DoctorSkyTower Reviews

Battlestar Galactica (2003)

WHAT A "REINVENTION"!!

[1/10 · 25 February 2004]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! What a laugh this has turned out to be!

I just KNOW original BG fans will vehemently hate this 2003 "reinvention" of BG!

They're not wrong!

I couldn't stand it either, and I don't even *like* the original BG!

Just because the special effects have been brought up to 2003 standards does not mean this TV show is suddenly above and beyond all other sci-fi TV shows, including (most definitely!) the one that spawned it. Star Gate SG1 has better effects, better stories and better characters, for example.

Can't writers come up with good ideas for sci-fi TV shows anymore? Was the writer off his face on dope when he wrote this thing? Well, according to him, the vital 2003 requirements for "reinvented" sci-fi TV shows must be:

1) Re hash a so-so 70's or early 80's TV show (hopefully one that nobody will remember therefore making it an easy target to rip off - or in this case - rip to shreds)

2) Completely change the story so the "reinvention" becomes nothing like the original

3) Bring it up to today's "sub-standards", i.e remove any cheesy, kid-friendly attributes and replace them with offensive language, excessive or extreme violence, and enough sex scenes to shame any blue movie

4) Should an actor from the original try to have any major input into the "reinvention" of his sci-fi TV show, omit him completely and then laugh in his face when you present him with this insipid schlock

When it becomes impossible to suspend disbelief then you know it's going to be bad. When you get bored waiting for action scenes after watching useless and unnecessary sex scenes (really the only action you've seen in the last hour) you know it's going to be worse than bad. When you finally give up halfway through the thing and switch off the TV then you may as well compare it to Battlefield Earth.

The characters are pathetic. I was not interested in anything they did, or how they felt, least of all whom they decided to hop in the sack with (be it robot, human or whatever). Nor did I care one iota when their home world was destroyed by their robot servants. WHO CARES! The robots-wiping-out-their-human-masters cliche has been done a million times in a million other movies/TV shows/books/comics/video games.

CONCLUSION? This show has borrowed ideas from so many other sci-fi TV shows and movies I've lost count. (although the original WAS based on Star Wars) WHO CARES!!

0/10

Battlefield Earth (2000)

THIS "MOVIE" IS BEYOND PATHETIC

[1/10 · 22 February 2004]

I saw B.E. two years ago. I decided to get the DVD so I could give it another chance.

I could only stand watching half of it this time round!

?? Why do Johnny's caveman friends not refer to him as "Johnny" until halfway through the flick?

??? Why does Johnny have to scream rather than use normal speech? He squeals and shrieks in high-octave girlish tones! He does not need to portray all two of his emotions (mad, sad!) with headache-inducing screeches!

!!! Mad banshee screams and the spouting of Euclydian mathematics between the sniffing of food like a dog and occasional shouts of "Ug!!" sure is funny to watch, though!

It was amusing watching Roger Christian struggle to give a sound excuse for his terrible directing. There are bucket-loads of references made to Star Wars and George Lucas throughout the Special Features section (how shameful). Visual effects producers proudly proclaim how they borrowed so-and-so effect from LucasFilm Inc. Mr Christian waffles on about how much he loves Science fiction (well, dhuh, he DID partake in three Star Wars flicks) and speaks of the grand-fatherly support he received from Mr Lucas.

A skinny little guy tries to explain why they had to film every scene at that ridiculous neck-breaking dutch angle. His explanation was that all the scenes filmed at normal angles were cast into the cutting-room rubbish bin simply because they "didn't work". What sad excuse is that!

We will not go into detail on those awful Star Wars wipes that occur every second scene.

The majority of the positive reviews are based in California. Is that where Scientologists congregate in their largest numbers? All these Scientologists giving their rosy reviews are only trying to:

1) Defend their Mentor (Mr John Revolta)

2) and their God (L Ron Hubbard)

Do they realize this, ahem, "movie" received the award for "worst film of 2001"?

Finally I mustn't forget Mr John Revolta in his worst performance ever! Revolta wasn't even slightly funny. His Terl was annoying, stupid, irritating and a complete hack. How idiots like these Psychlo's could defeat any planet whether or not it's advanced is totally beyond my comprehension.

Did Revolta partake in Shakespearean stage acting to achieve the putzy moron that is Terl?

A well deserved 0/10!

Reign of Fire (2002)

95 Million bucks goes up in Smoke

[4/10 · 15 January 2004]

While watching the DVD bonus features last night, I was quite surprised to hear one of the producers proudly announcing this film is "The most original dragon movie ever made".

Well, I'm sorry Mr Producer, but your movie is far from original.

The dragons look like the dragon from Dragon Slayer, the story is simply a gender reversal of Aliens, and the settings are exactly like Dragon Heart or Battlefield Earth (or every other apocalyptic movie, just take your pick!)

I never bothered looking at the movie posters so didn't fathom the fact the city burning was supposed to be London. Didn't they burn London in that awful 80's flick Life Force? And 28 Days Later? (which was better than this flick, at least in the horror department)

What a complete waste of 95 million bucks! Dialogue was cliche-ridden and absymal: "Lock and Load, baby!" said at least ten times. The characters were forgettable. It's impossible to suspend disbelief, the plot holes are so glaringly obvious even a blind monkey would spot them. I won't go into detail on these, except to outlay a few small points. So can someone please explain to me:

A) how the destruction of a single male dragon will bring about the extinction of the entire dragon species;

B) why scenes that could've shown world-wide destruction are *conveniently omitted* and replaced with a ridiculous '20 years later';

C) why the dragons receive only ten minutes worth of screen time;

D) and for the rest of the movie's running time the audience is subjected to the excruciating sight of sweaty, naked man-boobs thrust in their face

CONCLUSION:

Nice to watch if you're female wanting to see a few pounds of partially-nude man flesh... Nice to watch if you want to see how ripped your pecs and abs will look after a couple of years workout in the gym... Nice to watch if your diet consists of pure testosterone...

I rate this flick 4/10, one for each boobie!

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Best of the Trilogy

[10/10 · 15 January 2004]

I won't give a detailed review on this film, as there are over 1650 reviews already (!!) but this one has definitely become my favorite of the Trilogy.

Everyone will know the story by now... so all I have to add is I was very impressed with the battles, Frodo's encounter with Shelob, the journey through Mordor and Gollum's 'ending'. The orc commander was cool and ugly, he reminded me of the alien leader from Peter Jackson's earlier movie Bad Taste.

I enjoy long movies, you get your $15 worth! The only problem I had was the absence of an intermission (really the fault of the theaters rather than the film!) Movies this long need a break in the middle. Also it didn't quite know where to finish, so went on a wee bit at the end.

10/10

Reign of Fire (2002)

$95 Million goes up in Smoke

[4/10 · 12 January 2004]

While watching the DVD bonus features last night, I was quite surprised to hear one of the producers proudly announcing this film is "The most original dragon movie ever made".

Well, I'm sorry Mr Producer, but your movie is far from original.

The dragons look like the dragon from Dragon Slayer, the story is simply a gender reversal of Aliens, and the settings are exactly like Dragon Heart or Battlefield Earth (or every other apocalyptic movie, just take your pick!)

I never bothered looking at the movie posters so didn't fathom the fact the city burning was supposed to be London. Didn't they burn London in that awful 80's flick Life Force? And 28 Days Later? (which was better than this flick, at least in the horror department)

What a complete waste of 95 million bucks! Dialogue was cliche-ridden and absymal: "Lock and Load, baby!" said at least ten times. The characters were forgettable. It's impossible to suspend disbelief, the plot holes are so glaringly obvious even a blind monkey would spot them. I won't go into detail on these, except to outlay a few small points. So can someone please explain to me:

A) how the destruction of a single male dragon will bring about the extinction of the entire dragon species;

B) why scenes that could've shown world-wide destruction are *conveniently omitted* and replaced with a ridiculous '20 years later';

C) why the dragons receive only ten minutes worth of screen time;

D) and for the rest of the movie's running time the audience is subjected to the excrutiating sight of sweaty, naked man-boobs thrust in their face

CONCLUSION:

Nice to watch if you're female wanting to see a few pounds of partially-naked man flesh... Nice to watch if you want to see how ripped your pecs and abs will look after a couple of years workout in the gym... Nice to watch if your diet consists of pure testosterone...

I rate this flick 4/10 one for each boobie!

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Zionite motto must be "Make Love Not War!"

[5/10 · 3 June 2003]

This movie was just OK. It didn't rock my world or turn me into a fanatic, though I did enjoy the first Matrix.

However, several things unveiled in this flick sort of ruined it for me. WARNING! SPOILERS!

1) The 'deep, meaningful' speeches told me absolutely nothing. These pretentious, pompous, pseudo-philosophical philanderings which permeated this flick in profusion are utterly butt-numbing. My vote for 'most sleep-induced orating' goes to... Morpheus and That French Guy's Chocolate Cake!

2) People who gave this movie a 10 just because of "The Really Cool C.G.I Fights and C.G.I Car Chase Scenes". If you C.G.I me I can do all that Neo does and More! I don't even have to know how to *do* Karate! Or even how to throw a convincing punch! And how come everybody insists on wearing sun glasses in dark rooms and caves?

3) Every single Zion scene. These were totally worthless! The best of the worst had to be the "Zion Zoo-Dance-Rave-Sex-Fest with Jungle-Drum-Beats and Sweaty-Stomping-Feet". How come they didn't set up their defenses, or prepare themselves for the war? (Zionite motto must be "Make Love Not War!") There was no feeling that they were in actual danger. All we see is another day in the life of the average New-Age Hippy Zionite. Go Machines!!

4) Extended Suck-Face scene between our hero and girlfriend. We did not have to endure a useless and un-erotic sex scene to remind us that Neo truly, deeply loves Trinity. No further explanation is required!

5) We see almost nothing of the danger about to wipe out Zion. Instead we just hear more long-winded speeches proclaiming the danger that is *The Machines*. All say and no see really starts to grate on your nerves after two hours of watching this flick.

6)As for 'deep and meaningful', the only thing deep and meaningful I received was a sore butt from sitting for so long...

It felt like I was simply watching my home PC, infected with a virus because I (the user) opened a virus-infected email attachment (Agent Smith). We have the unsuccessful virus protection program (Neo) trying to eradicate it. Then we have our useless free roaming programs (oracle, key maker, architect, French dude) taking up the rest of the hard drive space. Since this computer doesn't contain enough memory for all this junk it eventually causes the hard drive to crash (Zion's six-timed destruction). And what is the Matrix? The Internet

Sigh! I hope I'm wrong and this isn't what *The Trilogy* is about!

CONCLUSION? What the heck is this "To Be Continued"?? In the old 60's TV series Batman and Robin, yes! In the Matrix Reloaded 2003, NO!!

5/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

WOW, WHAT PRETTY SCENERY!

[10/10 · 7 January 2003]

I have read several comments on this movie and am very surprised at how many reviewers expected it to be exactly like the book The Two Towers. I have read the books several times myself, and seen dozens of movies based on books I've read, but I never expected this film (or any other) to copy the book to a double T.

This film is ABSOLUTELY one of the BEST I've seen this year, and fits my bill as THE BEST MOVIE of 2002!! It is ALSO an excellent adaptation of the second book, with a few changes made and extras added in, and I didn't mind that Shelob (who features at the end of the book TTT) won't make her appearance until the third movie.

I was a little worried that this film wouldn't meet my (rather high!) expectations (re Star Wars I, II) and the battle scenes would turn out like they did in Star Wars II - but I was pleasantly surprised! You see real warriors (and C.G.I ones of course) in real armor during the huge battle at Helm's Deep. I liked the battle with the Waarg riders, and Gandalf's fight with the Balrog was pretty cool.

Gollum is simply amazing. You forget he's C.G.I and marvel at how hideous and slimy he is. His animation is just about perfect, even better than that boring Final Fantasy flick. His movements were animated over a live actor (who also does his voice) which really added to his realism.

I found TTT to be even better than FotR! Unlike the first movie, which concentrated mostly on character development, TTT now concentrates on moving the story along with the battles, rise of Sauron etc.

MR LUCAS TAKE NOTE!! Watch this film a few times BEFORE you make Star Wars III (after all, we *do* have to wait 3 or 4 years for the third installment, which is *plenty* of time to come up with a *good* movie)

I highly recommend this film to everyone who loves movies!

Congratulations Mr Jackson and crew! 10/10

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

DO NOT WATCH THIS ON THE SMALL SCREEN....

[4/10 · 7 January 2003]

...because this flick sucks even more.

Thought I'd purchase a cheap second-hand video tape and give this ahm... 'movie' another chance. The plot didn't make sense and the tedious inter-galactic politics simply made this flick a more confusing and boring mess. Very glad I didn't take up politics as a career option.

The Galactic Senators of the Imperial Republic still made no sense with their hum drum political speeches when transferred to the small screen.

The hideously-performed romance that mysteriously crops up between the 30 year old woman and the 20 year old man who behaves like he's just turned 10 is simply: Unbelievable. (impossible?) Press the fast forward button through these parts (they actually look better when sped up with no sound!) Thank goodness for the remote control!!

I was amazed at the digital C.G.I effects. It's obvious the actors are just standing in front of green screens which I found annoying and very poor, knowing that Mr Lucas went the whole hog and out performed himself in the C.G.I department. The 50's diner scene was nothing but a cartoon. The robot serving-girl-whatever with the horrid screechy voice and its four-armed-alien-cook were as fake as the giant cow-thing C.G.I Annie rides during that ridiculous picnic scene.

I found the editing particularly annoying. We have an interesting scene with Obi Wan carrying out his detective work when it suddenly cuts to Annie and Padme playing two 13 year old school kids *in love*. Mr Lucas lingers forever on these boring, uninteresting scenes at the expense of much better ones. Alright already! We *know* they're supposed to be in love, can we get on with the plot??

The battle at the end was another major disappointment. There are millions of things going on, but there is too much happening. It also went on far too long. There is also no realism, this stuff looked fake, so it just felt like I was watching a video game. Re the factory scenes.

The battle between Annie, Obi Wan and Dooku was un-exciting, a real bore compared to the battle between our heroes and Maul in T.P.M. Lucas must've believed having a C.G.I Yoda 'kicking Dooku butt' would excel the fight in Star Wars 1. I'm sorry, Mr Lucas, but I was far from impressed.

The death scenes (Padme's bodyguard, Annie's mother) are so fake they end up looking atrocious, but are still rather funny to watch!

This entire flick is just a long, boring commercial for LucasFilm Toys Incorporated. I now truly believe Mr Lucas has lost it. He needs to move out of the captains chair and let the navigator take over.

DEAR MR G LUCAS! YOU HAVE *ONE* MORE CHANCE TO REDEEM YOURSELF!!!

P.S. Please replace Mr Christiansen with someone who can ACT! P.P.S. And get rid of Jar Jar Binks!!!

2/10

Howard the Duck (1986)

HAHAHAHAHAHA! THE *GREATEST* MOVIE OF ALL TIME!

[1/10 · 24 November 2002]

I have *actually* witnessed a film that surpasses the awesome badness that is Battlefield Earth.

This thing has *got* to be the most horrendous flick ever produced in the 80's. I can suspend disbelief when watching science fiction films, but this flick sank right into the deepest depths of Utter Stoopidity!

The most notorious things that tried my patience (WARNING! spoilers)

1) The duckoid did not look at all the way I expected him to look. He just looked like a midget actor wearing the ugliest duck costume I've ever seen

2) The Punk Rocker Girl (PRG) with the ridiculously huge hair our duckoid hero rescues. He hates humans and calls them 'hairless apes', yet he falls in love with a female 'hairless ape'. Somehow PRG falls in love with him - and he proceeds to get her laid (!?)

3) PRG is supposed to be this tough, street-wise bad-girl but she's probably the wimpiest punk rockette I've ever seen

4) The truly hideous musical number at the end - with the duckoid playing Air Guitar

The most hilarious thing is George Lucas was the producer behind the birth of this "movie". Since he has a love of the truly pathetic (Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks and Brownies) it doesn't surprise me at all he would be responsible for the Creation of this...er... "Movie".

Even more hilarious is Mr Lucas virtually disowned this flick after it tanked at the box office. To add insult to injury, this "movie" then started mopping up the Razzie awards!

Was only a teenager when I saw this on video, I don't remember it coming out in theaters over here. What I do remember is this "movie" lagged way behind in the footsteps of far superior films at the time (and ripped them off i.e Short Circuit anyone?)

Guess this thing went straight to video!

MY CONCLUSION? It ranks right up there with the "greatness" of Battlefield Earth!

1/10

Howard the Duck (1986)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! THE "GREATEST" MOVIE EVER MADE!

[1/10 · 21 November 2002]

I have *actually* witnessed a film that rivals the awesome badness that is Battlefield Earth.

This thing has *got* to be the most horrendous flick ever produced in the 80's. I can suspend disbelief when watching science fiction films, but this flick sank right into the deepest depths of Utter Stoopidity!

The most notorious things that tried my patience (warning! spoilers)

1) The duck (-oid) did not look at all the way I expected him to look. He just looked like a midget (or possibly a child) actor wearing the ugliest duck costume I've ever seen

2) The Punk Rock Girl (PRG) with the ridiculously huge hair our duckoid hero rescues. He hates humans and calls them 'hairless apes', but he soon falls in love with a female 'hairless ape'. He somehow manages to get PRG to fall in love with him - and proceeds to get her laid

3) PRG is supposed to be this tough, street-wise bad-girl but she's probably the wimpiest punk rockette I've ever seen

4) The truly hideous musical number at the end - with the duckoid playing Air Guitar

The most hilarious thing is George Lucas was the producer behind the birth of this "movie". Since he has a love of the truly pathetic (Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks and Brownies) it doesn't surprise me at all he would be responsible for the Creation of this...er... "Movie".

Even more hilarious is Mr Lucas virtually disowned this flick after it tanked at the box office. To add insult to injury, this "movie" then started mopping up the Razzie awards!

Was only a teenager when I saw this on video, I don't remember it coming out in theaters over here. What I do remember is this "movie" lagged way behind in the footsteps of far superior movies at the time (and ripped them off i.e Short Circuit anyone?)

Guess this thing went straight to video!

MY CONCLUSION? It ranks right up there with the "greatness" of Battlefield Earth! MR LUCAS! THIS WAS YOUR WAKEUP CALL! WHAT HAPPENED??

1/10

The Iron Giant (1999)

DISNEY TAKE NOTE!

[10/10 · 1 October 2002]

I am not a fan of animated movies (especially of the Disney variety!) and I have no patience for gooey songs, anthropomorphic animals and objects (ad nauseum), but this is the best animated movie I have seen yet (saw it on TV a few nights ago). It beats the usual cliche stuff churned out by Disney Inc., and the characters are lovable without being overly cutesy. I decided to check out Atlantis as well, and The Iron Giant is far superior to that humdrum, boring Disney flick! The Iron Giant himself has the sweetest personality. He reminds me of Johnny Five from Short Circuit, another movie I loved as a kid!

CONCLUSION? This movie will definitely appeal to adults as well as the kids! I recommend it!

10/10

Spider-Man (2002)

ITS A LOT BETTER THAN STAR WARS!

[7/10 · 9 June 2002]

I am not much of a fan of comic-books-turned-into-movies, they've never really interested me (except maybe last year's X Men). I went in with mixed expectations, I'd seen reviews comparing it to Star Wars Episode II, and seen the two flicks go head to head in the ratings war...

...AND SPIDER MAN IS THE SUPERIOR OF THE TWO!!! There are some predictable/cheesy moments (re comic-book moments!!) and there is less action than I expected. There is also a lot less romance scenes to endure, but these are believable and suspension of disbelief is not an absolute necessity!

The movie follows the basic plot line of the early Marvel comic books, where we learn how Peter Parker received his super powers and how he figures out how to use them. The Green Goblin I remember was this mutated freak/creature, not an 'ordinary' man decked out in corny-looking armor complete with really corny mask. His hover sled looked cool though.

My only real gripe is the slowness of the story, I did expect to see more of Spider man's web slinging action and the villain wasn't really menacing enough.

Anyhoo, for those who love C.G.I, there is plenty of that to look at. The C.G.I is used as a narrative tool to move the story along (Spider man and his jumping, swinging around) but doesn't devolve into a cartoonish, fake mishmash of events that drags on for 45 minutes or more. Lord of the Rings is a favorite flick of mine where the C.G.I was also used to its best effect!

CONCLUSION?

This flick is so much better than the boring, over-rated, over-hyped, cartoon-fest called Star Wars II! If Mr Lucas has not learned from watching the vastly superior LotR, he should at the *very* least sit down and watch this movie a dozen times to see how CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT *should* work!!

7/10

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

STAR WARS II: FINAL FANTASY, THE FORCE WITHIN

[4/10 · 22 May 2002]

*WARNING!* There may be spoilers in this review!

I went into this movie with reasonably high expectations, having heard that it was vastly superior to the Deplorable Episode 1. My expectations were lowered after witnessing the first trailer (It consisted of something resembling a Roswell romance). The second trailer showed loads of wow-wee explosions, light saber fights and cool Imperial Star Destroyer-looking ships, so up went my expectations again.

W H A T... H A P P E N E D... ? ? ? ! ?

Hayden Whats-his-name happened, That's what! I have not seen a worse actor since John Revolta's performance in Battlefield Earth. The man can't act his way out of a toilet cubicle and his attempts to be angry and menacing were just not convincing. (And THIS geek Annie is supposed to be Darth Vader!?) He literally buckles under the weight of this C.G.I cartoon-fest, and boy, does it show during his perfunctionary 'love scenes'! (Gag)

There are situations in this flick that are meant to be 'heart wrenching', ie when Annie has a nightmare-about-his-mommy-while-he's-asleep-in-bed that just came out a total joke - it looked more like he was having a wet dream about Padme (And induced audience laughter!)

Padme is no better. She looks pretty (of course) but why did the buck have to stop right there? She does nothing except wait to be rescued, or wait to be woo'ed by a really creepy, clingy Annie. She does nothing assertive until two thirds of the way into the flick. By that time, it's such an unbelievable change of her character I didn't buy into it.

In Episode 1 Padme was this dignified queen focused on saving her planet from the nasty bad Trade Federation. In Episode II she's magically transformed into a Britney Spears wannabe with trade-mark bare midriff and has about the same amount of zero dignity to go with it. (It's no wonder, Annie is smitten with a politician-turned galactic pop-queen diva!).

It's obvious George Lucas has tried to make Star Wars II the science fiction version of Titanic, and it's totally flopped in that department. When I watch a Star Wars flick, I don't want to watch two spoons rolling around in a field of hay surrounded by rainbows and waterfalls and tick-like elephant-beasts. I don't want to hear awful speeches proclaiming how much he loves her when it sounds so utterly fake. I also don't want to see 'teenage romance cliche No# 90210'.

The audience I sat with (we got a free screening) laughed and groaned at the horrible romantic plot and it was totally funny listening to the comments being made by movie goers around me.

If these boring romantic elements had been removed, I'm sure the rest of the flick would've been a whole heap better. The non-stop C.G.I is nice, but becomes head-ache inducing and boring after 2 and a half hours. I did like the other Jedi main characters and the bounty hunter Fetts were O.K. I also liked the nice street scenes on Coruscant, (note: NOT the too-long air car chase rubbish) and the funky alien (Coruscantian?) writing on the billboards and stuff.

CONCLUSION?

Mr Lucas severely needs to concentrate on character development instead of never ending cartoon C.G.I. He should also ditch the romance element completely! I found this movie NOT much better than Episode 1, just more of the same brainless action and C.G.I explosions and battles. Mr Lucas can do better than this.

4/10

Space Truckers (1996)

DHUH... WHAT WAS THAT...?

[1/10 · 13 February 2002]

Oh dear! ohdear!ohdear!ohdear!

I love science fiction but this... er... 'movie' just puts space flicks to shame. Every sci fi film I've seen over the last YEAR has been disappointing to some degree, and I'm now seriously reconsidering what genre of movies I actually like in future!! (Maybe I'll watch romance flicks from now on!)

SPOILERS ALERT! (And thats not saying much!)

This flick is so insipidly dumb it rivals Battlefield Earth and Baby Geniuses in sheer badness. The special effects are obviously fake, the Big Mac Truck looked stoopid with its roller coaster seat restraints, the killer robots looked like a more idiotic version of the Power Rangers, a huge fat guy is sucked out of a port hole window butt first and... Space Truck School??? WTF?

Mr Hopper can do better than this. What really stunk were the two good-looking young things who accompany him and run around in nothing but their underpants (??) for an entire two thirds of the flick! The obligatory 'sex scene' (snicker!) between our young heroes was so poorly performed I nearly choked on my tonsils laughing at the TV screen.

The only character worth mentioning is the pirate ship captain/cyborg/mad scientist. He oozed the word grotesque and was predictably sleazy, but I believe he could've been much more menacing. He does and says things which are quite funny (all the best scenes involve him!) so for the captain I give this movie an extra point.

But this flick is so bad it'll make you want to hurl abuse at the TV or maybe throw your TV out the window! It may even kill off a few brain cells and put you into a catatonic state.

CONCLUSION? I like the way the captain struggles to walk around on his peg leg when its obviously a fake peg leg!! I would've given it 0 out of 10, but since he cracks me up with his stoopid antics... this flick gets 1/10!

DNA (1996 Video)

WHAT A LOAD OF UTTER RUBBISH!

[6 January 2002]

SPOILER ALERT!

I have just viewed the most unforgettable 'helicopter crash' ever to be witnessed on a cinema screen! (or in the case of this flick, straight-to-video screen!)

A toy helicopter (purchased from the local K Mart super store) is thrown onto the toy jungle play set and then stop motion animation is used to show it tumbling towards us... and this is just a terribly-rendered blue-screen which our heroes are running for their lives in front of! This is a movie made in the mid 90s. You'd think it was produced in the mid 70s!

The plot is total CR@P! Boring, cliche-ridden yarn about a doctor who discovers a beetle whose DNA has something to do with ancient bones found in the middle of a jungle. Mad scientist comes along, steals the beetles and creates a super soldier resembling the alien from the movie Aliens. The monster goes on a completely predictable rampage and kills people so our hero, a chick from the CIA and an annoying Newt-wannabe kid have to stop the Predator - I mean - Velicoraptor. YAAAAWWWWWNNNN.

Just when you thought this flick finally ends (they get rid of the bad guys in the quickest way I have seen for an action movie ever) it drags on for another half hour! Our handsome hero Dr Ash ditches his shirt, flashes his oiled up, tattoed pecs and rippling six pack, and trots off into the jungle armed with a tomahawk to kill the evil Predator... I mean, Alien... I mean, evil Nazi officer... YAAAAWWWWWNNNN. From this point on every scene is lifted directly from other, more worthy movies.

Special effects were forgettable (note the above helicopter scene). Suspending disbelief is a waste of time, and be prepared to have your intelligence insulted on the Battlefield Earth level.

This movie is BAD. Bad beyond belief! It seems the producers of this flick thought the much better Predator would be long forgotten by audiences of the 21st Century, so stole nearly everything from that movie and inserted it right here.

CONCLUSION? I thought doctors were meant to SAVE lives, not take them!

0 OUT OF 10 FOR THIS BOMB!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

MIDDLE EARTH SURE LOOKS PRETTY!

[10/10 · 23 December 2001]

One word: WOW!

This is probably THE best movie I have seen since The Matrix. I was a little sceptical at the hype surrounding this film and wondered whether it would perform, as I kept seeing visions of Star Wars T.P.M and saw how that took a right royal nose-dive to oblivion.

I am glad to be proven completely wrong!

Reading several of the reviews here, I am in agreement with most of them. Having read the Rings Trilogy, this film is probably one of the best book/movie adaptations I have seen for a looong time. Characterizations are spot-on, my favorite being Gandalf. He looks and sounds exactly as I pictured him in the books. The sweeping fly bys around the Tower Orthanc are excellently portrayed (Wizard Saruman)

As a rule, I don't normally like seeing a movie again till it comes out on video or D.V.D (and then I'd have to actually like the flick first!), but this will be one film I'll be seeing at the theater again.

This movie is three hours long, but I really didn't notice it. The story pulls you in and makes you believe you're actually part of Middle Earth. Now I haven't experienced this in a movie since I was a kid. In fact, I hoped for more, but that won't happen until we see The Two Towers...

CONCLUSION? Mr G Lucas should sit down and watch this movie at least three times, so he can see how C.G.I SHOULD be used in a movie!! He may also learn a few story-telling tips, so audiences can sympathize with his characters instead of throwing popcorn at the screen in disgust.

I rate this film 10/10. Congratulations, Mr Jackson!

Joy Ride (2001)

That voice sure sounds scary...

[7/10 · 4 December 2001]

The voice of Rusty Nail is probably the scariest thing about this movie. His voice oozed with an ugly menacing tone that was more frightening and intimidating than a certain black armored, black cloaked individual from a certain movie trilogy made by a certain director (Lucasfilm).

I don't believe this flick was following the cliche-ridden Scream genre. Although the story is a bit far fetched, it was nowhere near as ridiculous! It's not too difficult to suspend disbelief when watching this movie. I found it similar to Steven Spielberg's early movie Duel.

*Small spoiler alert*

The scene where the brothers are forced to enter the burger place in the complete nude and order six cheese burgers each is very funny. You can only sympathize with them at how humiliated and embarrassed they must be feeling.

Those individuals looking for sex scenes, young nude chicks, and blood-splattered violent gore will be sorely disappointed. This movie doesn't rely on the above to make its point! (for once!)

CONCLUSION? This movie turned out much better than I expected. I rate it 7/10.

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

DRAGON WARS: THE WINGED MENACE

[1/10 · 19 November 2001]

Am I correct when I finish watching this BORING movie I've just viewed a poorly-rendered version of T.P.M? With a bit of Return of the Jedi and other star wars stuff thrown in?

Whoever did the editing for this movie must've either been asleep or stoned off their face, because the plot was ripped to utter shreds! So many things happen and are not explained or explained poorly. Now a movie of this genre should be easy to understand. So why did this flick blow chunks?

WARNING! WINGED SPOILERS! WARNING!

1) The boring political confrontation between the Princess (who was a carbon copy of Queen Amidala), and the bad-guy Darth Sidious-look-alike Jeremy Irons (whose acting was dire). Took me half the movie to figure they were fighting over plastic-looking dragon-controlling stage props so they could go to war with some enemy I missed the name of.

2) The thief-hero Ridley and mage Marina disappear into a map portraying some place I also missed the name of, and then reappear. Two hours later: still hadn't figured out what they'd done in the map that conjured up all the answers so conveniently. My 'I'm Bored' meter started rising sharply by this point...

3) Our hero and heroine kiss. He tells her magic-users are superior and he won't have anything to do with them, then contradicts himself and kisses her. Pardon? Nothing more is tacked on to this boring cliche romance. Did I miss yet something else here? Hmm... Maybe not...Yawn.

4) SNAILS?? Excuse me? JAR JAR SNAILS? I thought we'd already endured the awful side kick syndrome, learned from it, and done away with it after the emergence of that floppy-eared, idiotic pigeon-English-speaking fool BUT NO! (or should I say NOOOOOOOOOO!!) Now Jar jar Snails squeals and screams like a girl, but at least he ain't C.G.I!

5) Profion's cheesy hench man. You take Darth Maul's make up off, and what do you get? Darth Maul's blue lips! A villain has not been more fake than listening to the drawn-out hissing of his ridiculously funny, cliche lines. My acting is MUCH better... and I CAN'T ACT!

6) What the heck were those blue, pulsating eye things wondering around with the guards? Why did this movie's creators include these creatures when they do nothing, not even bothering to appear during a 'climatic' battle scene. (must've run out of money to C.G.I them doing stuff other than float briefly by!)

THE ENDING. It is by far the WORST ending I've ever had to endure, right up there with the NEXT worst ending in movie history: Hollow Man. I rate this movie 1/10, the 1 because the end act is so lame and cliche ridden, it's a laugh!

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

IS THIS THE NEW INDIANA JONES? I THINK NOT!

[4 October 2001]

I am not particularly fond of 'video-game-made-to-movies' (re Final Fantasy). They are usually hideously presented when transferred to the Big Screen. This movie was disappointing in that respect, but I wasn't expecting much and I got exactly what I expected.

It was, however, better than Mummy Returns.

The games' story lines are much more involving (for obvious reasons, dhuh!!!) But like a game, the plot simply revolves around 'finding an artifact, killing off the bad guys while searching for it, and preventing the head bad guy from using said artifact because if he does, he'll destroy the world'. So your character has to... (yawn) save the world... again. (ZZZZZZZzzzzzz!)

This flick meanders all over the world. Each location is pretty eye-candy. But they look more like fake sets on a huge sound stage instead of real live locales. This movie plays like the new age version of Indiana Jones, but is not as exciting. This is what I found most disappointing. Instead we endure what we already saw in Mission Impossible II.

Now I can sit and watch impossible stunts being performed quite happily, mind (The Matrix)! But when they're performed a la Tom Cruise Style, my 2 brain cells deconstruct and my butt falls asleep!

BUT Ms Jolie was cast perfectly as Lara Croft. She gets 10/10 for her performance. I doubt another actress could play Lara as well! She out shines stiff, boring Ethan Hunt in the I'm Cool Department hands down.

The ending is a major let down. WHY DOES HOLLYWOOD FORCE FEED US SUCH BUTTOCK-NUMBING ENDINGS? DOES HOLLYWOOD THINK AUDIENCES HAVE THE I.Q OF A WOODEN SPOON?? I rate this flick 5/10, mostly for Ms Jolie's performance and the nice C.G.I effects.

DEAR HOLLYWOOD: The 'End Bit' of a Movie is Just As Important as the Beginning and Middle Bits!

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

IT STILL SUCKS, EVEN AFTER REPEATED VIEWINGS

[3/10 · 23 September 2001]

I have previously made a comment on this movie, but feel it was simply too brief. However, I have since viewed it a few times again and can now write a much better-informed opinion... And after reading several of the 2520 reviews here, I can agree and disagree with many of them.

I agree that the original trilogy were rife with your standard science fiction cliches, terrible dialog and schmaltzy aliens...

I agree that Luke Skywalker was little more than a whiny annoying brat, but he was not nearly as bad as the kid in this flick... (OUCH!!)

I agree that Lucas wrote this movie for audience members who are even younger (5 year-olds) than the ones Return of the Jedi was written for (8 year-olds)...

But, in all due respect, T.P.M simply does NOT compare to the first three films!

I don't entirely agree that the aliens featured in T.P.M are racist. Mr Lucas had to come up with some kind of accent for them, didn't he? It's so much simpler to just use Earth accents, because it saves time having to figure out an alien accent for the (mostly) English-speaking aliens. It's better than hearing all the aliens speak perfect American English (AKA Star Trek), I suppose...

Anakin is as bad as others say. His lines are complete schmultz. We get to hear stuff like: "This is tense!" and "YIPPEE!!" I find it hard to believe Darth Vader (who was the Galaxy's most heinous criminal, remember) sounded this hideous, but then I find it harder to believe he was such a perfect angel little kid!! (I sympathize for his mummy, actually). There's ALSO the problem of his immaculate conception thanks to a bunch of 'intelligent bacteria'...

Darth Maul is nothing but a walking cliche, and he gets knocked off at the end. I guess Lucas decided to do him in as quickly as possible to pave the Yellow Brick Road for Anakin. In other words: Darth Maul, YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK. GOOD BYE!

We don't need to make any further comments on the inclusion of a certain floppy-eared, seriously unfunny C.G.I-created individual.

Which brings us to the total overuse of C.G.I. It is utterly mind-boggling boring! This much C.G.I serves only one purpose in a movie: To hide the utter lack of a feasible story. A real live model of an Imperial Star Destroyer beats a C.G.I trade-federation control ship hands down. Sorry, Mr Lucas!!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE MR LUCAS, DON'T CALL THE SECOND INSTALLMENT "ATTACK OF THE CLONES"!!! THIS IS THE WORST NAME FOR A MOVIE I'VE HEARD SINCE BATTLEFIELD EARTH!!!

I *definitely* agree that Mr Lucas has completely lost it with this flick.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

COOL MOVIE RUINED BY PANTS ENDING...

[19 September 2001]

Saw this flick free of charge last weekend. It is, by far, the most memorable movie I have seen in 2001 but I'm not sure if thats a good thing.....

It deserves 10/10 for 'Most memorable movie' of 2001. But the story, especially the atrociously bad End Act (HORRORS!!!), just lets it down. To be fair I did go into this movie with very high expectations. That being due to the fact it looked much more intelligent than the mindless drivel that's been churned out recently.

Act 1: Little robot boy David is programmed to love his human owners. He imprints on his adopted mother whose real son is in mysterious coma. The human son wakes up and she figures David is a menace and an inconvenience to her depressing little family. So she dumps him in the forest.

Act 2: David believes in the story of Pinocchio so goes searching for the Blue Fairy with his new found friend, a male-prostitute robot. David thinks that if the Blue Fairy makes him a real boy, his mummy will love him again.

Act 3: Is the really, really, really long, boring Ending.

WARNING! SPOILERS BELOW! DO *NOT* READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS MOVIE!

There are several things that tried my patience throughout. Absolute suspension of disbelief was NEVER this difficult while watching a Spielberg flick!

1) David's (inhuman) obsession with his mother/owner. Whats the deal with that? She never really cared for him. She dumped him in the forest, like she would an unwanted pet! But did his creators stop to think that David will never change or age, he'll always stay the same, long after she dies?? (he DOES last 2000 years!!!)

2) The Flesh Fair. Dhuh...?? The entire movie does a U turn and we go into Thunderdome Mode! This is the most stupid and pointless part in the whole movie. But we're already seeing this in stuff like Jerry Springer! Nothing new there.

3) The dullard doctor who created David. What a selfish individual. You can see he's playing god to the max. He disappears, never to return (??) and leaves David so he'll find his 'buddies'.

4) ALL the humans in the movie! I've never been so irritated by their ridiculous actions... Teddy has more personality than both of David's "Dads"!

5) The ENDING! OUCH OUCH OUCH!! I will accept Alien-looking super-advanced Mechas. (SIGH!) I will accept them finding David 2000 years later, still trapped in his funky little aqua-helicopter (sigh...) BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ALIENS (Mechas) CLONING DAVID'S MOTHER/OWNER so he can be with her for one day before she expires!! What's the point in resurrecting her for one day? It's completely stupid!

I enjoy Mr Spielberg's movies, even his kiddy flicks! He is my favorite director to date!! So I was very disappointed with how this movie turned out. Mr Spielberg mixed it up trying to produce it Kubrick-style (the 'darkness' of the flick). Then he tried to spice it up Spielberg-style (the ending!)

CONCLUSION? I give this movie 5/10 overall, because of the ending. You'll do better next time, Mr Spielberg!!

Jurassic Park III (2001)

MORE OF THE C.G.I GENRE

[12 September 2001]

I was less than impressed after sitting through a mere 90 minutes of a boring, wanna-be-action movie genre "Running Syndrome".

Dinosaurs looked impressive as usual, especially the flying pteradactyls. This flick gets 10/10 for excellent dinosaur scenes. I liked the addition of a new super-predator as the villain.

But the plot was a complete shambles! Sam Neil, an excellent actor, did his best as Dr Grant. But the supporting cast were a crashing bore, especially the husband/wife team and their constant nagging at each other. This movie would've been more successful (and interesting) if the screen writers had bothered to add on at least another half hour of story line to go with the running, but....

WARNING! SPOILERS STAMPEDING TOWARD US!!!! WARNING!

It has really easy paint-by-numbers-plot: Running around for 90 minutes from lots and lots of dangers. Thats it. There are some mighty big holes in the plot which will require complete shut-down of one's brain cells in order to derive total enjoyment of this movie. A few of the most annoying holes had to be...

1) The kid everyone's rescuing. He survives, alone with no weapons, on the dinosaur island for 8 weeks

2) Communicating raptors!!! Most animals communicate. What makes raptors so different? I think I missed something there

3) The arrival of what looks like the entire U.S. military. They don't even get to shoot anything. Thats it folks! Boring

CONCLUSION? This movie is not as good as Jurassic Park 1. The ending was another disappointment! Overall, I give it 5/10.

A Knight's Tale (2001)

THIS IS OKAY... BUT I EXPECTED MORE

[30 August 2001]

I honestly expected more from this film in the action department. But there *was* lots of action! Just... jousting. Loads and loads of jousting. After awhile, you get bored seeing hundreds of wooden splinters flying all over the place.

This movie couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a comedy, a parody of the medieval time period, an action, romance or drama. So we go the whole hog and get the lot.

The plot is easy for the target audience to follow: William Thatcher is a squire who wants to become a knight so invents a name for himself and starts jousting. That's about all there is to the plot. He goes from being as hopeless as me at jousting to becoming the Champion after just competing at a couple of tournaments.

All this happens in the first 40 minutes - and this flick is nearly two hours long, so I sat back to see what exciting things would transpire now that the major part of the story's been covered already...

And... the only thing that transpired was my butt began to get numb from sitting for so long! (One's butt does tends to get sore when one is bored)

But the characterizations were good. The only problem I had here was the very pretty lady (V.P.L) who wears very pretty clothes and says pretty things. Aside from looking like a pretty person, and behaving like a modern day super model, V.P.L does nothing else.

if we weren't subjected to such a boring, predictable Pearl Harbor romance this movie would've been far more enjoyable. It is also interesting to note our two lovers speak "Thou Hast Shakespearean Tongue, My leige!" But when communicating with other cast we get "Dhuh! Its called a lance, already!"

CONCLUSION? Although I found it bit of a snore, this flick still makes a nice, feel-good family flick.

A Knight's Tale (2001)

YAAAWWWNN... BORING!

[26 August 2001]

I honestly expected more from this film in the action department. But there *was* lots of action! Just... jousting. S****loads and s****loads of jousting. After awhile, you get bored seeing hundreds of wooden splinters flying all over the place.

This movie couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a comedy, a parody of the medieval time period, an action, romance or drama. So we go the whole hog and get the lot.

The plot is easy for the target audience to follow: William Thatcher is a squire who wants to become a knight so invents a name for himself and starts jousting. That's about all there is to the plot. He goes from being as hopeless as me at jousting to becoming the Champion after just competing at a couple of tournaments.

All this happens in the first 40 minutes - and this flick is nearly two hours long, so I sat back to see what exciting things would transpire now that the major part of the story's been covered already...

And... the only thing that transpired was my butt began to get numb from sitting for so long! (One's butt does tends to get sore when one is bored)

But the characterizations were good. The only problem I had here was the very pretty lady (V.P.L) who wears very pretty clothes and says pretty things. Aside from looking like a pretty person, and behaving like a modern day super model, V.P.L does nothing else.

if we weren't subjected to such a boring, predictable Pearl Harbor romance this movie would've been far more enjoyable. It is also interesting to note our two lovers speak "Thou Hast Shakespearean Tongue, My leige!" But when communicating with other cast we get "Dhuh! Its called a lance, already!"

CONCLUSION? Although I found it bit of a snore, this flick still makes a nice, feel-good family flick.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

THE APES WERE COOL... BUT THE HUMANS SUCKED!

[20 August 2001]

This movie wasn't as bad as some people made it out to be. I found it much more entertaining than the hideous Mummy Returns, and the boring, uninteresting Final Fantasy.

Like most 'block buster' movies these days this flick is tops in the C.G.I department but woefully lacking in the plot department. However...

BEST STUFF:

The apes. Their costumes and makeup were excellently rendered. Their mannerisms were convincingly ape-like (e.g. the tree climbing, the loping gait, fear of water), and they were well-performed by their actors. (Thade, Ari and that elderly Orangutan slave trader come to mind)

The different species of apes living together in the ape city. Some of the best ape make up I've seen had to be that huge Orangutan with the enormous cheek pouches and jowls. I liked the idea of chimps, gorillas and Orangutans living together in one big community.

The set designs were very pretty. There's lots and lots of picturesque visuals to look at.

NOT SO GREAT STUFF:

The human hero. Marky Mark may do better in Funky Bunch music videos (!!) and underpants commercials but he was completely uninteresting here. Spends most of his time running around but hardly looks like he is in any danger. Boring. Thankfully the apes get more screen time than M.M.

The Humans. 99% of the humans in this movie were merely extras in cave man clothes given very little to do. There's supposed to be a romance between M.M and Blonde Cave Girl (B.C.G) but nothing happened (maybe I missed something). Her character seemed to have been added simply to make B.C.G look prettier than the ape woman!

The story. Oh dear. I liked this movie for the apes, but the humans and been-done-before plot spoiled it! The numerous holes in the plot must be deliberately ignored in order to enjoy this movie. Why not just forget the humans and have the whole flick about the apes?

THE ENDING. It's yet another (SIGH) Hollywood'ised End Act! It's meant to be a shock ending, but surprise, surprise: IT SUCKED!! But it does pave the way for POTA part II!