sbrobin Reviews

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Absolutely awful

[2/10 · 29 June 2009]

I wasn't expecting much going into this film. I'm aware of director Michael Bay's history and his habit of making mindless popcorn films with huge explosions, scantily-clad women, and awful cheesy dialogue. However, I thought the first film was okay for what it was, so figured maybe I would like the sequel. I was dead wrong. "Revenge of the Fallen" is the most ridiculous campy, poorly-written and poorly-directed piece of garbage to come out this year. The acting by Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox is average, and the special effects are extremely well done. That's about the only saving grace for this film.

The writing is so unbelievable you almost have to see it to believe it. At one point a character actually utters the line "not on my watch." No one in the history of the military has ever said this outside of a film. Reading over the screenplay, you would think it was some terrible Transformers fan faction written by a tenth grader and posted to the Internet. The dialogue is HORRIBLE. This would be a great movie if it was targeted to 9 year olds, but the overt sexual references and language suggest an older demographic. Maybe it's because Bay is trying to please a wide range of people, and maybe that's why we have jokes made about Transformer Testicles and there's a scene where a transformer (with a Jersey accent much less) tries to hump Megan Fox's leg. What possible reason is this robot trying to hump her leg? Is that the way they procreate? There is ZERO excuse for it other than a cheap laugh. And that's ALL the jokes are, cheap laughs. I honestly would not have been surprised to see a transformer fart in this film, or maybe a scene where a transformer gets high. It wouldn't matter if it made sense because an intoxicated transformer would be HILARIOUS. But don't worry, because there's plenty of scenes of Sam's mother accidentally getting high at college and proceeding to follow the Robin Williams/Jim Carey acting formula of physical humor. Then there are Skids and Mudflap - two Decepticons who can't read, speak in "jive," act like gangster-wannabes, and fight a lot. One of them even has a gold tooth (I am not making that up). I am one of the last people you will meet who cares about things being PC or will ever claim anything is racist unless it is blatant, but this was a BLATANT stereotype. I cannot believe this made it into the movie. I wouldn't call it racist, but if these characters had actually been human, the NAACP would have freaked out.

This movie is also insanely long, at a running time of 2.5 hours. This probably could have been avoided if there wasn't so much slow motion footage of people running. I was miserable after the first 45 minutes. Bay should have cut at a minimum, the last half hour off of the movie. The action scenes, while good, were way too confusing. The robots are so complex you can't tell what is happening since it's so fast and you can't figure out Transformers: "Revenge of the Fallen" is not Armageddon. It is not Bad Boys. It is definitely not the Rock. Say what you will about those films, they at least had somewhat decent plots and required some brain activity. This movie is nothing but pure mindless action, awful jokes, and gratuitous shots of Megan Fox (and only one of those is a good thing).

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Average film unless compared to the others

[5/10 · 20 March 2006]

As a fan of all the previous Harry Potter films, and having read all of the books, I was really looking forward to "Goblet of Fire," especially since it was my favorite book as well. That may be why I was so disappointed after actually seeing it. The main problem with "Goblet of Fire," is that Director Mike Newell tried to condense way too much into a two hour movie. I know this has been a criticism of the previous films, but I have never agreed with it until now. There is no way to include everything from the books into the films, and in most cases the cuts in previous films have been just. However in this case, the book was way too long for a two hour movie.

Noticeably absent are the relationships between Hermione and Ron, Harry and Cho, and Harry and Draco. Harry and Draco are enemies, and their rivalry has always played a very large role in the books, especially given Draco's actions in future books. His character had roughly 60 seconds of screen time in this film and a handful of lines. His scenes could have been cut out completely and it wouldn't have changed the movie much from the way it turned out. Professor Snape was given a similar treatment. Newell tried to display jealousy between Ron and Hermione, but it failed miserably as they did not have development for the audience to believe in it. The character of Rita Skeeter was introduced as a nosy reporter, however she added absolutely nothing to the movie and is another character that is very prominent in the book, but could have been completely cut out of this film and it would not have made a difference.

The majority of the movie focused on the Tri-Wizard tournament, which was very well done, but was not the focus of the book and made for a film that kids would probably love, but does not do justice for the adult viewer who wants to see more character development. The final task of the tournament, the maze, was not adequately explained at all. In the book, the maze brings out the worst fears in someone and turns them against themself. In the movie, it was condensed to just being a creepy maze that attacked you with roots.

My other biggest problem was with the casting, specifically Michael Gambon as Dumbledore and Stanislav Ianevski as Viktor Krum. I've heard the complaints of Gambon not living up to the precedent set in previous films by Richard Harris, and never believed it until now. He comes off completely out of character from the Dumbledore in the book. He is gruff and abrasive in this film, at one point grabbing Harry and shaking him violently. Where is the wise and compassionate, yet still powerful, Dumbledore from the books? Ianevski looks good on the posters, but his acting seems too unseasoned for a role this big. Cedric Diggory and Fleur Delacour are very well casted however.

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Doesn't live up to the hype

[3/10 · 31 May 2004]

As a fan of Campbell, I was thinking about just buying this movie straight out, especially with all the good reviews I had seen of it, but ultimately, I decided to rent it first, which turned out to be a good decision.

"Bubba Ho-Tep" looks remarkably well made for an independent film, but it suffers from one major flaw: a bad script. I just found the whole Egyptian mummy storyline really boring, and the movie kind of drags on in certain places. I found myself fast-forwarding through some scenes, a practice that I HATE doing with movies. The mummy storyline felt like an awkward back-story to the focus on Elvis and his life, and I felt the movie would have been more interesting without it, even though this is the major plot line of the film.

Although it's not a movie I'd want to see again, it does have some redeeming qualities. Foremost, it contains some very strong acting by everyone involved. From the trailers, I was prepared to be annoyed by the Elvis impersonation and having to listen to that accent the whole movie. However, it came across naturally, and I found myself believing this was actually Elvis. It wasn't too overdone, and the movements and familiar catchphrases were very subtlety done. This was one of the best performances I've seen by Campbell.

Peter Pan (2003)

Pretty boring if you're an adult

[3/10 · 16 May 2004]

I was looking forward to seeing this film, as I love the story of Peter Pan, but this version just didn't work for me.

First of all, while staying true to Barrie's original story, the first 30 minutes almost appeared to be a remake of Spielberg's "Hook" than a novelization of the story. Even the music sounded similar to John Williams' 1991 score. I found myself immediately disliking the actor who portrayed Pan, and most especially, his horrible grin that he felt the need to show every 30 seconds. I wouldn't say he was a bad actor, but he definitely was guilty of overacting during MANY instances of this film, and he just wasn't a very likeable kid in general. The only actor who I disliked more is Ludivine Sagnier as Tinkerbell. I really wish they would have killed her off in the first few minutes because she became VERY annoying. She is a fairly odd-looking person, which I guess fairies are supposed to be, but if anyone on this film was guilty of overacting it's definitely her. All of her ridiculous facial expressions were just plain annoying rather than cute. I really hated seeing her onscreen, and I didn't buy her love for Pan like I did with Julia Roberts in "Hook." She didn't seem to have any remorse about trying to have Wendy killed, so it was hard to like this character.

The film also contains some ridiculous action sequences that came off looking absurd. At one point there's two children riding on the back of a dog, while lying on their backs. In another, a child is flipped through the air and looks like he's doing cartwheels in space or something. In the opening scene, Pan is trying to catch his shadow in Wendy's room, and breaks or knocks over half of the furniture in his attempt. 10 minutes later, and after the room is destroyed, we're shown that Wendy's brothers are in the same room asleep! I don't know if they were on drugs or what but there's no way they could have slept through that.

Overall, I wouldn't say this is a bad movie, and most likely it will be enjoyed by a younger audience. However, it failed to catch my attention as an adult, and it seems like this is something that could have been accomplished with a few small changes and different casting decisions.

The Rundown (2003)

Pretty bland for an action film

[4/10 · 28 March 2004]

My friends saw this film and like it. It has a decent review on IMDB, and it received some good reviews when it came out in theaters. That's why I was so disappointed when I actually saw it.

"The Rundown" is nothing more than a Steven Seagall clone with better actors. The film has great cinematography, some nice action sequences, incredible fight scenes, but is sideswiped by an incredibly weak plot. The director tries to create personalities for each of the characters, but fails miserably. I couldn't figure out during this film if there was supposed to be a love connection between Mariana and Travis or not. It's hinted at but not explained. At one point it looked like there would be one between her and Beck. Her entire character could have been removed from the film and it would have made no difference.

The story also tries to set up some type of past history about The Rock and how he hates guns, yet never expands on it further than having him say he doesn't use guns because "bad things happen." Was he in the military? Did he kill someone? No, it's just an excuse to have him use his fists more, all up until the end when that' all thrown out of the window.

Most importantly, why does Travis' father want his son back so badly? Does he plan on holding him captive when he gets home? Why is Beck indebted to his father anyway? This film is LOADED with confusing plot holes, and it would have made more sense to dumb it down and just remove all the extraneous backstories. However, the most ridiculous part of the story is the completely pointless cameo by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is simply shown at a bar passing The Rock and saying "have fun." "Have fun?" What does this mean? I have tried to figure out, and seen this question debated endlessly with no resolution. They simply thought it would be cool to have him in the movie. At the very least they could have given him a line that made sense or had his cameo contribute to the film instead of leaving the viewer bewildered.

As I said, the acting is acceptable, and The Rock does a decent job, much more than I'd expect from watching his wrestling performances. However the attempts at humor inserted into the film are horrible. Sean Williams Scott has some type of "thunder and lightning" fighting routine that is supposed to be funny, but comes off as just plain embarrassing. This isn't an "American Pie" sequel, it's an action movie. Save the lame comedy bits for something else, or insert routine that are actually funny. Forced comedy also fails with Ewen Bremner, who is inserted into this film s another additional character the film could do without. He has a few lines during the film, but at the end the director gives him a Scottish accent and tries to get a few jokes out of him. Those wasted two minutes could have been better used just having The Rock beat up some more people.

The other part where the acting fails however, is with Walken. Thankfully, he leaves his trademark accent concealed during the movie, but he just doesn't come off as a believable villain. He's not tough enough, and for this type of film, there should be a final showdown between The Rock and the bad guy, not the weak anticlimactic scene that fills up the last 5 minutes of the movie.

Daredevil (2003)

It pained me to watch this garbage - Spoilers

[1/10 · 21 February 2004]

Maybe not the worst ever, but definitely close. How they could have such a huge budget for this film and accept such a horrible story is beyond me.

I've been a pretty big comic book fan for 20 years. While I never got into Daredevil too much, he made numerous guest appearances in my favorite comics, and I was looking forward to this film. Yes, it's a comic book movie, but the level of camp in this film was unreal. There must have been hundreds of cheesy lines in almost every line of dialog during this film, you'd almost think Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote the screenplay. Add to that the ridiculous amount of blind jokes and it was painful to sit through. Okay, Daredevil is blind, and yet has insanely high perception in his other senses, we get it. No need to show endless shots of him doing amazing things with his other senses to hammer this into our skulls. Bullseye has perfect aim and can hit anything he wants to, we get it, no need to show 20 scenes of him using this skill either.

This film takes "ridiculousness" to a new level. Daredevil is human. Unlike Spider-Man, he has no genetic mutations. He simply has heightened senses from being blind. The story never proclaims he has anything other than human abilities either. However, there are literally hundreds of stunts that Daredevil does that are humanly impossible, I don't care how great he can here, there is no way he can jump 50 feet in the air, or vault off a 50 story building and land on a fire escape and not break his legs. This guy could give Spider-Man a run for his money for all the advantages they gave him.

By letting Daredevil achieve insane stunts, it creates no sense of weakness for him. You are never left feeling like there is a battle this guy can't win, which is a mistake in film making. Daredevil can scale a 20 foot wall, yet he gets stabbed in the shoulder and that knocks him out for half the film? He can't summon the energy to help out Elektra, his love, yet right after that he can make his way a couple miles across town and get involved in the fight of his life?! This film is FILLED with inconsistencies, mistakes, and just absurd events that would require a complete suspension of belief reality in order to enjoy this film. I expect comic book movies to take some license, but this film makes "Armageddon" look like it was taken straight from the film vaults at NASA. And with all of this absurdity, there is no way to enjoy this film as a campy popcorn movie. I would consider "Tomb-Raider" a masterpiece in comparison.

Perhaps the biggest flaw with this film is the CGI. For a recent movie, this is some of the worst CGI effects I have ever seen. None of it looked realistic. I can't think of a single special effect that I would believe. Remember that scene in Spider Man where Toby Maguire gets his new powers and starts jumping 50 feet in the air from roof to roof? Imagine an entire movie of that. They may as well have left the blue screens and wires in. At least Mark Steven Johnson admits on his commentary that the CGI is crap.

Did I mention that Bullseye (with a horrible performance by Colin Farrell) actually cuts someone's throat with a playing card in this film and kills a man by throwing a paper-clip into his neck?!

That being said, if you like this film, the DVD is loaded with bonus features. The audio and video come across very well, and the featurettes are fairly well done. This DVD has everything you could want if you're a fan of the film.

Underworld (2003)

Yawn

[4/10 · 19 January 2004]

I saw the previews for this film and it looked awesome. I couldn't wait to see it, but could never find anyone interested enough to go with me. I finally rented it and was fairly disappointed.

The storyline sounds incredible. Werewolves (called "Lycans" in the film to make them sound cooler) vs Vampires? How much cooler can you get? Unfortunately, the coolness factor doesn't expand beyond the concept. Yes, the film does feature Lycans battling Vampires. Unfortunately, the only way you'd know this is by the occasional glimpse of teeth and shot of a full moon. They fight the entire movie with guns. I felt like I was watching a bad splice of The Matrix and Blade. What is the purpose of showing these two historical enemies fighting if they're going to be running behind each other with Uzis?

Almost no typical vamp/wolf lore was explored. The ONLY thing the vampires do to show they're vampires if bare their fanged teeth and can jump from big heights. They don't shy away from the sun, turn into bats, suck blood, or anything else which makes vampires cool. The film even refers to them at one point as "bats" yet you never see it.

Scott Speedman provides a forgettable performance for all of his 15-20 lines in the movie. The ending is VERY anticlimactic and is just a very watered down gun fight that would have been too boring to make it's way into The Matrix. I had to watch this film over 4 days because I kept falling asleep. What's more, the lycans looked absolutely ridiculous when they changed. The werewolves from "The Howling" 20 years ago had better make up.

If you want to watch vampires, get "Blade" or watch the television version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If you want a good action movie with people running up walls to dodge bullets, get "The Matrix." If you want both, you're out of luck because "Underworld" just doesn't cut it. This is a film I was looking forward to seeing for months, and the end result was a yawnfest who's only success is a pretty cool looking poster.

Boiler Room (2000)

Just plain bad

[2/10 · 27 December 2003]

I really hope they didn't pay a lot for the services of Giovanni Ribisi in this film because his acting is horrible. He is constantly stuttering and drooling and acting like he's confused. But this is acceptable because his performance is on par with the rest of the movie. These guys are filthy filthy rich, we get it. You don't need to keep beating it into our heads that they have tons of money. And the backstory about the relationship between Ribisi and his father? Who cares? It's poorly developed along with the rest of the plot.

If you want a good movie that brings interest to an uninteresting subject, get Wall Street or Glengarry Glen Ross. "Boiler Room" is a poor second.

The Last Castle (2001)

Slightly Entertaining

[26 December 2003]

I'm glad I saw this film on HBO instead of paying money to rent it. While it was moderately entertaining, I wouldn't be interested in adding it to my home movie collection.

The film starts out with two incidents that it fails to follow up on. The first is a fight in the military prison between two inmates. The music and fight leads you to believe that this will be like a lot of prison films: people leading very hard lives, getting beat up on a daily basis, and having to fight to survive. There was virtually none of this. None of the prisoners are the least bit scary, and you expect them to hug each other by the final scene. Robert Redford is immediately given respect for being a general, and doesn't have to earn anything for himself.

The second surprise is that Redford's situation is left a mystery until halfway through the film. It's alluded to several times early on that he is a 3 star general and he doesn't deserve to be in prison. When it is finally revealed why he is in prison, it is a letdown. You're expecting it to be a fairly prominent part of the film, and he's portrayed as someone who doesn't deserve to be there. The director brushes over the explanation and the viewer learns that Redford, like every other prisoner, DESERVES to be in jail. This makes it very difficult to root for him when he decides to lead a gang of murderers and prisoners in an uprising against the warden.

The other main problem with this film, is that Gandolfini doesn't come off as a very bad character. Unlike the classic prison movies, you have a prisoner who deserves to be in jail, fighting against a warden who is supposed to be evil, but is never developed fully enough to show this.

The whole time through the end of this movie, I kept thinking, these guys are killing innocent American soldiers who were stationed at the prison and are simply following orders. While not many are killed, there are definitely a couple who go down permanently. I'm supposed to be excited about this?

Overall, a lackluster hero, a weak villain, and a lack of a single escape attempt makes this a very weak prison movie. This movie is tailor-made for Dolph Lundgren or Jean Claude Van Damme, not Robert Redford.

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

2 Hour version of the X-Files

[4/10 · 26 December 2003]

I was interested in this movie because I'm a big fan of cryptozoology and unexplained creatures. I'd also heard the book which this film is based on was well-received so I thought I would check it out. The fact that it was based on a true story made it even more exciting.

My excitement waned however after the first 30 minutes of sitting through this 2 hour version of an X-Files episode. Aside from a decent bridge collapse scene, I saw absolutely nothing that set it apart, and there was probably better acting on the X-Files. Gere didn't really lend anything to this movie (beside his name) that any other actor couldn't have done. And Debra Messing gave an unconvincing job as a feature actress. At the end of th film, I'm not even sure why she was in it, or what her character's role was.

The "Mothman" wasn't very scary or very interesting, and i couldn't tell if I was supposed to be more concerned over possible future prophecies or the lead character's mental state.

I was left watching a film that was so so, and with a lot of questions that the movie left unexplained. Fortunately, I wasn't interested enough in the film to care.

A movie like this should leave you wanting more. I should have finished the film and rushed to the Internet to find out more about the real life sightings and what exactly happened. Not only did I not have this feeling at the end of the movie, but I am now even less interested in the real "Mothman" than before I saw it.

Saving Jessica Lynch (2003 TV Movie)

Yawn

[1/10 · 9 November 2003]

One of the most boring TV Movies I've ever seen. This girl got lost, knocked unconscious, and was later rescued two weeks later. And she received a medal for it. The only thing more asinine is that some execs at NBC thought this would make a good movie.

Politics aside, this movie is pretty much what you'd expect from a story that isn't there: boring. The only parts even remotely interesting is the opening 5 minutes where the convoy is attacked. The parts about Lynch explaining why she went into the military, talking with friends about her private life, etc: no one cares. There wasn't anything in this movie that gave you a personal look into the war in Iraq that you couldn't find from any 5 minute summary from CNN.com

Hopefully, low ratings will keep them from airing this trash a second time.

Bad Boys (1995)

Absolutely Horrible

[1/10 · 6 September 2003]

One of the worst action movies of the 90s. The dialogue by Lawrence and Smith is so God-awful that I had to turn this film off halfway through. Given how great of an actor Will Smith is, it hurts me to be so negative, but his acting is almost as bad as Lawrence's, even for a Bruckheimer production.

If you like completely ridiculous movies with plots that are extremely far-fetched, but have lots of crap blowing up, and the sound on your TV is broken, you may enjoy this film.

The O.C. (2003–2007)

Pretty bad show

[7 August 2003]

This has to have some of the worst casting I've ever seen. Even worse than Andrea on Beverly Hills 90210. The main lead is 26 years old playing a teenager. The male antagonist looks like he's about 30, and the party scenes showing wild group sex, drugs, and promiscuity were ridiculous. The writers of this show are horribly out of touch with reality.

Die Another Day (2002)

Worst Bond Movie Ever

[4/10 · 10 June 2003]

This movie was a fantastic failure. I've been a decent fan of the Bond Franchise for 20 years. I've never seen a really bad Bond film...until now. And this is hard for me to say because Brosnan is my favorite Bond. Despite looking incredibly old in this film, his acting was pretyt poor. As other have said, the one-liners in this movie were horrendous. The only thing more stupifying were the ridiculous special effects. Maybe they should have saved the money they spent on Halle Berry (what was her purpose in the film?) and put it toward the effects.

I thought the scene in Goldeneye where Bond jumps into a moving plane was pretty far fetched, but I bought it because it's a Bond film. However the part in this film where Bond escape falling off a cliff by parachuting down an avalanche and then WINDSURFING to freedom was insane! Yes, he actually takes a car, rips off the roof, and uses it as a surfboard to windsurf over a huge tidal ave.

And Madonna. I thought her theme song was catchy, but not appropriate for a Bond movie. Her role in this film waas pointless and the limited amount of lines she had produced a Razzie-acceptable performance.

This has been the first time I've ever stopped watching a Bond movie from boredom. Had I been in the theater I probably would have walked out.

8 Mile (2002)

What a waste of time

[1/10 · 29 March 2003]

What's the difference between thnis film and "Cool As Ice" starring Vanilla Ice? This film has a better soundtrack. That is the only redeeming quality of it, is that there's a catchy tune during the end credits. The plot went nowehere, and character development was very underdone.

10 years from now, people will hear the plot of this film and scoff at it at the video star. A white guy trying to get respect by winning a "rap battle." Yes folks, a "rap battle." These gangstas don't use guns to take out the enemy, they use raps. What a ridiculous film. Eminem needs to stick to singing and stay away from serious endeavours such as acting. Although this film was so poorly directed and had such a laughable screenplay that it didn't matter how good the atcing was.

Shark Hunter (2001)

Actually a pretty decent movie

[6/10 · 8 March 2003]

I saw this in the video store, placed right next to "Shark Attack III," which also deals with a Megalodon. I'm a big fan of Megs, having read Steve Alten's book "Meg" and the sequel. Although I had read the horrible reviews on Shark Attack II and seen the first Shark Attack movie, and imagined it would be as god awful as those. I was actually pretty surprised. Despite Antonio Sabato Jr in the lead role, the acting was fairly decent for this type of movie. The special effects were very well done, and the shark was very realistic, along with the sub. The plot was pretty typical of some of the TBS-made movies you see a lot of, but I rented it more for the action.

I had read some decent reviews of this movie and decided to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised. The scenes with the shark were realistic and there was a lot of action. The ending to the film could have been more upbeat, but overall it was fairly entertaining.

Signs (2002)

Not very good

[6/10 · 12 January 2003]

Out of the three films Shyamalan has made, this is the worst. He's a little young to be throwing his name up on every movie he makes now. It's not like he's Spielburg. The Sixth Sense was a great film, but he simply doesn't have the credit to be trying to use his name to throw up on every film in order to express how good it is. Since the Sixth Sense his films have been progressively getting worse. "Unbreakable" was decent, but nowhere near as intelligent as his first film. And casting himself in the movie, albeit in a small part, was a mistake. He's acting like he's Hitchcock all of a sudden.

Signs was entertaining, but not something I would have enjoyed in the theater, and not something I'd be interested in seeing again. The plot was a bit broken up, and you couldn't really understand the central theme. Was this a film about a man who loses his faith, or aliens taking over the world? I was looking forward to this film because of the director, and because of my fascination with crop circles, which didn't really have much to do with the actual movie.

I suppose it's a decent film if you're bored and want to rent it one night, but don't expect any of the great plot twists like you see in The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable. Hopefully, Shyamalan will get back on track with his next project.

Simply Irresistible (1999)

Horrible

[1/10 · 11 January 2003]

As the creator of SMGFan.com, it hurts me to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life. It's about a MAGICAL CRAB! Who the heck greenlighted this trash? In the two months it was playing it made 4 million with a 6 million budget. And it was playing at 1500 screens! If that and the magical crab premise don't steer you away from this, God help you.

The Relic (1997)

Horrible

[4/10 · 3 January 2003]

Don't see this movie if you've read the book. The only adaptation I've ever seen that was worse was The Bourne Identity. The book is FAR superior to the film, which takes out all of the things that make the book great, reducing this to a B horror movie. Two of the main sources of conflict in the book (the museum director and the FBI agent Coffey), and the lead hero, are completely left out. So you really have no one to root for. The cop D'Agosta, has a ridiculous trait in that he's superstitious to the point of absurdity in the movie. I guess they thought this was clever since the film revolves around the opening of an exhibit entitled "Superstition." They show him doing superstitious things over and over, like not stepping over bodies, carrying a good luck charm, worrying about black cats, etc. Okay, WE GET IT! The guy's superstitious! We don't need to be hit over the head with it. The ending of the film and the way they kill the creature is rehashed and boring. Margo, played by Penelope Ann Miller, is boring and whiny. You don't really care if she dies.

If you like the standard "creature gets loose and kills everyone" horror movies, you might enjoy this. BUt if you're looking for something deeper and much more scary, I'd highly suggest reading the novel instead.

Armageddon (1998)

Cheesiest film ever

[5/10 · 15 December 2002]

This has got to be one of the corniest and sappiest movies I've ever seen. Even if you don't mind the extreme camp value of it, the scenes of young children running around dressed as astronauts and playing with space shuttles was too much. Although the film is entertaining, don't go into it expecting any form of realism, good acting, or a sensible storyline.

I have to say that while definately not the worst movie ever made, it certainly is one of the most ridiculous.

Down to You (2000)

Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen

[1/10 · 24 November 2002]

I love "teen" movies. I loved 10 Things I Hate About You and all those other movies. With the exception of "Simply Irresistibe," this is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I'm a big fan of Julia Stiles, and it hurts me to have to watch her in this film. I don't know what the writer was thinking, or what the producers were doing when they greenlighted this trash, but it is one of the most boring 2 hours in cinematic history. The dialogue is absolutely horrible, there is no plot, and even though there are some decent actors, Freddie Prinze Jr ruins it by coming off as a big dope. Stay away from this.

Critters (1986)

Fun Movie

[6/10 · 18 August 2002]

I remember renting this movie with a friend when I was like 10, and ti was a lot of fun and scary as hell. Unlike some of the other horror movies that featured monsters or aliens as the nemesis, the concept of critters was pretty original, and although it's not award material, it's a pretty decent sci-fi/horror film.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

Decent, but pretty much like any other action thriller

[5/10 · 22 June 2002]

I was really excited to hear one of my favorite books was being made into a film. I was surprised at the beginning whenn they didn't say "based on the book." After watching it, I can see why. The only thing it has in common with the book are the characters and some of the first 5 minutes. The plot is completely different. The book is exciting because Jason Bourne (Damon) is up against the deadliest assasin of all time, Carlos the Jackal, and his origins are a mystery until the very end. Carlos is nowhere in this film, and the secrets of the organization Bourne is from is revealed in the first 15 mins.

Another thing that I haven't seen in over a decade, is a very anti-climatic ending. No real final showdown with the bad guy, no incredible revelations, just an action scene that's less exciting than the first fight Bourne has.

As a standalone film, it's entertaining. As a book adaptation, it's horrible.

The Peanut Butter Solution (1985)

Absolutely Horrible

[1/10 · 4 March 2002]

Like many others, I saw this movie when I was around 10 or so, which was 15 years ago. At the time, it was the worst movie I ever saw. I actually was depressed for a week or so after watching it because it was so bad.

As huge a movie buff as I am now, and even after 15 years, this remains the worst movie I have ever seen. This even surpasses "Shark Attack 2" and "Night of the Lepus." The only saving grace for this film is that it's an English film, so you can't really expct too great of a movie.

Very very very bad movie.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

What a waste of a good novel

[1/10 · 1 December 2001]

I saw the original and thought it was great. This "re-imaging" was so vastly inferior to that, that it's a wonder the script ever got greenlit to begin with. I had heard that the film was bad, but I liked the original so much I rented it when it came out on video anyway. What a mistake.

I didn't simply dislike this version because I'm a fan of the original, it is truely a horrible horrible film. The script is pathetic and the ending seems like it was made by someone under the influence of heavy narcotics who didn't care about whether it made sense or fit into the movie or not.

This film is almost ridiculously campy with the bad dialogue and lines thrown into it simply to elicit a slight grin beased on a connection from the first film. The apes act ridiculous and you're never left with the feeling that this could actually happen given the absurd things they do. I'm surprised Burton didn't throw in a monkey car that runs on bananas or something. There's even a little dwarf that runs around collecting money like a chimpanzee would do at the circus.

Even if they took all the "ape camp" out, it's still a pathetic movie. Mainly because of the script and the horrible directing by Burton. The stunts look pretty bad and fake. Many things don't make sense, like why apes would ride horses if they can move faster than horses anyway. Even Wahlberg gives a pathetic performance.

The only entertainment value in this entire movie is the "funny" things that an ape society does that compare with what humans do. The only redeeming thing about renting this trash was that it was the best sounding DVD I've ever heard, and REALLY gave my 5.1 surround system a work. Almost worth the rent to check it out until some better DVDs come along that have sound work as good.