Reviews

14 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Man of Steel (2013)
4/10
Illogical and internally inconsistent
11 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had all the signs of being a good quality movie. It had big name actors/actresses. It clearly had a big budget. It even started off pretty interesting. The special effects were very good. The storyline was similar to the original Superman storyline from what I understand (I never read the comics and only saw one or two of the previous movies). The big problem I had with this movie was the rules of the world were internally inconsistent and the actions of the characters often made no sense.

Before I start ranting, I just need to quickly say: Any good fantasy or sci-fi movie sets forth the rules of the universe and stays consistent with those rules. For example, if the movie states magical elves can only cast spells inside their magical forest, the elves better not be casting spells outside the dang forest! Furthermore, any good movie regardless of genre tries to develop characters and explain their motivations, personality, abilities, as needed and stays consistent with that (ex: the skinny nerdy computer dude doesn't suddenly become Bruce Lee halfway through the movie just because the plot needed a ninja).

**Spoilers beyond this point**

Here is a list of inconsistencies:

1. Superman obviously doesn't want to kill people. He even resists killing Zod for the longest time despite Zod's murderous attitude. And yet Superman causes so much collateral damage to the city that surely hundreds of thousands of people die. He could have taken the fight to a mountain or ocean or in space, but nah... that's boring!

2. Zod is the ultimate military leader, bred for the position. And yet his tactical abilities are terrible. He doesn't even try any sneak tactics or negotiating with Superman at the beginning. He just goes hostile the moment he arrives.

3. Building on #3, Zod tells Superman his plan to destroy humanity. Genius!

4. Traveling at super sonic speed and getting thrown head first through buildings or onto the ground doesn't even scratch either of them and yet Superman can break Zod's neck and he's instantly dead.

5. Zod very quickly gains all of Superman's powers and disciplines despite it having taken years of for Superman to gain them. But ya know... Zod needs them now or there is less opportunity for gratuitous action scenes. They tried to explain this one away, but meh.

6. Why did Zod want to take over Earth when they had a terraforming machine and could have just gone somewhere else and not had to deal with any conflict? And it was just as much trouble either way because they had to use the machine on Earth too!

7. They seem to explain Superman's flying ability as he is just jumping and going so fast he can orbit fast enough to stay off the ground. But then later suddenly he can stop instantly or change direction, so it was actually magic all along.

8. Superman is fine underwater for long periods and he's totally cool in space holding his breath. But he goes through some sort of smoke cloud and he's instantly coughing like he's a 30-year smoker that smoked 4 packs daily.

9. and much much more!!!

**Other complaints**

-Way too many action scenes. It's just one after another and got boring. Think Superman meets Michael Bay.

-The Superman character is super awkward, and not in a good way. Many of his lines just make you cringe.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Road (I) (2009)
7/10
Depressing, bleak, quality movie
25 December 2011
The Road is a decent movie overall, but I could easily see how people would disagree. There are various reasons someone might really like this movie or might really hate this movie. For one, most of the movie is bleak/depressing. The movie does not hold any punches (very realistic). The core storyline of the movie is clearly not optimistic about the future of humanity. And also, there are no superfluous sex scenes or women with boobs so big they require wheelbarrows to transport them.

The type of person that will like this movie: Firstly, people that enjoy realism in movies; people that like different (non-mainstream) movies; people that like post-apocalypse-based movies; people that hate happiness.

The type of person that will hate this movie: People that only like feel-good optimistic movies, children, people that don't like post-apocalypse-based movies, and old people.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
lies upon lies
25 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was just terrible. When I learned it was based on a true story, I hated it about 500% less... so I was willing to rate it a 2 instead of 1.

Basically the movie is about lies upon lies. Then about the time you think you can't figure out who is lying or what is going on, more lies are piled on. Did I mention it is incredibly long? Well... it is.

The movie pans out to be a nicely disorganized surprisingly lengthy pile of garbage. If you are suffering from insomnia, put this movie on and you will be cured.

To improve the movie, the director should have quit about halfway through and ended the movie with an atomic bomb blowing up the entire city. If that was how the movie ended, I would have upped the rating to a 3 or 4 out of 10.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Terminators (2009 Video)
1/10
Unwatchable. Not even worthy to sit in a landfill.
24 December 2011
Let me just start off by saying, I am totally cool with C-grade crappy sci-fi and/or horror movies. They are fun. This movie is not that. It is not even D-grade. It is just flat out garbage. It is worse than garbage. Putting this movie in a landfill is insulting... to the landfill.

The acting was horrendous. The storyline was pretty much non-existent. What existed for storyline was worthless and could have been created on a napkin during the first 5 seconds of someone's lunch break. The special effects looked like they cost around 50 bucks total.

I'll bet they made a fortune on this movie simply because their total budget was surely no more than $10,000 bucks. If enough people were tricked into buying it (with it's strikingly similar title to another movie) or if enough people just bought it by accident because it fell into their cart at Walmart, they would profit.

This movie is simply unwatchable. The movie company "The Asylum" would really do the world a favor if they just disbanded entirely and tried to erase their existence from all historical records.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hugo (2011)
6/10
2 movies in 1, unfortunately
24 December 2011
Wanna watch 2 movies for the price of 1? Do you like movies that start out about one thing and then end up about something completely unrelated? If so, you'll love this movie because that is practically what you get here.

For a while I thought this movie was going to be about killer robots that murder everyone in the past in a hilarious fashion. Somehow I ended up being wrong about this. I guess the fact it was rated PG should have tipped me off, but hey, I'm an optimist. But then the movie turned out to be about something way more boring.

The acting was good. Nothing wrong there.

The visuals seemed good. It did not seem cheap, but at the same time, there was nothing to really brag about.

The story was really what lost points for this movie. For one, it was too long. They should have cut it down by 25%. Furthermore, the story just seemed to transform from one movie to another by around the mid-point. And it was not really in the surprising sort of "OMG, that's so cool" way. It was more in the "WTF is this movie supposed to be about?" kind of way.

If I was to pick a few words/phrases to describe the movie, I'd choose: cute, nostalgic, unexpected story transition, not about murderous robots, too long
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dead Snow (2009)
6/10
Nazi zombies in the snowy Norwegian mountains
18 July 2011
From the title and movie synopsis, I expected a B-grade zombie flick with some scary scenes, a little comedy mixed in, and perhaps some sex appeal. That is what was delivered.

The plot is not overly complex. If you have any prior experience with zombie movies, then reading the synopsis of this movie will pretty much tell you all you need to know. Some medical students (male and female) in their 20s go on a vacation in the snowy mountains and they encounter zombies. And the zombies are also Nazis.

The acting seemed on par with what you'd expect out of a movie like this. The special effects were acceptable. There was a few comical moments mixed in which scored this movie some extra points. And as if it's not bad enough that evil rotting corpses are out to kill you, they are also Nazis. +1 point for that. Boom! That's a 6.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Punisher (2004)
7/10
Good movie, full of beatdowns
12 December 2007
This movie was better than I expected it to be. I had a good idea of what the movie would be about before I saw it based on the brief synopsis on the back of the DVD case. The title clued me in as well.

Here's the breakdown: Plot: B+, I had a general idea of what was going to happen before I was even 15 minutes into the movie. I mean, it's The Punisher. What do you think he's going to do? Sit around at home and watch TV? Having said that, predicting the general plot does not ruin it. There are plenty of unexpected parts, and intricate details that really put the gold trim on here. The cleverness of the hero certainly made it more interesting. With all this in consideration, there is still some room for improvement (it's not perfect).

Acting: A-, Exceptional. The acting in this movie is very good. I'm not even just talking about the Tom Jane and John Travolta. Many of the supporting actors were decent. To put it another way, when I watched the performance, I didn't get that feeling that the cast worked part time as actors and part time as fast food workers (many horror movies I've seen seemed to have this situation). The only actors I would say kinda sucked in this movie were maybe one or two of the kids living in the apartment (not Rebecca Romijn), but hey, no biggie.

Character development: A-, You get attached to the characters easily, the hero especially. The personality of the characters is conveyed to you well and with ease. I would say the good acting made this possible.

Special effects: A, Plenty of shooting, explosions, and your other usual action movie effects. All were done well.

*BEST aspect of the movie: Parts of the movie give you that feeling you get when you see swift justice dealt out against evil. Lots of beatdowns!

*WORST aspect of the movie: If you are looking for absolute realism in this movie, you may have some disappointment. Some parts in the movie seem to fall together too easily. And whenever something explodes or there's a battle going on, why are there never any onlookers or cops around? I guess random gunfire and massive explosions are too commonplace these days. Of course, it's a movie based on a comic book, so people looking for absolute realism shouldn't be looking here anyway.

*OVERALL it's a very good movie. If you're really not into bad guys vs hero type movies, then perhaps you'll want to avoid this one, but even then this one is not your conventional hero vs bad guy movie. I would recommend it. I gave it a 7 and not higher because I just think that there could have been some other things in the movie that could have really made it unbelievably good. I'm not sure what those things are (I'm not a movie writer), but I think a 7 is an accurate rating.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Thirst (I) (2006)
2/10
Most people won't like this
10 December 2007
This film had a fair amount of nudity in it (I have nothing against that :) ) and some very bizarre/bloody scenes. If you are rating this movie for plot, acting, special effects, etc, and overall entertainment value amongst mainstream movies, this film is a failure. If you are looking for weirdness, blood, and nudity (almost all female), then perhaps this movie is for you... but even from that perspective it isn't that great.

Plot: C-, Nothing new. There are not really any amazing twists to the story. It's vampires. Most people have seen a vampire movie or two, and this one is not overly unique in terms of plot.

Acting: D+, It's pretty terrible. I think the best acting performance is done by the main female character, and she was nothing that great. The main dude was a bad actor. He got better towards the end of the movie, but a 100% improvement wouldn't even be saying much. Most everyone else was bad. Some of the actors were even annoying. I am not sure if this was the role they were given or their acting skill.

Special effects: C-, The most prominent effect in this movie was obviously the blood. It seems like every 10 minutes it's a bloodbath. To say it looked fake gives a summary of the quality, but specifically, it looked like anytime someone was injured a pipe of red water just exploded and sprayed all over the place. Ridiculous. The other effects in the movie were pretty crappy too.

Character development: D+, There was clearly an attempt at this, as some characters do undergo radical change in this movie, and so one could argue that this movie aspect is better than what I'm indicating. I think the poor acting really killed it for me. A good movie conveys characters in such a way that you understand what they are all about, and you either identify with them or you have some strong opinion about them. In this movie, it's hard to really care.

*BEST aspect of this movie: The nudity, cause not much else was worthwhile.

*WORST aspect of this movie: You don't care about the characters. Their strangeness combined with the bad acting and some other factors prevent you from really identifying with or at least having a strong opinion of the characters.

*OVERALL: I really like vampire movies, and that's why I rented this one, but it was bad. It was annoying in many parts. The characters sucked. The effects were bad. Besides a few redeeming scenes and the aspect I marked as the best movie aspect, it had little to offer.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pretty good, has that classic feel to it
7 December 2007
I was going to give this movie a 5, but recognizing that it's about 25 years old, I gave it a bonus point. I think a lot of people gave this a higher rating also because of the nostalgia factor. I never saw this as a kid though...

Plot: B+, it's supposed to be the classic tale of Conan the Barbarian, so you basically know what to expect (although I heard this movie doesn't follow the real story exactly). I would say there was some room for a twist or two, but hey, it was good overall.

Acting: C, some of the acting is good, but some of the lesser quality actors brought it down a bit. I think Conan's partners could be blamed for a lot of this. Not to say Arnold is the greatest actor ever, but he fit the role well, and I thought he did a good job.

Character development: B, Conan was well done. You start off seeing Conan as a child, and you see him through the different stages of his life to the point he becomes Conan the Barbarian. He doesn't talk much, so I'm sure it was a challenge for the writer/director to really improve this aspect of the movie. The other characters seem more static unfortunately.

Special effects: B, I have to be fair here. It's a 25 year old movie, so I can't expect amazing computer graphics and true-to-life sound effects. For the time the movie was made, I would say the effects are pretty good.

The best aspect of the movie: The movie has a real "classic" feel to it. If you saw this movie back when it came out, and you saw it again recently, it probably brought back nostalgic memories.

The worst aspect of the movie: Some of the lame lines from the characters just made you wonder what the director was thinking. I suspect that better actors could have pulled it off much better, but some of the acting in the movie was not superior.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Just barely a 4
4 December 2007
This movie wasn't horrible, but it was not very good either. I got about what I expected when I rented it... a low budget sci-fi/horror movie that was at least somewhat entertaining.

Plot: C+, It starts out with a pretty generic, boring plot, but it grows into something more intriguing. I think the way they suddenly just dump the concept on you detracts from its greatness though.

Acting: C-, Acting was sufficient, but not great. They are about par with what you'd expect in a mediocre horror film. No one of the actors really stood out amongst the others as being exceptionally good, but one or two stood out as being exceptionally crappy.

Special Effects: C, Not that great, but again, it was sufficient.

Character development: D+, you don't really get attached to these characters. Part of it may have been the mediocre acting. The characters that stand out the most are the ones that follow the usual cliché character types. You have the tough guy, the smart computer nerd, the annoying goof-off joker, and more. The characters that didn't follow one of these cliché types really just blend into the background.

Best aspect of the movie: The actual concept they present to you later in the movie (I won't reveal) is interesting.

Worst aspect of the movie: Lack of character attachment. It's no secret people die in this movie, and when they do you'll find yourself not caring that much in most cases.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Good for a while, bad ending. Overall: Not good.
3 December 2007
At first this seems like a very intriguing movie. In fact, for most of the movie I just kept wondering and wondering, "Where are they going with this? How can this be explained? Man, this took some imagination. I am really enjoying this."

I gave this movie a 3 because the lack of explanation, ambiguity, and the very lame ending. For me the ending totally ruined it. I felt betrayed by the writer. Maybe I have a preference towards sci-fi movies that try a little harder to explain things. To me, the ending of this movie seemed like one of those movies such as 2001 Space Odyssey or Solaris, but without having read the books. If you have seen either of these movies you may get my analogy. Or maybe I just didn't understand it... it's possible.

This movie got high ratings from other people, so chances are you will like it. However, keep my warning in the back of your mind before you run out and get this movie.

The best aspect of this movie: Pretty unique conceptually. As you watch, your desire to know more grows (if you like Sci-Fi).

The worst aspect of this movie: Lack of in-depth explanation. The worthless ending.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Water (2005)
6/10
Surprisingly good
3 December 2007
This is a decent movie. It is certainly not your standard horror film with vampires, zombies, knife wielding maniacs, etc. It does have its spooky moments, and it keeps you wanting to see and learn more as the story continues. The acting is good; the special effects are good; the plot is good.

It's hard to really put my finger on the bad aspects of this movie, but I still think it does not deserve much higher than a 6. Maybe it's less about what was bad, and more about the superior things that were not there (although I may have trouble naming any specifics).

The best aspect of this movie: Good acting and character development keeps your attention.

The worst aspect of this movie: If you've seen enough horror and/or ghost movies, you can probably guess some parts of the plot before they happen. Other than that nothing was really bad, but there are not many parts to this movie that really make you go, "Wow, that is amazing. This makes my top 10 list!"
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Darkness (2002)
4/10
Not too bad, but not amazing
2 December 2007
This movie has a few twists here and there, and yes it has some moments that give you chills. The acting was acceptable (no one was real bad). The storyline mostly makes sense, but it is nothing overly unique or revolutionary. The twists make it work.

It seems a little slow in some parts, mainly the beginning. Or I might not even say "slow". Maybe it is more or less just parts of the movie were less than intriguing, so some people may notice their attention wondering.

The best aspect of the movie: It has some legitimately scary/spooky scenes. Let me just say, there is a scene where Regina (Anna Paquin) picks up a picture frame... yeah.

The worst aspect of the movie: The slowness/non-intriguing parts I mentioned.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dirty (2005)
3/10
To sum it up in one word: Pointless
2 December 2007
It's about corruption in the police force, but there is no real point to it. The acting in the movie is pretty decent. It may or may not have been a low budget film. If it was low budget is was not extremely obvious (a good thing). But throughout the movie you are just watching... hoping to find some shred of morality or redeeming quality in any one of the characters, or at least some point or message to this movie. Don't keep your hopes up on that one.

Perhaps there was a message to the movie. Everyone is corrupt. Everything is hopeless.

If you have nothing better to do, and you don't have to pay to see this movie, maybe consider it.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed