Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Disappointment?
7 November 2003
The first thing I heard when this movie was over was some guy in the seat behind me exclaiming loudly, "What a huuuuge disappointment!". Then I paused for a second, and thought "It was?". It took a little while, to absorb, actually. Because its not the hollywood 5 point plot we've come to expect. (Sadly!) But the fact remains, and I realized that quickly, this is a fenomonal story! I can in no way say I have been disappointed. Sure many will though. Its not what most would expect. But no great movies were made by cowards, afraid to think outside the box. To get to the point, all I can complain about, and maybe I have to see it again before I say for sure, but it seemed to have a little pacing problem from time to time. Everything else about this movie, I loved! 10/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Funny...
15 July 2002
I thought the first movie was great. Not only did it have cool action and great, if a little bizar humor, it was also slightly philosophical. This movie is devoid of the latter, but I still laughed my ass off. It is a (pre)sequel, and taken as such, it is quite good. Story is weak and incoherent, direction is shabby, but the dialog, and bizar events, were right on the mark. If you have seen the first, and read this, you should know whether or not you will enjoy it. I know I did, even if it couldn't match up to the first (Hey, not much can.) So enjoy.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A step down from most other teen slashers (Bet you never thought you'd hear anyone say that)
11 June 2002
First of all, I was never that big a fan of the first movie. But I did think it was quite good. It was a intelligent, dark and witty satire. This had none of that. It had nothing. This was nothing more than a slasher flick, despite some odious comments about this movie being intelligent, don't be fooled. This is just a cooperate ride of the prequels success. It kind of reminded me of 'Urban Legend', except it was without both suspence, and red herrings. And that was the only two things that made that movie even remotely watchable. Acting was horrible. Especially the lead. I am not convinced she is a bad actor... She just doesn't work in this movie. The only good preformance was from William Shattner. But that can't save this film. After the first half hour I got stuck with the urge to look away, and just watch my wall or something, in the hope it would be more interresting - But I decided to keep watching, just to make absolutely sure I wasn't misjudging this "movie". I gave it a 1. That's a first, in my time, but this does rank among the worst movies I have ever seen. Vain, silly, trite... Pure garbage.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Human Nature (2001)
8/10
Intertaining.
30 May 2002
First of all, I gave this movie an eight; which might be a tad generous, but I really enjoy this kind of film. It was exactly as funny as it was suposed to be, but unfortionately, not quite as clever. The topic has been covered before, but is not done with the same grace here as for instance, 'Fight club'. It bears one of the distinct marks of an independent flick. The writer and director really played around, and let their minds go. I can't say I care too much for this, since it only seems to make it more erratic. I liked this better than Being John Malkovich, which, although intriguing, was just too damn strange at times. This was kept much simpler, (no "7½th floor" or such.) and for the main part, without symbolism, and freakouts. In the end... An interresting, and funny movie about excistentialism, but not classic...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very good...
12 April 2002
This is not an epic! It is a quite light hearted movie about Jesse james, and his gang. The acting varies from good to passable, but the gang has excellent chemistry. This is entertainment, pure and simple, and as such, it relies more heavily on it's characters than the story. The only character I really have a problem with was Jesse's love interrest; it just seemed as though they had tried sooo hard to create a strong female character that they ended up with an excessively lame female character. But fortunately she wasn't in the movie too much, so I never got too annoyed. The action was top notch! Although highly unusual for a western it seemed to work very well, and you just knew s*** was gonna happen whenever Jesse and the guys went into battle. And while it is true that there was very little killing, it really was the wisest choice for this movie. It "light" sense just wouldn't have worked as well with people dying all the time. In the end I guess all I can say is this: I don't feel like I've just watched a great movie, but I do feel like I have been entertained for 1½ hour. Definately Saturday night movie material.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blade II (2002)
8/10
Pure entertainment
4 April 2002
This movie has virtually no plot, but it is so stylish it will make your eyes bleed. I'm sure many people will hate this, but they should all have known they would hate it before they walked into the theater. This is all you could expect from a Blade movie, and more. My only disappointment were a few cheese effects. That first fight with the bloodpack had to have been done on serious budget constraints. But most of the effects are perfect for the style of the film; and the action caught me up right from the start. And only the before mentioned effects really threw me out of the flow. Most of the rest had me drooling. The whole movie is made in the same cartoonish style on which it is based, and it works perfectly. Even better than X-Men. In conclusion: Blade II does not belong up there with Citizen kane and Schindlers list, but it is solid movie entertainment for a braindead Saturday night.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
10/10
Hate to admit it...
20 March 2002
Ok, here's the deal; I hate musicals! And I did hate this movie for that. I couldn't get through it in one sitting. Had to pause it and do something else now and then. But, I did manage to finish, and even though I don't like to admit it, i have to: Moulin rouge! is a very good movie. At least, that's how I felt after it was over. I loathed the singing bits while they occured, but looking back.... If this is not your kind of movie, chances are you will dislike it. But regardless, it may be worth a look.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mad City (1997)
10/10
Superb.
9 March 2002
I'll make this brief, because most I could say have been said. I love it when Hollywood produce something that does not fit within their usual five step plot line. A movie that is not entirely coorperately produced. This is one of those cases. The movie never gets stupid, and the plot moves along nicely, and sensibly, without getting boring.

It does not go on my top5 list, but I have 0 complaints; and I can't say that about many films.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7th Heaven (1996–2007)
AAAAAAARRRGHHHHHH!!!
7 March 2002
Oh the pain! The agony! The nauseousness! I have seen a few episodes of this series, it seems to just get worse and worse as it moves along. It is so sugar-sweet, over-moralizing and poorly acted that it will have you vomiting untill your stomach is hanging out of your mouth. Must see to believe! Try once! Just remember to bring a bucket and a shrink to help you get over the trauma. Oh, compliment though; if the oldest sister could just refrain from trying to act... shutting up. She'd be kinda cute.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Family Guy (1999– )
Beating Futurama on the finish line...
6 February 2002
The simpsons really are getting a little boring, despite excellent efforts from the writers. FG's real competition, is Futurama. It is obvious from looking at early pilots of FG that MacFarlane didn't get nearly as much leech with FG and Matt Groening got with Futurama. But the only character that really suffered is Peter. Don't get me wrong, he's fun.. He's not very un-origional. And while Futurama does not have any really un-origional characters, the just don't have any as colorful as FG. I'm thinking of Stewie and Brian ofcourse. Stewie really is a classic. Diabolical little genious, future leader of the world, mocking people while they change his diaper "Yeeesss.. You like cleaning my poo don't you??" Brian too though, a synical, well-read snob, and full blown alcoholic. Meg really is what she is in the show... Boring. But she does do it well :) There isn't much to say about Lois either. It's a close race, but I supose FG's warped humor just really appeals to me.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pretty good...
3 November 2001
Even though it was slightly incoherent at times, and stupid at others, it was intertaining the whole way through. And scary even. Mr. Lillard gave me one of the only comic releaves in a long time I didn't find annoying. Probably because he was also serious at times. Only the last minute or so bugged me. The ending just didn't make much sence. It seemed allot like the script writer(s) was sitting, wondering, "now how are we going to wrap this up" and then slapping the ending together because they were too lazy to go back and review the script. The acting was passable on all accounts, and the ghosts were just plain creepy. I must say though, I much prefeered the creepy part, before the plain out war; ghosts just aren't ideal for action movies, but it was pulled off fairly well in any event. 6/10. Good halloween fun.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spectacular!
3 November 2001
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Judging from the reviews I guess that if this movie doesn't catch your interrest right off it never will, and then, yes, 3 hours is a VERY long time. However, it all went by fast, and I didn't take my eyes off the screen. (Many movies have me watching TV while they're running.) Admitted, yes, Pitt was a little too much sometimes, where he just seemed silly, but his preformance was captivating most of the time. It was genuinely intertaining to see this kind of manifestation of death. Majestic, powerful, utterly inconsiterate, but at the same time rather pathetic with no idea how to behave. Think 'Rainman meets the Terminator'. 9/10 if it catches your interrest. If it doesn't; you're in for 3 hours of solid boredom. But take a chance and rent it in any event.. And bring peanut-butter.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Much better the second time.
28 April 2001
As I saw this movie, in cinema, I though it was funny, but in no way a match for "I Kina Spiser De Hunde" (1999). However, after re-watching in now, on DVD, I can say that I think much higher of it. Plenty of cool one-liners. An absurd, but still nice story-line. In fact, it was the absurdness that was the real humor of the flick. Immoral and violent? Definately, but that also makes it allot funnier. I had to give it 9/10, because it is definately worth several re-watchings. Fun for most of the family.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed