Oscars
9 February 2004
I am abhorred that the Oscars could ignore this film for all the categories it so well deserved:

Best Actress (Kirsten Dunst) Best Actor (Edward Herrmann) Best Costume Design Best Cinematography

And those are just the obvious ones!

Peter Bogdanovich is one of my favorite Directors. He has an amazingly vast Encyclopedia of knowledge about Hollywood during this time. He was good friends with the master Orsen Wells and even did the Commentary for Citizen Cane in Wells' place. He was unquestionably the perfect Director for putting this story to screen.

Kirsten Dunst is remarkable playing 24 year-old Marion Davies at only 18. She does a superb job in the role and deserved a lot more attention than she was awarded.

I strongly disagree with comments that the supporting cast was bad. Everybody was perfect for their role! The sax player WAS a sax player (not an actor) from Berlin (where most of the movie was filmed) and he did fantastic! (He only had one line for goodness sake!)

Though I would concur that Jennifer Tilly played Louella Parsons a bit unlike we would expect, I support her decision to treat her this way for the sake of this film. She lightened up the film with her bumbling silliness. So what if Lolly wasn't like that in real life? It worked well for the movie.

My only (slight) complaint was the decision to have one of the flappers briefly flash us (show her chest) during a party scene with her, the other flapper, the sax player and Chaplin. It was unnecessary and felt out of place with an otherwise clean movie. My guess is this was the reason for the PG-13 rating.

There is hardly any language - in fact Bogdanovich changed the film's only F-word to "screw" to clean it up even more than the original script. This works much better for the period than filling it with 21st century language.

Anybody interested in the 20's, William Randolph Hearst or 'The Golden Age of Hollywood' MUST see this movie!

8½ out of 10. (I can't decide between 8 and 9!)
31 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Why is this movie praised so highly???
18 December 2003
The critics and public seem to LOVE this film. Why?

I saw it with great expectations after reading such raving reviews.

Yes, the sea battles are very well executed. Yes, the sound is deserving of an Oscar nomination. And yes, there are some cool scenes in with ships in the fog.

BUT, the bottom line is this movie was boring! The story was completely unoriginal. The characters were nothing we haven't seen before. And worse is how they crammed so much completely irrelevant "fluff" into the film just to stretch out it's length. (What was the point of the whole Jonah side story?)

Russel Crowe is a fine actor, but he was completely wasted in this. The role was absolutely nothing special.

I was so bored I almost left the theater!

I gave it 4 out of 10, only for some nice visuals and sound.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A perfect ending to the story
18 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I understand that some people expected something a lot "deeper" and think they could have come up with a much more clever story than what we were given in this last chapter of the Matrix trilogy.

However, in reality, it answers all the important questions and gives us absolute visual brilliance - probably the BEST I have ever seen (including Return of the King which I viewed just yesterday).

After my first viewing of Revolutions, I was so satisfied I gave it a 9 out of 10. In fact, almost a perfect 10.

However, when I watched it again a second time, I saw some of the flaws and had to lower my score to 8 out of 10.

The flaws I noticed are small, but important. It was dialogue here and there that seemed very second-rate compared to what we're fed in the first Matrix. It was the deliverance of some of the lines. And it was in the performance of one of the key characters: The Oracle.

SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT

My biggest gripe with the lines is in the rediculous scene between Neo and Trinity after they crash-land their ship in the Machine City. Trinity is about to die and they have this very "emotional" moment.

The acting in this scene is really quite bad - especially from Reeves. They are alone on the ship. Not a soul for MILES. And yet they WHISPER their entire dialogue!?!? Why? This scene was also very unnecessarily drawn out - much like the "disco rave" scene on Zion in Reloaded - except not as cool.

The story, however, is completed very well. The questions I had after Reloaded were all answered by the film's end.

Also, the sound and visual effects are absolutely stunning! Without a doubt in my mind the best visual feast of any movie ever! Especially the machine city, and Zion's final battle with the sentinals!

Smith's fate ties brilliantly in with Neo. Their final battle is brilliantly choreographed and visual brilliance!

That said, I do feel the last two-thirds of this trilogy (Reloaded and Revolutions) should have been compact into one film. There was simply too much unnecessary fluff.

But, as I said in my summary: I think the STORY itself was absolutely sound, solid, and simply perfect.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as good as people say, still a fine film.
17 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Certainly not the best of the three. That place still belongs to "Fellowship". And as much as I hate to agree with nay-sayers, I believe there were a few too many endings for a theatrical version.

However, the good FAR outweigh the bad - redeem them even.

The effects are absolutely top-notch and perhaps the best of all the films. The battle sequences were astounding! Best I've ever seen.

START MINOR SPOILERS

My biggest gripe is with the opening sequence with Smeagel and Deagel. Andy Serkis just played him like a mindless grinning goon. Instead of making Smeagel a little bit more "hobbit-like" with a normal speaking voice (not exactly the same as Gollums) and a more melancholy and serious side (not all child-smiles).

END SPOILERS

While I certainly agree that the film deserves some Oscars (but not director or film), I strongly disagree that Sean Astin, Andy Serkis or Viggo Mortensen deserve them for their acting. If anybody has earned a nomination for acting, it would be Ian McKellen and perhaps Elijah Wood.

It felt almost like Mr. Jackson ran out of time editing and left stuff in that would have better found place in the Extended version.

Still, this is an absolutely AMAZING movie. Perhaps I was just expecting too much.

After first viewing, I give it 7 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Absolutely Brilliant!
5 November 2003
With all the bad reviews of this film I expected it to really stink!

My worst fear was the it wouldn't answer all the questions it set up in Reloaded.

Thank goodness I was completely wrong!

In the first act, Neo visits the Oracle and asks her why he could stop the Sentinals at the end of Reloaded. She answers him in a very plain and simple fashion that only a fool wouldn't understand.

Nearly all the other questions are answered as well, if perhaps sometimes in a more subtle manner.

The brothers set up the trilogy in the very first episode to have Neo play the role of the Savior, and they follow through all the way - pulling no stops!

It was executed brilliantly! I couldn't ask for a better finish!

After another viewing, I'm certain ALL my questions would be answered and I would give it 10 out of 10. As is, I still am a tad uncertain about 1 minor detail: Who was the "Mother of the Matrix" that the Architect mentions in Reloaded?

I am pretty sure it was the woman who shared the last scene with the Architect, but would need another viewing to be certain.

After first viewing, my score is a very strong 9 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hulk (2003)
8/10
Beautiful, intelligent, dark, exciting: Ang Lee's HULK
11 July 2003
I honestly don't know what people are complaining about. The CGI was absolutely top-notch! Absolutely as good as (if not better than) Gollum from LOTR.

Hulk was real. Alive. A character of flesh and bones that you could touch. At least seemingly so.

Hulk interacted with his surroundings more than any other CGI character I've ever seen - yes, including Gollum.

And the CGI was not even the best part of this film. It was the story.

Ang Lee is a brilliant and bold director. This was absolutely his film. There were many times through the movie when I thought to myself: "This is the Director's cut!" I was amazed that studio executives didn't cut it up to make it into a shorter, tighter "summer action flick". Of course, that is exactly what many people were expecting, which perhaps explains it's mixed reviews.

The first hour of HULK was building and developing the characters. All of them. From Betty Ross (the beautiful and talented Jennifer Connelly - who absolutely steals the show here with her acting) to David Banner (Bruce Banners' sanity-absent father, a solid and convincing performance by Nick Nolte) to Ross' Military Dad (played brilliantly by Sam Elliott) to Bruce himself (Eric Bana was perfect. PERFECT!).

I could really go on and on about how much I liked this movie, but I never like to read long reviews, so I'll try to keep this one short too.

Trust me: If you liked the style of CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, and you can appreciate a serious and somewhat dark Sci-Fi movie, this one's for you!

Just keep in mind that this is NOT a kid's movie (like Star Wars or Spiderman) and that the action is only secondary to the story.

My rating: 9 out of 10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Druids (2001)
1/10
Absolute and total rubbish!
11 July 2003
This is without a doubt the single worst film I have ever forced myself to endure through!

The cinematography is a joke! In many scenes it looks like a guy is holding a camcorder while riding a horse. Sometimes you even see nothing but grass and earth while it jerks up and down.

The dubbing is often quite funny as sometimes it seems the actors are speaking French (dubbed to English) and sometimes English (dubbed to... English).

The script is a complete travesty, with some of the worst lines you would ever wish you never heard in a movie. (Sorry that I have no specific examples, but I have forced myself to forget them as it's now over 3 months since I watched this on DVD.)

But clearly the worst part about this is the acting. Practically the whole cast is just plain terrible! Especially the young version of the two leads in the beginning. Granted, these are children, but they make Jake Lloyd's performance as young Anakin in Star Wars look on par with Haley Joel Osment from the Sixth Sense. Okay, I have to admit that Klaus Brandauer was almost adequate in his role as Caesar, but the part was not well written, and doesn't redeem the film enough to make it watchable.

There is absolutely no chemistry between the two leads who are supposed to be madly in love. Lambart has got to be at least twice her age! And the story makes them only like 4 or 5 years apart. It's completely unbelievable.

It's not even fun to watch like some of those horrible cheesy sci-fi films that make you laugh at how bad they are. This one is just painful to watch and makes you embarrassed for the people who made it.

Some of these flaws may be accredited to bad directing. I don't know. But it is seriously painful to watch.

Do yourself a favor and stay far away from this one. :)

I rarely do this, but this one deserves my 1 out of 10 rating.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Cool dragons. Too bad the film stinks!
11 July 2003
The performances are all very bad - especially from the lead girl from American Beauty. Strange since we know she has talent.

The two theives are somewhat humerous at times but ultimately annoying and redundant.

Really, I almost chose to give 1 out of 10 but the dragons alone are cool enough to deserve an extra mark. Thus my 2 out of 10 rating.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fight Club (1999)
10/10
Finchers' best
11 July 2003
This movie just grows on me more and more. I liked it when I first saw it in cinema, but after my second viewing I liked it even more. Now, after having seen it on DVD two more times, I have grown to absolutely love it!

It is now one of my favorite films. I just changed my rating from 8 (my original rating after 2 viewings in the cinema) to 10.

An absolutely brilliant film with outstanding performances from all 3 of the main cast. Edward Norton shines specifically brightly.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
For big Matrix fans ONLY
22 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I know some people may disagree with me. So be it.

I believe that unless you are a huge fan of the first MATRIX - and more specifically - of the story and concept (rather than the style and action), you will NOT appreciate this movie. You will probably not even like it.

I have seen it twice now and can say that it's much better the second time around. Still, I enjoyed the original much more.

RELOADED is not as instantly rewarding as the original MATRIX was. The style and pacing is different. There is much more focus on the "philosophical" aspect, thus a lot more dialogue and less intensity.

*** VERY MINOR SPOILERS ***

I felt that some scenes were only there to please fans and meant very little to the story (Morpheus fighting an agent atop a moving semi truck, a lot of Neo's flying around, along with most of the extended action sequences.), while others just dragged on and on (the "club Zion" party scene and the "love" scene with Trinity and Neo, the "burly brawl" scene, the "dinner party" and cake scene, Link's home life, etc.).

*** SPOILERS END ***

It seemed they stuffed a lot in just to justify making two movies out of these sequels. They could have easily cut out at least half an hour without losing the gist of the story. This should have been the "extended cut" like Jackson has done for the LOTR films. That way the cinema version could have been more tailored for regular audiences and been more enjoyable.

Still, the story IS very very cool and I loved the twists that come and make you wonder what the Matrix "really" is.

As much as I liked the last 15 minutes (from just after the infamous "Highway chase" sequence), I can't help but wish the overall film was polished down a bit.

I give it 6 out of 10, and hope for a better-paced final act!

Oh, and just to set it straight: This IS a positive review. :)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointed - even with my very low expectations!
2 July 2001
I guess I should start off by saying I am a big Indiana Jones fan and mostly enjoy James Bond movies - in spite of their usually shoddy storyline.

I say that because I would consider Tomb Raider a cross between the two films - at least at first site. It's really much more Bond than Jones, and a less interesting Bond at that.

What really hurts this film (IMO) is the story and their catering too much to the young teens.

I didn't like the father-daughter thing at all and I would have much preferred not knowing who the bad guy was until the end. The way they did it here there was absolutely no suspense. You pretty much knew exactly what was going to happen from start to finish.

That being the case I was hoping for at least some visual candy to keep me interested.

Sorry to disappoint you but this version of Lara isn't exactly what fans of the game are expecting. The opening scene is frankly the only one that does her wardrobe justice.

The only eye candy this offered was some pretty nice cinematography in landscapes.

That being said I think Jolie did an adequate job on her accent (though it was clearly not "Queens English" it was better than many other attempts we've suffered through in the past). The action scenes were mostly well played out (with a couple obvious exceptions) and the sets were pretty well designed.

Overall there's really not much to see here - that is unless you're under 15.

5 out of 10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Quite probably Besson's best!
24 September 2000
I finally tracked down this movie after searching several local video stores, and boy, was it worth the search!

I absolutely loved this film!

I finally see what gave Natalie Portman all her acclaim as an actress. She was so terrific in this! I was astounded by her ability - especially the scene where she walks down the hall past her apartment door to discover her family was murdered with the Perpetrators still inside. She keeps walking, trying not to show any emotion to give away the fact that she lives there as there's a man standing outside sort of 'guarding' the place. She goes to her neighbor's door and starts knocking. Tears are streaming down her cheeks and she has a look of horror and desperation on her face as she whispers, "Open the door, please. Please open the door!" over and over. I almost started crying for her. She is truly a fantastic actress. And to think she did this at the age of 12-13! The whole movie was just packed full of incredible scenes such as this.

Another scene that made my heart melt was the scene where she tries to explain to Léon how she knows that she's in love with him: "I have this warm feeling in my stomach. There was a knot there before but now it's gone." And the scene where she dresses up as Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin and Gene Kelly. She was so adorable singing and acting. "a mustache." she says trying to look serious and melancholy like Chaplin.

Reno was very good as well. I never really thought too much of him before (neither liked him nor disliked him). This movie shows that he really has a great talent.

What probably amazed me the most about this was that Luc Besson both wrote it and directed it. Very well done. I hope he makes more like this one! While I liked Jean de Arc and the 5th Element I wouldn't put them in the same class as this one.

I give it 10 out of 10. On a bad day I might go down to 9½. ;o)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed