Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Don't take this movie too seriously, and then you'll enjoy it.
16 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie for one and only reason that James Marsters is in it, and as I expected, the movie itself was quite bad. Actually no, the first 20 minutes were pretty good, while you still didn't know what was going on, and before you got a good look at the monster. And while the girls were still in their undies of course. But then it just went downhill.

The acting was not great, but at least nothing as amateurish as in Saw. James Marsters was good as always(but then, he can never do wrong in my book:P), the black guys were scary, the girls were hot, and that's pretty much all that was required from them.

The ending of the movie was promising to reach the all-time low, but then I think the director realized that, and opted for a genius solution. Yes, bring back the girls in undies. Explanation? Because the monster don't kill you if you're in your undies. That's right. And what happened to that black girl who didn't take off her skirt in time? Nothing good, that's for sure. Let this be a lesson to all you ladies out there.

And at the very end you just gotta laugh. And if you see this movie with that easy-mind kind of attitude, then you'll mildly enjoy it. Better yet, watch it stoned.

The first 20 minutes made me give this movie the first 2 stars; James Marsters pushed it to 4, and the semi-naked girls bumped it up to 7.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Archangel (2005 TV Movie)
1/10
Ridiculously awful
7 May 2007
Wow, what a unbelievably cheesy attempt at an action flick with a historical message.

First with the action aspect. Cheaply done, even for a TV show. The show is trying to create that suspenseful atmosphere that never actually happens. All the running and chasing around is getting annoying by the first hour.

But I could have lived through that. What finally killed it for me was the supposedly historical aspect. It's supposedly based on some book, and I have no idea where the writer came up with that stuff. I mean it's based on absolutely nothing, and is so cheesy, you can't help thinking who in their right mind would make this.

And thirdly, the way it pictures Russia. It's like they took all the negative stereotypes and dumped it here one on top of another. You've got your heavy drinking, your bad police, corrupt and evil government, obsessed communists who hate the capitalists, women being whores. It's like a drunken dream of Nixon himself.

I must say though that Daniel Creig's acting actually surprisingly good. He fits great into his role and is the only positive thing I can say about this movie. Still, stay clear of this, it's a complete waste of time and will just leave you frustrated. Straight into a trashcan.
14 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Raging Bull (1980)
6/10
A mediocre film
28 February 2007
I really don't get how this movie got such a high score. I am a huge fan of Scorsese and De Niro, but this movie is definitely not the best sports movie. It's not horrible, it's just mediocre.

The boxing is really horrible. From a serious film like that I was expecting something different than just another Rocky-style fighting sequences. I mean don't they know that there's a thing called "defence". I know that boxing isn't what this movie is about, but it's still a pretty big part of it, and it surely does add to the believability.

And the thing that this movie is supposed to be about-didn't work for me either. Why would I feel sorry for a guy who destroys himself? He has a title-he throws it away. Has a brother who loves him-destroys that relationship. Has a loving wife-he beats her up and drives her to divorce. Yea he has a nice side, but how can you feel sorry for a person who slaps around his wife for no reason? In a word, a so-so movie. 5 out of 10.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed