5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Steamboy (2004)
6/10
Flies high, Falls short.
2 August 2005
Steamboy used a relatively humble premise of the emerging power of Steam technology in the 19th century and built a strong plot foundation on the debate over the role and pitfalls of science and technology. Unfortunately, after establishing this base the film began to lose its way. The debate seemed to be pushed aside as the overwhelming visuals took over and by the end I was left feeling tired, disappointed, and a bit confused.

The movie started out good, got awesome, then literally lost it's way in a cloud of . . . steam. A lot of effort and time was spent on a very short and disappointingly shallow plot line that at times flirted with depth, but never got there. I recommend it to hardcore anime fans
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daredevil (2003)
5/10
Definitely falls short. For hardcore DD fans only.
22 July 2005
I've been a Daredevil fan since I was seven and I liked the movie. I do admit that it was not very good. Trying to avoid any biases, I'll give you my take.

The worst parts of the movie were directing and Writing. The movie could have benefited from a much better director. Ang Lee would have been great for this film rather than MSJ. The script forced some of the actors to say lines that were just insufferable. "I'm not the bad guy", "that's the C-Train", "Stay. Stay with me." AAAAAHHHHH!!! No actor should have to say ridiculous lines like that. Due to the slightly low budget, director and the producers the movie also walked a weird line between ultra-CGI Spiderman and non-digital Batman (original). Personally I think that the movie could have been done without excessive digital effects. In the commentary the MSJ admits that the CGI was atrocious at times. Daredevil, in terms of superpowers, is more like Batman than Spiderman and more stuff like the opening fight scene would have been nice.

The cast, in my opinion was excellent. There were plenty of moments in the movie that made me believe Ben was a good choice. He performed well in the courtroom as Matt Murdock and at the end against Kingpin. Farell was obnoxious (perfect), Jennifer Garner was solid as Electra, and Michael Clarke-Duncan was the best possible choice for Kingpin. They were good; too bad the script didn't make good use of them. Ben definitely is not the best actor out there, but he could have done well in a better situation.

In the end, it was not horrible, but not good either. I saw it a couple times and bought the director's cut (which I recommend. It is better). I try to see the potential in it and kind of gloss over the lame parts but sometimes they're just too bad to ignore. In spite of it all, I'd recommend it to hardcore DD fans because it's cool to see your favorite superhero on screen but I would not recommend it to people looking for a good movie to watch on a Friday night.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wimbledon (2004)
7/10
Typical romantic comedy, but a surprisingly successful sports drama.
22 July 2005
It was what I expected in a lot of ways. Kinda' hokey, kinda' corny, but entertaining. A run-of-the mill romantic comedy with few surprises on that end. The actors did a good job keeping it interesting and fun. Dunst played the strength or her character well, but never seemed to take the heavier scenes seriously enough. Paul Bettany was solid, but in a lot of scenes, he overplayed the stereotypical Hugh Grant British stammering and awkwardness. It should be noted that this is from the same team that made Notting Hill.

I must give the movie a LOT of credit for transferring the game to the screen rather well. Wimbledon did an outstanding job at depicting the psychological game within the game. At some points I actually felt the tingling in my legs that I remembered from the starting blocks in my first track meet. Intense. The visual effects were also well done. In some ways it played like The Matrix only instead of the war against the machines it's Wimbledon and instead of "the one" it's some British guy.

In spite of its genre-specific clichés, it was original enough for me to enjoy. I gave it a 6 for being an enjoyable movie, and an extra point for its visual effects and dramatic power. I recommend it to the romantic comedy fans and mild sports fans.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Spread itself to thin, then just didn't work.
6 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had good intentions and a decent, original story (kind of a twist on High Fidelity). The movie started out good, stayed okay, then became ridiculous. Fragments of the story fell into odd places (The ex-boyfriend Bean, the Kippie subplot, etc.). The narration was corny and unoriginal. The focus of the movie was inconsistent (the relationship? the girl? the job? the Stacy & Barb? Ira?). The resolutions were a bit too far fetched, as the movie seemed to never want to walk a consistent line of believability, (Yes, people are can be backstabbing and sadistic, but Barb's train of actions defied plot logic and realism). The movie was willing to resolve a ridiculous Carly Simon/Diane Sawyer, yet never really resolved the ethical labyrinth that it opened.

I will give credit to the actors who were all solid. Brittany Murphy was probably (and understandably) the weakest, but still did well. For that reason I will give the movie a "4" instead of the "3" I originally intended to give it (that's a point to compensate for something that just might be subjective, but I doubt it judging by other professional reviews). The major flaw of the film was structural, not theatrical, but it was too big of a flaw to ignore. The movie was too chaotic to work as a convincing, logical story and too far-fetched to work as a realistic story. It struck me as a spectacle of drama (albeit honest drama) and circumstantial "what if this happened" story telling.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It had its moments, nothing spectacular.
5 January 2005
I'd actually recommend seeing it if you don't feel like a heavy movie and just want to watch something fun. The movie is 'another teen movie" but does have some unique aspects to it, some pretty funny quotes ("what is this, the dork outreach program?")and moments, but unfortunately, a lot of that average teen movie drama and a few overly two-dimensional characters (Zach's friends and girlfriend). Cool dance scene though, and Freddie Prinze Jr. is bearable Rachel Leigh Cook is likable (I personally thought she was pretty good in it) and notably talented actors like Kevin Pollak, Kieran Culkin, and Anna Paquin give the movie some supporting foundation. Not a bad movie, not a great movie, just simply what it is:'another teen movie'.
33 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed