Reviews

17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
A movie for KIDS
10 November 2010
I love a lot of modern cartoons, "Spirited Away", "Shrek", "Toy Story", "Wall-E" etc etc. I love them because they are sophisticated, have interesting, intelligent and surprising plot and love-able characters.

Unfortunately, "How to train your Dragon" has none of these. The plot is very basic and you understand exactly how it is going to turn, the general humor will appeal, no doubt, to kids, but I didn't find anything funny about it.

Still, it is watchable and you probably won't suffer from watching it. Expect it to be more on par with the likes of "Ice Age" than "Shrek", however.
0 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watchmen (2009)
6/10
The wrong kind of director for that kind of movie
9 March 2009
It is really amazing how a movie like Watchmen could be so pretty, so true to the book and yet, so Unenjoyable. In retrospect however, it isn't as surprising.

While "Watchmen" is a humanist story about the various aspects of human soul, Zack Snyder is an expert on gore, style, visuals ("Sin City") and raising the testosterone of viewers to illegal levels ("300″). He is not, however, someone who can give a soul to comics heroes.

Zack did everything he could, but it just isn't his kind of movie. Despite the "comixie" appearance, "Watchmen" should be done by a director who excels in moving the audience, not one who excels in exciting them. Instead of Zack Snyder, Sam Raimi or Bryan Singer, this movie should've been directed by Todd Solondz or Darren Aronofsky.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An amazing adaptation, even if slow
27 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie does a great justice to the book and was far above my expectations. The story is as complex as the sense it so heavily relies on - the sense of smell, yet, amazingly the directors of the movie were able to convince the smell and the feeling to the viewer.

The whole book was captured in these 2 hours, every scene was there (except some really non important parts) and everything looked just like I always imagined it to. In fact, I had a strong sense of deja-vu during the whole movie. I already saw it, I already saw it in my imagination when I read the book. The director wasn't afraid to show violence as it was described in the book, nor he was afraid of nudity. It all there, grotesque, beautiful, enchanting and terrible as the author wrote it. I'm quite convinced now that it was the best movie adaptation I've seen.

Yet, not all is perfect with this movie as well. Foremost, the movie isn't for the weak of heart. There is violence and blood, nudity and things you might not to see, yet, it should be accessible to most. Second, the movie is slow. It doesn't rush forward, it convinces true feelings with music and imagery, but that way or another, some parts seem slow.

So there you have it. Close to perfection, as far as I am concerned, but not intended for all. If you are into easy, action-packed movies or if you can't stomach some blood on the screen, steer away, or you'll be up for some complex ride. However, anyone who likes a good drama, an intelligent acting and the dark scent of reality should have a great time.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great Performances: Jesus Christ Superstar (2000)
Season 29, Episode 11
1/10
Better see the 1973 version
23 October 2004
I highly disliked what I saw in this version of JCS.

For one, the role playing is WAY over acted, if it is JC kissing little girls and acts as if he's the next president or the rest of the mob putting all kind of "Alright!" and "Yeah!" in the middle of songs. Another example is the OVERLY acted frightened look on JC.

It's understandable that they're excited and that JC is scared but it would be just as understandable if they ACT as normal people being excited/scared. It would also not be a bad roleplay then.

The second thing that bothered me, was the violence that wasn't matching the spirit of the songs nor the whole spirit of the story. At least as I see it. For example Judas pushing Mary, or Annas grabbing Judas' hair for no apparent reason.

JCS basic story has plenty of subtle violence, there's no need to ADD to that, especially when the song doesn't hint of anything of the kind.

I gave this movie 1/10 simply because there is another MUCH better version of this screenplay, with the same music and much better acting and final feeling.

Here you go: http://www.imdb.1eye.us/title/tt0070239/
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
2/10
And I thought Spider-Man 1 was bad...
1 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I give this movie 2/10.

{{Review may contain SPOILERS, but it isn't anything you don't know about the story from the cartoons}}

Prelude: I have nothing against action movies. This is along the movie is entertaining and not awfully stupid.

Spiderman 2: This movie, unlike action movies I like, was boring and awfully stupid... And of course it was cheesy and FULL with the same American bad movie clichés. In fact, the only reason it is 2/10 and not less is because there are indeed some nice CGI effects.

So yes, the arms of Dr.Octavious look nice, there were a few minutes of nice fighting... But really, hardly anything new compared to the first SpiderMan.

I could go over the stupid, melodramatic, cheesy and illogical points of this movie, but it would take too long, that's why I'll just sum it up with these lines from the movie:

Stupid_Woman_Reporter: "But Doctor (octavius), wouldn't the AI of these mechanical arms interfere with your judgment?" Doctor_Octavius: "Yes! That's exactly why I have this chip (*pointing on an exposed tiny lamp on his back*) as long as this chip functions the AI of the arms won't take over my brain!"
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shrek 2 (2004)
7/10
A lot of fun but hardly original
10 July 2004
Shrek 2 is a great movie to watch, it is very funny and well animated.

In Shrek 2 we watch yet another fairy tale that was hilariously twisted by Dreamworks. Yet again the movie references a few hundred other movies and mocks everyone on left and right.

However, I couldn't help but to feel that I saw this movie already. Shrek 2 simply followed the successful formula of Shrek. So it is still funny, even very funny, but it is lacks the originality of the first movie.

Overall: 8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Dividing this movie was a crime
22 May 2004
I saw the volume 2 just now and I am really upset that they didn't show the whole thing together.

Volume 1 by itself, doesn't make much sense, it is beautiful and thrilling (at least if you do get thrilled about combat choreography).. Yet it is, painfully lacking in character development, humor and in plot.

I enjoyed seeing it (especially enjoyed the GoGo part and the anime) but it could be so much better if they showed the second part together. To both of the movies I'd give 9. When they are separated I'm giving 7 to vol.1 and 8 to vol.2.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Stupid and boring action (and SO OVERRATED)
26 April 2004
I can't understand how this movie got rated so high. It is just yet another stupid action movie and I found really NOTHING remarkable about it.

I don't think someone else could get a movie with more kitsch even if one tried, I guess that's what they mean when they say that the movie is one of a kind. It is full of silly one-liners, same idiotic comedy "combat" and the (how could we do without) sexy heroine that's there only to give some sex moments.

There was no plot I could spot, I mean, unless you count the "nazis digging artifact. Indiana Jones must get artifact from them" as plot". Could it get more stupid??

I could go talking for several pages what I disliked about this movie but I'd be just wasting my time I guess. Each to his own. For a good adventure movie I'd suggest people to see "The Man who would be King" instead.

*seriously p****d off*
50 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pretty pictures, decent story and no morals at all
25 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
It has quite a developed story, yet, eventually all stacks up eventually to yet another beat-em-up.

On the bright side, there is the oldie feeling of the 18th century (god help me if I messed the years again) and features quite a beautiful filming.

The music, acting are fine too, nothing too exciting. But I surely suspected more from a foreign (aka non-American) film.

The main problem with this film is that it doesn't move me a slightly bit. { !!!MILD SPOILERS!!! } The love story(?) was boring, the fighting was nothing too stirring. Heck, the only thing I really cared about in the end is the beast and maybe a TINY bid about the indian.

Above all the story was awfully predictable at parts, weird at others and yet quite interesting to watch.

Another complain is that the movie is too long (120 minutes).

This film kept reminding me of the Equilibrium movie (though it surpasses it in every way). It is possible that I am just getting tired of pretty beat-em-ups films (have I ever liked them at all).

I gave it 7/10 though it is very possible that I will lower it to 6/10 in a week or so. Depends on my feeling about this movie then.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Animal Farm (1954)
4/10
Very disappointing
12 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving "funny" moments in the beginning.

But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.

{SPOILER}



Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!!
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pretty good thriller
20 February 2004
I just watched the movie for a second time and while I certainly enjoyed it less, it is still a good thriller.

Some scenes are pretty tense, yet, somehow the movie just doesn't leave me with as big impression as I hoped it will... Sometimes it felt like another action movie and yet it managed to be above average.

So while it is not a masterpiece, it is certainly a fun movie to spend the evening with, just turn off the lights, put all speakers on and submerge under water. 7/10.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
6/10 and even that is mostly due to Depp
6 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
It is rather sad since this movie showed a LOT of potential in its beginning, yet soon enough it became yet another kitschy Disney movie.

First the good: The performance of Depp was wonderful, even if a tiny bit too ecstatic. The visuals and the sounds were, as you can expect from Disney, amazing as well and reminded me of LOTR visuals somewhat. Also, surprisingly, the movie has also quite a sophisticated story.

{ MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS BELOW }

Very quickly, though, the movie dropped very low. The scenes became repetitive and dull. I grew tired of all these sword slashings, first with men, then with shields. In fact, there is just TOO MUCH fighting in this movie. It isn't the stunning fighting of Matrix/LOTR though where you grew more excited every minute, it is more like the regular Disney fighting of, "Aww he dropped the barrel and it dropped on the skeleton, ain't it funny folks?". All the fighting scenes are FULL with Disney cliches like this one.

{ REAL SPOILERS NOW }

In fact, ALL the movie grows to be more and more one big cliche as it spins towards its grand finale cliche end. Starting from the silly sentences (BadGuy: "Say good-bye!", barrel falls on him, GoodGuy: "Good-bye!"), continuing with even sillier sentences that I could guess ten seconds before the actors said them and ending with the super sticky, happy "and they lived happily ever after" end. I hoped they will broke SOME of the sweetness by letting SOMEONE die but apparently they decided to be the STEREOTYPE of cliche Disney movies.

Oh well, another 2 hours bit the dust.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kin-dza-dza! (1986)
5/10
Hardly enjoyed
2 January 2004
While this movie had certainly SOMETHING so it kept me watching for 3 hours. However, eventually I was disappointed. It was hardly funny and it was far from being as smart as I was told. 6/10.
14 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A bit more stupidity than I can bear
26 December 2003
I am sorry but this movie is plain STUPID. I can see where the jokes should come but then it is hardly funny, if funny AT ALL. The rest is cruel or dumb.

I seriously strained myself to keep watching this movie, it was eventually somewhat worth it as the final CGI are truly nice.

With that said, I don't suggest you to watch the film. It is just not worth it.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Truly remarkable sight
19 December 2003
I will not go to lengths and mention the good parts of the movie. The movie at the whole is one amazing view that throws you from one breathtaking picture to another. I'll just mentioned what I lacked:

* Saruman was seriously lacking as was the part of the Palantir in the war (Aragorn appearing before Sauron in the Palantir).

* What the heck did Elrond do in the middle of Rohan and by what cosmic way has Arwen's life became connected with Sauron relative power (WTF?).

* The scenes of Frodo being taken to the Goblin tower and the opposite scenes between the victory in the white city and the coming of the forces to Black Gate felt RUSHED. That's was really sad as the ending was surprisingly perfect and even a bit SLOW sometimes (how long does it take two hug 3 hobbits??).

But really, that about what really annoyed my in the movie, the rest was perfect or almost perfect. Go and see.

9/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Frightening
8 November 2003
The movie wouldn't have such an impact on me if I saw it in 98. However, now they made a new reality show in Israel, in Truman's style. A poor man is being fooled for a few weeks to think he is being elected to play in a new soap opera. And the most ironic thing is that they are actually MARKETING their show by showing us "Truman's Show" and advertising their "Steve's show" all along the movie.

I would think that they actually LEARNED something from "The Truman's Show". I guess some people are inspired by movies in all the wrong way.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Finding Nemo (2003)
7/10
Cute but not as funny or thrilling as Toy Story
23 August 2003
This is an enjoyable film but it simply doesn't make it up to "Toy Story", "Monsters Inc" or "Shrek". It isn't as funny or dramatic, while it is still fun to watch, I wouldn't like to watch it again. For me it was merely another animated flick like "Bug Story".
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed

 
\n \n \n\n\n