Reviews

149 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Holy Man (1998)
2/10
weak & stupid
8 October 2003
This movie is so bad!! One of Eddie Murphy's worst ever. He's totally unconvincing as a lunatic whose beliefs raise the sells on a shopping tv network. The story is simply dumb, some scenes are awful and I don't think there's any reason for anyone to watch this movie.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Valentine (2001)
2/10
oh man!
16 July 2003
This is one of the worst horrors I have ever seen. Take absolutely everything you can think of from teen slasher movies, every single cliche, it's all in here. No originality at all, a stupid story, one-dimensional characters played really bad by beautiful actresses, stupid dialogue, predictable scenes, nothing scary. You always know what's gonna happen. There's a pale attempt of a twist in the end, but even that can be spotted a mile away. What else? Oh, let's not forget: all the characters manage to somehow be alone sometime, when the killer's around. Not even the killer's motivation is plausible: at first, you have the feeling he has a purpose or something. But then he starts killing everyone, even people who didn't have anything to do with his childhood. And all there's left for you to do is either leave the movie alone, or watch it till the end, amazed of what stupidity can be found in Hollywood.

I gave this movie a 2 (not 1), because of Denise Richards, as gorgeous as always, and the soundtrack, which is pretty cool (includes Deftones & Orgy).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Here on Earth (2000)
1/10
what a crap!
22 May 2003
I still don't understand how this kind of movies get made. It's so incredibly stupid, dull, predictable, and not at all original... Klein and Sobieski, the lead actors, are unable to express any kind of feeling. The characters totally stink, Klein switches from being a big jerk to a gentleman, and Sobieski is so flat and uninteresting that half way through the movie I kept wishing something would happen and she would just die.

This movie is a big waste of time. Vote: 1 out of 10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hamlet (2000)
4/10
Luhrmann rip-off
2 May 2003
This version of "Hamlet" uses the exact idea of Bazz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet". A William Shakespeare play, presented in our decade, with all modern things interfering or completely changing scenes. All but the dialog, who remained as close as possible to the original. Ethan Hawke and Kyle MacLachlan are both very good, but unfortunately Julia Stiles destroys her scenes, with her flat and inexpressive appearence.

Still it's an interesting watch, but only if you're a big fan of someone involved in this picture. Vote: 4 out of 10.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
not too good
16 April 2003
There are so many things that don't work in this movie... Shortly, the plot is predictable and not at all original, and some scenes are so hard to believe they couldn't even stand up in a comedy. (eg: the theft at the art gallery).

Fortunately Kevin Spacey, as always, is great and his performance saves at least a little bit this movie, Without him it would have been a catastrophe.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
wooow
29 December 2002
This is by far the best horror movie I have ever seen. It's very original, and everything looks REAL. That's what makes it so great.

This is the perfect proof that you can really create some scary sh*t even without special effects, or clever camera work, or hideous monsters.

Three students go deep in the woods to make a documentary about the myth of the Blair Witch. They disappeared... and the footage was found a year later. The movie is actually a documentary-style presentation of what the kids have filmed during their quest.

So... everything's filmed on 16 mm, with cameras held by the actors. First, they interview some people in the village next to the forest the Witch is supposed to be in. And then they go deep in the forest. Only to get lost.

So. There are NO effects. No monsters. No witches, or killings, or horrifying images. There are 2 handy cams, held by the actors, and nothing else.

Still, throughout the whole movie, your heart beats like crazy.

What makes this so scary? Maybe just the fact that it DOESN'T have effects. So it all looks real. Or the documentary-style. The noises in the night. Their discoveries. When they get lost, the forest looks haunting. And - honestly - whenever there was night, I kept hoping dawn will kick in soon.

This is an amazing movie. Vote: 10 out of 10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
the worst movie I have ever seen
1 December 2002
The first attempt of Romanians to make a movie about Dracula became a ridiculous joke. "Dracula the Impaler" is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. It all looks like a sick joke, a school project of a not-too-talented film student. Everything is wrong. The story - simply ridiculous and predictable. The dialog - absolutely pathetic, stupid and unrealistic. The characters - they all have one dimension and no kind of depth. Also they have a really annoying accent (the movie is in English, although all actors are Romanians). The fight scenes - pathetic, ridiculous, so bad they will make you laugh. The editing - simply awfull. The music - ughhh. There are some good songs, but nothing fits where it should. The acting - really really bad. If you don't believe me, go watch this movie. You will soon tell everyone you have just seen the worst movie of all times.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
eughhh
7 November 2002
This is one of the worst comedies I have ever seen. Except for some rare funny gags, it all fails, from all points of view. The story is simply ridiculous, even for kids looking for "magic", and most scenes are pathetic and not interesting at all. The lead actor - the one playing Eddie - is worse than Steven Seagal - and that's not easy to accomplish, but he succeeds brilliantly. Avoid this movie, it's a waste of your time. Vote: 2 out of 10.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Teaching cliches
22 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Teaching Mrs. Tingle is another teen thriller from the writer of Scream and The Faculty.

It has a good idea, okay characters, nice fast-paced action, interesting dialog and pretty good acting. It actually keeps you watching till the end.

But it has 2 huge bad points: the cliches and the plot holes.

Williamson, the one responsable for this film, wrote Scream, an amazing satire about teen horror movies, a film that actually makes fun of horror movie cliches just by using them. I am amazed that the same guy wrote this full of cliches movie. The same chick-running-up-the-stairs-when-followed-by-armed-enemy situations, the same love plot surrounding the main characters, the same scenes when, one after the other, the characters get the chance to sit alone with the tied-up Mrs. Tingle. And the same final confrontation between "good" and "bad" (although this movie doesn't make a big difference between good and bad).

(spoilers might come up) And then there are plot holes. Why did the love affair remain unfinished? Why didn't Mrs. Tingle press charges against the kids in the end? I mean for Heaven's sake, their fingerprints were all over the place... How did Mrs. Tingle do her normal humanly needs while she was tied up for many days? Why did the actress un-tied her in the first place? What did the sport teacher do after he woke up from being drunk? So many unaswered questions...

All in all, a poor movie just because Williamson didn't pay too much attention to the plot details. It could've been much better.

Vote: 5 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Almost Famous (2000)
9/10
Almost Perfect
19 October 2002
For starters, let me tell you that I am pretty much like the lead character in this film. I'm also a journalist, I'm friends with a famous rock band, hang out with them on tours, concerts, etc. So you can imagine what impact this movie had on me. I was amazed, I really felt throughout the movie that I'm William, the main character. It's an awesome feeling.

Almost Famous is a great movie, coming from a great director that already gave us Jerry Maguire, and who "exercised" his skills in creating love stories in a rock environment in his movie "Singles" (which features appearences from Eddie Vedder, Layne Staley and Jerry Cantrell).

This time, it's about a young reporter, hired by "Rolling Stone" to do a story about a growing rock band of the Seventies - a fictional band called Stillwater. He goes with them on tour, falls for a beautiful fan, and, of course, many other things happen as the plot develops.

Every aspect of this movie is created almost perfectly.

The screenplay, to begin with. It's a great story, that develops logically and beautifully, great characters, that you really get to care for. Sometimes touching, sometimes funny or even dramatic, it's a story that totally deserves its Academy Award.

Then the acting. The movie doesn't have any stars, and the lead character is a totally unknown young man. But they all do a great job.

And then there's the music. True perfection. The movie manages to surprise everything about rock'n'roll, from its greatness to its bad moments, through the eyes of a young music lover that grew up in a "No Environment". It's a pleasure to listen to all these great songs and bands that changed music forever.

I really can't describe the warmth and beauty of this movie. There's something about it that makes it so special. Maybe it's because this is, in many ways, the life story of director Cameron Crowe. Maybe that's the reason he wrote and directed this movie so carefully and with such a sensitivity.

All in all, Almost Famous is a movie I probably will never forget. If by any chance you missed it, you should do yourself a favor and rent it right now.

PS I don't understand how IMDB allowed a movie so appreciated, both by public and critics, to have such a lousy user comment on its first page. There are many reviews far better than that one.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Living It Up (2000)
5/10
mixed feelings
18 October 2002
I don't know what to say about this movie. In the end I was confused. There are so many very good moments, and yet so many very bad ones, that I don't even know if I liked it or not.

The idea is very good. A poor bus driver on the verge of killing himself is persuaded by another person to "postpone" his death for a week, borrow 100 million dollars from the Mob and live like the rich men. And after the week is up, when he'll have to pay back the loaned money, he can easily kill himself.

That's the concept. You have to admit, it's pretty damn interesting. But from this point everything changes.

Sometimes the characters are very interesting. Both the bus driver and his new love are okay, well built, you get to care from them a lot. They have strong life concepts, opinions about the rich and the poor, and they follow these concepts. But... Sometimes the characters change so much and so fast... it almost becomes awful. Both Lola and Martin are different from one scene to another. And if in Lola's case that's pretty understandable, after you "really" get to know who she is, in Martin's case it's just wrong.

Sometimes the action is great. Memorable scenes, funny moments, witty dialog. A great, pleasant watch. But... Sometimes the plot holes are bigger then Swiss cheese. There are moments where the characters choose exactly the worst option they have, just because they need to, to keep the plot moving forward. And one of the most interesting themes that could have been used is totally left out: the moments BEFORE Martin's time expires. The scenes could have been great, the tension could have been high. Still we jump exactly to 12:01, and I just felt a bit betrayed.

Sometimes the actors are great. The guy that plays Martin (which i have never seen before) is very good. Salma Hayek is at her best. They have some sort of weird chemistry between them and everything works fine. But... Sometimes the acting is almost pathetic. Take the "first kiss" scene, for instance. When Salma says "Not today". It was so ridiculously acted, that I actually started laughing out loud. And that's not the only moment.

All in all, La Gran Vida is an enjoyable movie. An enjoyable movie with pathetic, stupid moments. A great concept that could have been done so much better. Vote: 5 out of 10.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Train of Life (1998)
8/10
good movie
15 October 2002
This is a surprisingly good movie. Great idea, great cast, sometimes very funny. There are some really unreal scenes or ideas, that made me think they were used just to move the plot forward, but the ending destroys every disappointment I have had during the film. Still, the acting could have been better. Vote: 7.5 out of 10.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The In Crowd (2000)
3/10
weak...
2 October 2002
This is such a weak movie! It's intended as a thriller, but it fails miserably. Beside the point that you can find in this movie every cliche from the book, the acting is really bad and throughout 3 quarters of the film you have no idea what they want from you in the first place. Nothing special, just a waste of time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Space Cowboys (2000)
5/10
lacks something..... originality?
25 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
(might contain spoilers) Space Cowboys was a pleasant watch, but I couldn't get rid of the feeling that it lacks something. That something probably is originality. This movie is a funnier copy of Armaggedon. Almost same story - the Earth is in danger because something in space, and the protagonists have to save the day -, the same problems with the crew - in Armageddon Bruce Willis had nothing to do with NASA, here a bunch of old guys that never went in space, the same training issues, even the same ending - with the hero accomplishing his "super-objective". The only difference is that this is much funnier. Still its lack of originality makes it a lot weaker than it really is. Vote: 5 out of 10.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
hmmmm...
20 August 2002
I read some good reviews for this movie and I had big expectations. Unfortunately, Thick As Thieves offers nothing special. The story is simple and not original at all. Alec Baldwin is as inexpressive as ever. Vote: 5 out of 10.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
very good
8 August 2002
This is classic Woody Allen material. If you know his other movies, then you will not be surprised. If it's your first (although i don't think there's one human being who doesn't know Allen), then you just might have a small shock.

Husbands and Wives, just as much as the other Woody Allen films, follows the same recipe, and it works out perfectly. As usual, the strong point of his movies is definetely the dialogue, which is absolutely flawless. The scenes look very real, too real, some people might say, and they are sometimes filmed with handycams, which gives them much more energy. The characters are carefully built, interesting and strong. Taking these facts in consideration, Allen manages to create a very good movie from a simple, normal plot: marriages, divorces, love.

Vote: 8 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
this is not the exception....
6 August 2002
Sequels are never good movies. And MIB 2 is not the exception. When the producer/writer/director cares only about money, and how to make more of them, it can never end up good.

After the huge commercial success of the first part, i expected a sequel. But how can you make a good movie, when the most important part is missing, originality? And how can you make a good movie, when the only goal is to get as many people in theaters as possible?

MIB2 is just 90 mins of exageration. More aliens, more bugs, better special effects. Still the movie fails to deliver what fans expected. The gags are so much worse than on the first part, the plot is simply childish, and all you're left with after you leave the theater is the strange feeling in your mouth, that you have watched something weird. A movie with huge investments, talented actors, that is far inferior to most low-budget movies out there. Because, after all, movies are not all about special effects, but about story, plot, characters, actors etc. And MIB 2 suffers in all these categories.

Doesn't deserve more than 4 out of 10.

And i don't know why, but i have a feeling: MIB3 will be worse than this.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
amazing
29 July 2002
This is one of the greatest films i have ever seen. The story of Romeo and Juliet, set in the modern age, with guns, drugs and fast cars, but still maintaining the rhymes and texts of the initial Shakesperean story. Bazz Luhrmann's brave concept is surprisingly good. It doesn't fall in the mistakes made by most classic stories adapted to the modern age. Di Caprio and Danes are perfect together, the filming and editing is also better than in most movies nowadays. Luhrmann has created a masterpiece. Vote: 9.5 out of 10.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
bad
27 July 2002
The only reason i watched this movie is because i am a rocker and i was intrigued by the plot.

Indeed, the plot seems interesting. A metal concert will be broadcasted live on the internet, from the board of a plane. It all goes wrong when the singer of the band turns out to be a terrorist.

There are two good things about this movie: 1) the soundtrack - full of rock / metal tracks 2) the fact that it keeps you watching till the end. I don't even know why that happens, because the movie sucks, but i did not get bored at any point.

The rest is a big fiasco. The actors are not convincing at all. The script seems a left over from an amateur screenwriter, with plot holes bigger than the Pacific Ocean. The story is so predictable, you always know what's gonna happen next.

All in all, this is not a good movie. Why the hell do they bother to make so many sequels to a film that sucked from the first part??

I'm still waiting for the day when i'll be able to see an original, interesting, well done action plane movie.

Vote: 4 out of 10.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mind Games (1998 TV Movie)
3/10
Bad TV movie
24 July 2002
This is a really bad TV movie. A couple that seems perfect is hiding big secrets from each other. They are all revealed (the secrets) after they meet a psychotic psychologist... Imagine that!

Mind Games is a low budget, ordinary, un-interesting and predictable B-movie. The plot is so obvious from the beginning that you don't even have to use your brain to figure it out. There are no twist and turns, nothing interesting, just your ordinary stupid TV movie.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
very good
19 July 2002
It's been a long time since i had the chance to see a movie so complex and... different, like this one. It's a drama, a love story, a crime movie, with investigations, trials, lawyers and everything. Yet it's so different and so original. I have been impressed with almost everything. The atmosphere, the acting, the story. It's all very good. The only minus is that some scenes are way too slow. But that doesn't change too much. It's definetely worth watching. Vote: 8.5 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dead in a Heartbeat (2002 TV Movie)
7/10
surprisingly good for a TV movie
18 July 2002
I didn't have high expectations from this one. But i was wrong. Dead In A Heartbeat is a very good movie, considering it was made for tv only, with low budget and not too good actors.

The story is tempting, original and interesting. Yes, the script has some cliches, and yes, some lines are stupid, and yes, the actors do seem out of their place sometimes. But that doesn't change the overall feeling of a good movie. It's fast paced, original, well directed and well edited.

Vote: 7 out of 10.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
About a bad movie...
7 July 2002
This movie is bad. One of the worst romantic comedies i have seen lately. The plot is simple - a guy and a girl fall in love, move in together, start fighting, try to save their relationship. About Last Night doesn't bring anything new to the genre. Same predictable so-called comedy - believe me, there is nothing in this movie that comes even close to the word "funny", same stupid lines, and same bad acting. There are many scenes that just don't seem real. Many moments in which Zwick wants to get somewhere with the plot and just doesn't know how to do that. So come up some really bad scenes, that just don't work at all. And then there's the acting. Rob Lowe is not a great actor at all. His role is simple and still he doesn't seem believeble at all. And Demi Moore... she's alright throughout most of the film. Except when she cries and really tries to express some feelings. In those moments she is really bad.

All in all, this movie doesn't bring anything new. It's just a waste of two hours. Vote: 3 out of 10.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sleepers (1996)
8/10
great
6 July 2002
Great story about 4 kids in a correctional institute, beaten and raped by the guards. They all decide to revenge, years later.

The story is well written and keeps you watching from start to finish. The first part of the movie is the best. All actors manage to do an amazing job. I have never liked Barry Levinson more than after this film. Worth a watch.

Vote: 8 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
same old stuff
2 July 2002
This movie doesn't bring anything new. The same get-away after a failed robbery, the same police-and-mafia-follow-guys, the same undercover cop, the same ending scene with everyone shooting everyone. The good thing about it is that it has its moments. The dialogue is not bad at all, and the actors, especially Sutherland and Gallo, are very good. But add that to a strange deja-vu feeling you get throughout the whole movie and you got the picture. Doesn't deserve more than 5 out of 10.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed