Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Dog (I) (2022)
7/10
It is a drama not a comedy
21 February 2022
This movie is a serious drama about the mental health of veterans. Every attempt at comedy fails, doesn't forward the plot and just seems awkward. The low rating of the movie is likely due to viewers being shown a different type of movie than what they were expecting.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Day Break (2006–2007)
10/10
Amazing show but it wasn't going succeed
3 May 2018
This was an incredibly intelligent show. Unfortunately you have to watch all 15 hours of it in order. You can't join in on the second episode because it just wouldn't make sense. Today Netflix could create such a show but back in 2006 there was no way to make this show commercially viable. Great story, great character development and great consistency. Also while the time loop is central to the story, this is very much a detective show. There is a puzzle and other than the time loop there are no special "star trek" moments where the writers just make up some new science to wrap an episode up in the last 5 minutes. Watch the show and be prepared to have to pay close attention.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Foreigner (I) (2017)
1/10
Torture, extra judicial killings, vigilantism - all by the good guys?
15 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Morally the worst movie every made. This movie advocates torture, vigilantism, extra judicial killings and threatening and beating up innocent people. You knew this was going to be a movie about revenge but Quan (Jackie Chan) directs his vengeance against Liam Hennessy(Pierce Bronsnan) a man with a checkered past but also a man we have no idea has any involvement in the death of his daughter. Near the end of the movie there is a scene that links Liam to the bombers, which might have been added to justify Quan's actions, but makes no sense. If Liam new anything about the bombers then the rest of his actions in movie are pointless. The movie also seems a little confused, as Quan's actions actually don't contribute in anyway to the main plot of figuring out who the bombers are. He actually just gets in the way. He does jump in and attack the bombers just before the British police go in and he kills 3 out of 4 them. Also he luckily escapes before killing the last bomber, the only one who knows where the last bomb is, so that the British police can torture her into revealing the leaves the one bomber alive. I would like to believe the makers of the movie's only motivation was to show Jackie Chan's character being a bad ass. The alternative is that it was funded by people who are trying to swing public opinion in favour of the actions depicted in the movie.
72 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Frustratingly Consistent Universe
1 November 2017
It frustrates me how good this show is. I'm 46 and three of my children have been watching this show. The My Little Pony universe has rules and logic and they follow them. They don't just invent something new get themselves out of some plot hole. Star Trek never cared about consistency, whether the transporters worked with the shields up or not, is there money in the 24th century.... Then there is time travel. How many shows even bother caring about possible paradoxes with time travel and if they do how many actually have a realistic out come?

Most action shows that take place in our world ignore physics, biology and chemistry whenever they feel like it. Marvel..no let's not even go there. The 100? I doubt a single writer of that show passed grade nine science. The Expanse - OK there is one hard science fiction that is compatible to a show aimed at 5 and 6 year olds.

I fear that My Little Pony will set the bar for logical plots to high and my little girls won't be able to enjoy any shows in the future. It has certainly ruined it for me.
23 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Revolt (2017)
6/10
Embarrassingly racist
19 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is in Kenya, Aliens are invading and 90% of the movie focus's on two white characters. The real hero of the movie is a black engineer named Roderick who gets about 3 minutes of screen time. There is also a condescending sense to the movie as the two white characters and an additional white photographer that they meet are always acting morally correct, honourable, etc while most of the black characters are shown as more barbaric or irrational.

Ignoring all that though and the special effects are amazing. I have no idea how they managed many of the scenes. The war torn African landscapes were better than any special effects I've ever scene in a movie or even in a still from a CGI lab. These guys made the last Star Wars movie look like it was a college project.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
ARQ (2016)
9/10
One of the best movies I've seen
5 August 2017
I saw this movie a year ago so maybe I've forgotten the bad parts. The budget is very low but not much is needed for the story and I think the low budget adds to the movie. The acting was believable. The story is excellent. It is a time travel movie and so many of them are full of plot holes but this one creates a universe, with a set of rules and it sticks with it. It doesn't have any silly scenes to ruin your suspension of disbelief and while the scenes repeat they don't repeat enough to be boring. The characters might not do what you expect them to do or what you would want them to do but thinking back it is what many people might do, so while that might not be satisfying it is believable.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interstellar (2014)
2/10
Worst science in a serious movie ever
4 February 2015
This movie attempts to be serious and it has good believable science in it but then they do things that just make you want to scream at the writers. If you are going to ask me for suspension of disbelief please be a little consistent.

A space ship takes off from earth boosted with a three stage rocket about the size of a Saturn 5 rocket. That same ship can then take off and reach orbit from two alien worlds with out any boosters, including one planet so far down a gravity well that there is a time dilation of one hour to 7 years. At one point three ships are moving away from a black hole with no thrust but when the smaller ships separate from the larger one they immediately fall back into the black hole. There is a 300 foot ocean swell on a planet where the ocean is only 1 foot deep.

It seems like every time the writers wanted to add some plot device into the story they added a new convenient constraint to their universe. For example you can communicate normally in one direction through their worm hole but only a few bits per day in the other direction. Our hero is an ex-NASA pilot who even though hasn't been in contact with NASA for 20 years is given the task of piloting their latest ship.

I hope anyone who took high school physics would feel insulted by this movie.
16 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't watch this
9 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
For those of you who just have to watch this because you are a Battlestar fan or a Don Wilson fan, don't. The plot is incomplete or the last part of the plot was lost in editing, I'm not sure, but I'm grateful that the movie wasn't any longer. Most of the movie is overly long battle scenes. The quality of the gun fights is probably slightly better than a typical Stargate episode. Dialog is awful. You can watch this movie with out the sound. If you are watching the movie for the Katee Sackhoff shower scene it is at minute 32. The movie isn't going to get any better after that. In fact it will finish ***SPOILER*** with the last drone cop running out of ammo and fighting Don Wilson in a sword fight.
22 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Primer (2004)
10/10
Confusing but it makes perfect sense
9 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Partial explanation Only for those who have seen the movie.

The movie is shown completely linearly from Abe's perspective. (Abe's the blond one.) I'm sure most people can follow the move up until the scene in the garage where Philip and Robert explain to Abe that Rachell's ex boy friend showed up at the Robert's party with a shot gun.

Things get strange at this point because Aaron and Abe are now planning to stop the ex boy friend, an event that from regular time has already happened but we are viewing the movie from Abe's perspective and he hasn't gone to the party yet. Also at the time of the garage scene Abe doesn't yet know that Aaron used the failsafe machine to change the events at the party.

When Abe shows up at the fail safe machine it isn't the one he left running but the one that Arron had taken back in time inside the first fail safe machine. When Abe goes back in time he meets Arron who already knows what Abe was going to say because he's also gone back in time.

Abe knocks his past self out with the NO2 while Arron drugs his own breakfast milk.

At this point they are changing their own past. They don't play the stock market so they aren't rich at the end of the movie.

Aaron's been recording all the conversations that he hears through the ear piece so he's ready the second time that Abe comes to explain that they have built a time machine, only the second time Abe has also come back in time.

We will never know what would have happened at the party if Aaron and Abe hadn't used the time machine to change the events at the party because those events never happen. We do know that Abe tells Rachel's father the venture capitalist about the time machine and he uses it. That's why he has a couple days worth of beard growth.

Aaron goes though the days several times and even meets himself and gets in a fight with himself.

Now all you have to do is watch it another 3 times to confirm what I just wrote.
324 out of 402 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A well done movie
19 March 2002
This movie differs from the book in the same way that "Bicentennial Man" the movie differs from the short story. The places are different but the spirits of the books remain. I must give Simon Wells credit for his use of special effects. While the effects of 19th century New York are amazing they are used as the backdrop for the development of the plot as opposed to some movies where the plot is a backdrop to the special effects. The movie is fast paced and intelligent. At 90 minutes long the movie is neither rushed nor drawn out.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed