EugeneandSasha Reviews

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

Excellent Follow-Up

[10/10 · 17 April 2008]

The Bourne Supremacy is an excellent sequel that is as good as the original. Mat Damon delivers an excellent performance and plays his role well. The other actors and actresses deliver good and excellent performances and also play their characters well.

The only complaints about this movie are about the director Paul Greengrass(who I've never heard of until I saw this movie). Greengrass has done something drastically different than other directors-he used a hand-help camera for the majority of the scenes.

Although sometimes confusing they do add a thrilling and entertaining element to the film. However the hand help camera I admit was a little over-used. This film isn't suited for people who get motion sickness frequently and this accounts for most of the negative reviews.

This movie is really special because it is as good as the original (which most sequels don't even come close to the original). This movie includes a lot of thrilling, action-packed scenes equal to the original. I definitely recommend this to anyone he liked The Bourne Identity.

My Rating: 9.6/10

300 (2006)

I Cant Believe So Many People Can't See Past the CGI

[5/10 · 14 August 2007]

300 is a very mediocre film that received so much praise and hype solely for its CGI. Yes the battle scenes use spectacular CGI and show off brutal video-game-like violence. The choreography wasn't so great because they relied on CGI and slow-motion sequences. Overall that is the only high point of the movie.

All the other aspects of the movie were average to bad. The plot was non-existent (all we see is a Persian come up and ask the Spartans to surrender, they get thrown into a never-ending pit, and a war starts with the Spartans and Persians). There is minor sub-plot or two but they are obvious time-fillers, since the filmmakers probably couldn't afford 2 hours of CGI filled battle scenes.

The acting/actors are pretty much mediocre nobodies. Gerald Butler (King Leonidas) tries to mimic great war heroes such as Maximus (Gladiator) and Wallace (Braveheart) and fails to achieve something remotely as good. As for character development there is basically none.

Overall this movie achieved a high rating because many people couldn't see past the CGI. Don't believe me? I can guarantee that this film will win no Oscars or even a mere nomination, just MTV awards, unlike many other Epic War Movies.

My Rating: 5.5/10

Alexander (2004)

Phenomenal Battles Drowned By Boring Scenes

[6/10 · 18 May 2007]

Alexander is one of those movies you'll either hate or love. I actually partially enjoyed this movie but it does have many flaws. First off I have to say the battle scenes were excellent-a lot of action, blood, gore etc. However only two battles actually took place in Alexander disappointing a lot of people who wanted to see something like Gladiator, Troy, and Braveheart.

I honestly could only watch this movie by forwarding the majority of the film to get to the battles, however I loved to watch the battles again and again. The acting in this movie is for the most part pretty good but could have been better in some of the characters.

The story was a bit confusing and a lot of the times I was wondering what was going on in the film. My advice to anyone who wants to see this movie is to not expect something like the other epic war films you've seen before and prepare for a lot of non-fighting and in my opinion awkward scenes. I do advise that if you are watching this movie for the first time to have a little patience because the battle scenes are pretty impressive and use decent CGI.

The main reason this movie isn't as highly-rated as epic war films like Gladiator, Troy, or Braveheart is that you will probably find yourself forwarding most of the movie to get to the good parts.

My Rating: 6.3/10

The Valley of the T-Rex (2001 TV Movie)

Great Documentary

[9/10 · 27 November 2006]

This was a very good documentary about the infamous T-Rex. The CGI looked very good and especially in the scenes with the T-Rex.

Valley of the T-Rex basically was challenging the theory that T-Rex was this awesome cold-blooded killer that always hunted its prey. Jack Horner explains his opinion about the fact that T-Rex was probably a scavenger like hyenas and vultures.

He backed up his theory with a lot of good evidence (T-Rex's arms being to small, good sense of smell for sniffing out carcasses etc.). Many digs in Montana's badlands were filmed and I learned a lot about T-Rex.

The problem with this documentary is that it doesn't ask anybody's (partically another palaeontologist's) opinion. It only focuses on Jack Horner and him going on and on how T-Rex wasn't a predator but a hunter. The evidence looked believable but there was probably evidence against that theory that was not shown.

I also wouldn't really recommend this to people who absolutely love T-Rex. This will account for any negative reviews or comments. Again this was a very good documentary, it will probably change your perspective on T-Rex.

My Rating 8.7/10

Family Guy (1999– )

Jokes & Flashbacks & Not Much Else

[1/10 · 10 October 2006]

All Family Guy has is Jokes and flashbacks. Some flashbacks are good but they get repetitive. The jokes aren't always funny and they insult Religion and think it's hilarious. Family guy has some dumb and funny jokes and no heart in it, hardly any character and is a copy of the Simpsons. Peter=Homer, Bart=Chris, Lisa=Meg, and the Mom. It's a huge rip-off and just tried to make them better. The dog can talk, I found that OK but the baby, Stewie (a rip-off of Maggie) can talk but is dumb because he talks about sex and he wants to kill his mom. Simpsons has a lot more heart and soul and Family guy is just some jokes and flashbacks. Family Guy will never be a classic or better than the Simspons. It sacrifices everything(characters, plot etc) for jokes. The jokes are occasionally hilarious, however they get repetitive and overused. A large percentage of family guy includes something similar to this "This was more (blank) then that time (blank). The only thing that Family Guy has going are a few dirty jokes and flashbacks, and not much else.

Family Guy: 3.2/10

Orca (1977)

Bad, Poor, Average at Best

[3/10 · 25 September 2006]

Is it a coincidence that Orca was made two years after Jaws? Orca isn't exactly a "Jaws rip off" but it is obvious that it tried to profit from Jaws's success. First of all Orca in my opinion was a bad movie, not terrible but definitely not good, average at best.

The plot is basically a male killer whale (orca) after seeing its mate and its unborn calf killed by a fisherman seeks revenge. I couldn't stand to watch this movie again. The direction of this film is poor and when compared to Jaws it looks like the director, producers, and writers were almost talentless.

As for the acting, it was very average and believable, however the actual characters aren't the least bit likable. The effects were alright for its time and the footage of the killer whale looked pretty good.

The violence is confusing, bloody, and not recommended for more sensitive people. The music is overdone and very loud, drowning out the sound effects and irritating at times. I hated the way they exaggerated the intelligence of the killer whale (killer whales don't mate with only one mate as depicted in Orca).

Overall this movie was bad/poor in my opinion, because of the reasons listed above. Some people may appreciate this film more because of the concept of vengeance amongst animals and humans so I'm not going to bash this movie and I can understand why some people may like it.

My Rating: 3.5/10 (but for its concept possibly a 5/10)

Anaconda (1997)

A Decent Monster Flick

[6/10 · 15 September 2006]

Anaconda is a typical creature/monster horror film. I actually enjoyed this movie and when I first watched it (I think I was 9 or 10) I was actually scared to some degree and even today it isn't the easiest thing for me to watch. So in my opinion Anaconda did full-fill in the way that it did manage to scare me at a young age.

However Anaconda has many flaws and is nowhere near perfect. First of all I found many of the parts boring and a little cheesy. Some of the CGI was very life-like (though nowhere near movies like Jurassic Park) but in some places the digital effects where a little off-tune. In other words some of the CGI looked like it was from a good movie and some from a drastically bad film. The acting was for the majority relatively good but had a lot of room for improvement.

This movie however is definitely the best you can get from a giant snake movie (Python, Boa etc. all were terrible). The anacondas did look scary and realistic half of the time but in other places they weren't fooling anybody. Overall this is a unique and decent monster flick, not perfect but not as bad as most people say it is.

My Rating: 6.1/10

Carnosaur 2 (1995)

One of the Worst Dinosaur Movies of All Time

[4/10 · 5 September 2006]

First off this comment is more of a review and contains a lot of spoilers. This movie is called Carnosaur 2. But there are almost no actual Carnosaurs. They are all raptors and the only Carnosaur comes out at the end for 2 minutes and get's killed by a kid with a fork lift. Need I say more? When the woman gets her arm ripped off, it's slow and she screams as if she was pinched. The blood is the wrong colour and the blood isn't leaking but it's sticky! The Raptor looks very fake and when it kills the first dark-skin guy it slaps him twice then kills him. The acting is extremely poor and is very cheesy. The kid is annoying and is a crappy actor. The blood is sticky when a workman gets his head bit off and his legs are still moving. I can't believe how bad this movie is. In the beginning when the raptor comes, you don't see it and all you see is some people throwing them selves on tables and screaming. However to some degree its funny because of how bad it is and is actually quite entertaining and for that it doesn't get a 1/10.

My Rating: 3.6/10

Walking with Monsters (2005)

Possibly the Best Documentary Of All Time!

[10/10 · 21 December 2005]

What can I say, Walking With Monsters is quite possibly the greatest documentary ever. It is thrilling, suspenseful, action-packed, entertaining, and educational.

It portrays the constant struggle of life before the dinosaurs. It has some excellent CGI and music. The way it shows the prehistoric creatures are far better than how I imagined they would be.

No scenes bored me and I was always enthralled and at the edge of my seat. If you want to see a good documentary see this one. It exceeds in everything and far surpasses Dinosaur Planet and Walking With dinosaurs.

This is a spectacular documentary not to be missed.

My Rating: 9.9/10

The Jungle Book 2 (2003)

Not very good, But COULDN'T of been better

[7/10 · 3 December 2005]

Jungle Book 2 is a pretty decent movie. It doesn't compare to the original but it does pay some respect to it. I gave a lot of credit to Jungle Book 2 because making a sequel to that classic movie is anything but easy.

The plot is surprisingly good and makes sense. It introduces problems to Mowgli as he misses his life in the jungle. Meanwhile Shere Khan is lurking in the jungle, looking for revenge.

I really don't think that a sequel to the masterpiece Jungle Book could of been better than this movie. In other words this movie was doomed from the start but it didn't fail.

I can't really describe what is bad about Jungle Book 2. What I can say is that it was missing key elements that made the original so great. This movie did have some good scenes and did keep me interested.

Overall I actually enjoyed this movie and my advice to future viewers is to not expect something as good as the original. The 5.2 rating is out of place for Jungle Book 2, it deserves better.

My rating: 6.9/10

Allosaurus: A Walking with Dinosaurs Special (2000)

Outstanding Documentary

[10/10 · 3 December 2005]

This is without doubt one of the very best documentaries have ever seen. The Ballad of Big Al is a follow-up or extra episode for Walking With Dinosaurs. It describes the life of a particularly big Allosaurus, called Big Al, from the point where it hatches to it's death.

The amazing CGI seen in Walking With Dinosaurs was even better in The Ballad of Big Al. This documentary is missing absolutely nothing. It has breath-taking scenes as well as suspenseful and terrifying moments. I found myself often at the edge of my seat.

The story was well thought out and directed very nicely. The music and sound effects were top notch. Overall there are no real flaws in this documentary. There are absolutely no boring parts.

If you have the slightest interest in dinosaurs this documentary will definitely greatly satisfy you.

My Rating: 9.8/10

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

One of the Most Underrated Movies Ever

[7/10 · 3 November 2005]

The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a very good sequel to Jurassic Park. It is also one of the most underrated movies I ever seen on IMDb. Although not superior or as good as the original, The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a more darker and more terrifying. Jeff Goldblum delivers a very good performance and plays as Ian Malcolm very well. The other actors and actresses also deliver a nice performance and the characters are shown decently. I must warn to any first-time watchers that this movie differs from the book a lot. This accounts for most of the deceiving bad reviews. Some of the characters in the book where used but a lot of characters (Ajay, Roland, Ludlow, and Nick were added). The plot isn't as good as the originals but does make sense and goes a long way. The CGI was some of the best I've ever seen-superior to Jurassic Park's. Excellent scenes include Eddie car being ripped in half by two parent T-Rexes, while trying to save Malcom, Sarah, and Nick, Dieter Stark (an added character) being eaten by dozens of compies, and a group of hunters being taken out by raptors one by one. There are 3 main places where The Lost World: Jurassic Park is weak. The first one being Sarah, Nick, and Malcolm responding to Eddie with a fast food order when Eddie asked what else the needed to rescue them from the trailers. The second being the worst is Kelly kicking a raptor and killing it. The last part, I actually liked (and so did some other people) was the part when the male T-Rex got loose in San Deigo. I personally think this scene was fun and thrilling but also kind of silly. Overall Spielberg delivers a great sequel almost as good as the original that came out four years earlier.

Gladiator (2000)

Gladiator is better than...

[9/10 · 1 November 2005]

Gladiator is the best epic war film. Gladiator has the best war scenes I've ever scene. Better than Troy and much better than Alexander. I liked the digital effects in Gladiator. Troy and Alexander are pretty fun to watch, but in Alexander, i really want to forward it to exciting scenes, like war sequences. Gladiator, I can just sit there and watch it, because if you miss a part, you won't get it. The end was great, i really liked it. It was the best fight scene at the end. Every part kept me interested and there wasn't one part that bored me. It had one of the best endings ever. So if your tired of crappy, imitating war movies go to this one it's the best there is.

10/10

Dinosaur Planet (2003– )

Better than walking with dinosaurs

[8/10 · 31 October 2005]

Most people say this is a lot worse than Walking With Dinosaurs. Although Walking With Dinosaurs is more accurate to how dinosaurs actually were, Dinosaur Planet is much more entertaining. Their are some nice visuals in Dinosaur Planet and a lot of action and intense violent scenes. I'd recommend this to anyone who has the slightest interest in dinosaurs. Some people complain that they saw dinosaurs walking on grass. First of all, the "grass" was probably a type of grass-like plant that evolved earlier. Second of all even if it were grass that doesn't ruin the film and only real Dino nerds would care about that too much. Overall this is one of the best dinosaur documentaries ever made.

9.8/10