davidking

The Metroid series began with this relatively small (the ROM is only 128 kBytes, or 1MBit), but well designed game. It has always been one of my favorite titles, and is one of the greatest influences in my personal efforts to create games of my own. From this title is one of my all time favorite tunes, the music used in Kraid's hideout. I highly recommend this game.

I would, personally, rank this game as my third favorite in the Metroid series, my favorite being Super Metroid and my second favorite being Metroid Prime; I don't like to rate different types of games against each other because they aren't really the same thing, are they?

I've read through the reviews, and I've noticed many of the comments generally support my view of Series 1-5, but a few fail my Series 6 view, and pretty much none support my Series 7 and 8 views. Series 6 changed the format of the program completely, putting the crew on the Starbug and making the plot a chase down on the dwarf, but while some of those who have commented claim this to be a weakness, I find it to be a strength, especially with the increased cooperation between Lister and Rimmer, despite the continued animosity between them.

Series 7 begins very strong, and while it does have a few weak points in the middle, I still find all of the episodes to be acceptable, and I found a number of hilarious jokes, especially after Rimmer leaves the crew. For example, Christine's response to Dave's "Definitive" comment, especially considering the way he is dressed, is a strong retort, and Kryten's response to his dinner preparation is a hoot. Series 8 is a little weaker than Series 7, but it still has awesome classics, like Cassandra, and Pete, and Rimmer's response to Death in the final episode is unquestioningly hilarious.

I love Red Dwarf. The program is witty and funny, and I would recommend all eight Series with 4 being the strongest and 8 the least in this respect, though still excellent. My favorite episode is "White Hole".

Doctor Who ran longer than an individual television series of its time, and only a few PBS series, such as Sesame Street, have ever rivaled it in this respect. In its twenty six seasons, a wonderfully broad range of tales were told, many of which were not classic Science Fiction.

A number of purely historical settings were used many times, such as the first story's focus on how man discovered fire. My personal favorite of this type was the Peter Davison episode "Black Orchid", set in early twenties England.

One of my all time favorite episodes was the Tom Baker story "Nightmare of Eden", where the Doctor and Romana solve a mystery on two space ships. Tom Baker is also my favorite of the seven doctors, although I wish he had spoken more legibly in some scenes. I loved his tendency to speak to the audience, as if he were on the set of a stage rather than in the middle of a film.

Colin Baker, while somewhat tactless, still represented the role of the Doctor superbly, maintaining the characteristics that the Doctor represented.

Sylvester McCoy, my favorite after Tom Baker, added a personality that truly made the Doctor come to life in a way he had never accomplished before. He also stared with my favorite of the Doctor's companions, Ace, who showed great courage and still found time to be witty.

I could continue with many more comments, but I would like to end with this: Doctor Who had a fascinating concept that has enlivened my imagination. It's format allowed for many ideas, such as how the Tardis is really laid out, to be thought on while telling excellent stories with limited resources.

I watched this movie (the MST3K version), or rather I ignored most it; I was busy working on my computer at the time, and this really wasn't worth interrupting that for; I did catch most of the jokes provided by Mike, Tom Servo, and Crow. As many previous critics on this page have mentioned, this film has a great deal of short comings, from a lack of acting, to a lame, bone headed story.

I would say, however, that it had one redeaming feature the film Mitchell, which I gave a lower rating to, lacked; a plot. Although I paid little attention to the movie, I did notice that something happened during the film, and it did point towards, and reach, an ultimate conclusion; although little of the film, from the beginning to the end, was actually worth paying attention to.

This is one of the most non-sensical movies of all time. I greatly enjoyed the film from its opening credits to the really absurd anti-climatic ending. The movie is so enjoyable I have found great pleasure in memorizing lines from the film.

I think the best sequence in the film is most certainly "The Tale of Sir Launcelot", a scene which has absolutely nothing to do with the story, but has dialog that brings some of the best laughs. Another real favorite is the "Bridge of Death", a scene I have almost memorized in its entirety.

Other highlights in the film, in my opinion, include the opening scene, "Bring out your Dead", "The Black Knight", the witch scene, "Camalot", "The Tale of Sir Robin", "The Tale of Sir Galahad", "Tim the Enchanter", "The Killer Rabbit", and the animator's fatal heart attack ("Death on an Animator"?). Still, I won't say the rest of the film is less enjoyable, just a little less memorable than the rest.

The best thing about the film is learning about how bad some of the filming conditions were, or how difficult a time the Monty Python troupe had in making it. The actors really had a difficult time in making the movie, and yet they still gave their best effort to make the film humorous. Like always, the film was a group effort, with each of the actors giving their all. This film is truly a classic.

I have enjoyed Spaceballs for many years since the first time I saw it. It made fun specifically of Star Wars, but also added comic lampoons of other science fiction/fantasy films. There are jokes that stem from Star Trek, the Wizard of Oz, and almost certainly many other classic films, I just can't think of any at the moment.

How many films have successfully mixed the genre's of science fiction and comedy so successfully? There are certainly well done films, such as Ghostbusters and Men in Black. Spaceballs certainly deserves a place within these ranks; a place I personally have given it.

There are also no other full length films I can think of which have sought to lampoon Star Wars, if there are any, I can't think of, or I am not aware of them. Although I won't say there aren't other good jokes on Star Wars, I think Space Balls is the all time best.

There is only one reason to see this film, to sit back, relax, and laugh yourself to death for an hour and a half [and one minute]. I have to say I've seen it the full way through twice, and I completely enjoyed it both times. There may be some who will criticize the film for its lack of plot, or its overly simplistic story, or its incredibly cheesy special effects, but I think they miss the point.

I loved Strange Brew because it gave me a chance to reset myself and just relax. There was no need to think about what is happening because the comedy was perfect for the vacant mind, and I need the rare occasion to let my mind go blank; it's the only time it truly gets a break. The unfortunate thing is too many other stupid guy movies have failed to give me the same satisfaction.

Ghostbusters II was not quite as good as the first, but I would still recommend it to friends. While I felt the second film lacked the first's sense of desperation, the cast still did a good job at doing everything necessary to make it good.

Again, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Annie Potts, Rick Moranis, and Ernie Hudson were great in their roles. I would say the comments I made about them for Ghostbusters reflects my opinion of their roles in Ghostbusters II.

My major complaint about Ghostbusters II, as I've mentioned before, was the lack of desperation the first film had. The villain didn't induce the same sense of terror Gozer did, and the final battle between the Ghostbusters and Vigo wasn't as spectacular.

Still, despite its failures, it was still a much better film than most others in the Comedy/Special Effects genre. It was still a great deal of fun to watch and excellently done.

Ghostbusters introduced a new way of making comedy films that few films since have properly duplicated; the art of mixing special effects with humor. Even the horrible special effects work, simply because the film uses them so effectively.

Bill Murray was the best choice for Peter Venkman, a person whose easy to dislike, but impossible to hate. Bill made Peter work, and made the romance between Peter and Dana Barrett believable.

Dan Aykroyd, who also co wrote the film, also made Ray Stantz work excellently, a man no one could hate, no matter how stupid he acted. I loved his speeches, which made the circumstances he was in funny and enjoyable.

Sigourney Weaver also made Dana Barrett a fun character who made her place in the movie by being sensible, not deliberately funny. The non-sense of Zuul, which she also played perfectly, also turned out to be great fun.

Harold Ramis, Dan's co-writer, gave Egon Spengler a great part as well. It was entertaining to see him serve as the straight man while everyone else were making so many jokes, yet still remain one of the funniest characters in the film.

Annie Potts receptionist/secretary also made the film fun; her perfect New York accent and her attitude made the part fun to watch.

Rick Moranis also made his role fun to watch; I have to respect an intelligent man who can play a moronic character so well, and Rick's character did great in the role.

And to ignore the great parts William Ackerman and Ernie Hudson gave to the film would be a great act of injustice; Ackerman was easy to hate, and willing to play the fool, to an extent, while Ernie did a wonderful job as the fourth Ghostbuster, giving some of his best lines in the film during the battle against Gozer.

I wish more films would take the example from Ghostbusters; the use of personality and good acting is far more important in a film than special effects, but special effects, when used properly, make a film excellent.

In the recent past, I've seen the honorable genre of comedy twisted into a despicable excuse for terrible, sex-filled sludge. Galaxy Quest is an immense relief to that image; if only it weren't a well kept flower in a junk yard of crap. I've seen many films I liked better, but far more I hated more.

The first thing I noticed was how well Tim Allen molded himself into his role. I like his humor, though I can appreciate the opinions of those who don't, and I thought he worked well in the film. Sigourney Weaver, who has also been an eye-pleaser to me, performed excellently as well; I love her response to the criticism she received for doing her job. I would like to note that I also have high opinion of all the other actors in the film, I just don't like to write long reviews.

Few films I've seen in the last few years seem to use Special Effects as an excuse for not having a plot or a story. Despite having seen several other critics on this site whine about their lack, I found the movie had a well thought out story and a sensible, believable plot. I didn't laugh continuously, but I enjoyed the entire film.

I watched this film hoping to see something along the lines of Batman

Forever or the 1989 Batman film. I left the theater very disappointed!

This film totally miss cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze,

although they stayed true to the comic book character. The same cannot

be said of either Poison Ivy or Bane. Arnold did as good as he could

with his role, as did Uma Thurman and Jeep Swenson, but they weren't

given the material they needed to accomplish the tasks.

I wasn't impressed with the selection of George Clooney as Batman, but I

wasn't disappointed with his portrayal of the role, he did good. I will

say the same thing about Chris O'Donnell in his reprisal as Robin, and I

thought Alicia Silverstone was the perfect person to cast as Batgirl.

Why didn't they stay with the comic books for her character?

I felt great disappointment in seeing Thurman and Silverstone completely

wasted in their roles. They really weren't allowed to do much of

anything except look pretty. I've seen Thurman in other films, and she

shows she can be both intelligent and witty, and Silverstone can also be

as well. Why didn't they give these brilliant women more to do?

Batman & Robin had a dismal 'I feel your pain' theme, and was done in a

time when such themes were popular, but overdone. If there ever is

another Batman film, I hope the directors, producers, and writers review

this film first so they don't make the same mistakes.

Batman Forever's first spoken exchange is a hilarious joke, and the film

fails to disappoint on the humor end afterward. A cast of people with

great skill in being funny does Batman Forever a great service in my

opinion. I loved Jim Carey's Riddler, although I've seen few other

films I enjoyed him in, and Tommy Lee Jones was a great pick for

Two-Face.

The other big thing I liked about Batman Forever was the way the

chemistry worked between the Batman and Robin. I appreciated the way

they introduced Dick Grayson, remaining somewhat true to the comic book

series, and the way the two actors worked together was admirable.

I had a lot of fun watching Batman Forever, it included great comic

relief to break the tension in the most frightening moments. I wouldn't

say it is a great conversion from comics to film, but it was not bad

either.

I like Danny DeVito. I've seen him act before and I was impressed. I

liked Danny DeVito's rendition of the Penguin, well portrayed like the

comic book villain, but I can't say as much for the film.

Batman Returns introduces the Penguin as a pitiable child abandoned by

his parents and raised by penguins, but I really can't figure out how

exactly that relates to the rest of the film, even with the reference to

it later on. Why would a person so rejected be so eagerly welcomed by

the films only non-super villain?

The catwoman side story also failed to make much sense, or inspire me.

The Selina Kyle of the comic books is more of a semi-renegade thief with

a heart, but that doesn't explain why she would fall for the Batman. I

can understand her appreciation for the cat, but the character wasn't

explained as well as I thought it could be.

I'll admit it has been a while since I saw Batman Returns, but I didn't

like it much then, and I doubt a second viewing would significantly

change that opinion. The first Batman had plenty of jokes to keep the

mood somewhat light, Batman Returns lacked that sense of humor.

I've seen all four 1990's big-budget Batman films (I include Batman in

this description despite its 1989 release date) and I have little bad to

say about the film. Jack Nicholson, while not one of my favorite

actors, did an excellent job at portraying the Joker, not my favorite

Batman villain, seems he was born into the role. I especially liked his

comments about Batman's "toys".

The rest of the cast also played out their various roles with good

taste, leaving little to be said against the film. I liked Batman

Forever better, but Batman is still a good, though not excellent,

example of making a comic book into a film. My only real question is

why the villain got top billing.

I hadn't seen Gattaca when it was showing, I rented it a few years

later, but I have to admit, it was much better than the trailers

indicated it would be. The best moment, for me, was at the end of the

film. It again reminds me that sometimes, first appearances aren't

everything, and I definately made a major misjudgement in this respect;

just something more I should think about.

Overall, I think the film did an admirable job at pointing out the evils

of segregation, putting them in a format I think people can better

relate to. The characters made a real point for individuality, and I

felt good for having spent a few hours watching this film.

The movie Charade is unique, in that it seems to flawlessly blend the

genres of the Mystery of who killed Charles Lampert and his associates,

the Romance between Regina Lampert and the elusive 'Peter Joshua', the

Suspense Regina experiences trying to figure out what's going on and

avoid getting killed, and the ever present comedy, like the way each of

the victims is killed, and that all of them, except Tex, are found in

their pajamas by the police.

Cary Grant, like usual, does an excellent job of portraying his

character without dominating the screen, allowing Audrey Hepburn proper

exposure when they're together; she, of course, returns the favor

spectacularly. The other primary actors also give their best, and help

make the film a pleasant (or frightening, depending on your point of

view) experience for the audience. Walter Matthau is also great, goofy

enough to lead you on until you discover who he really is. Jacques

Marin is also wonderful as the film's police detective, able to rant and

rave about the various complications of the plot without spoiling the

movie, or compromising its intent.

Overall, I think this is certainly one of Cary Grant's best films, and

after viewing it on DVD for the first time, and reviewing it again with

the audio commentary, I learned more about the film's creation, and

enjoyed it more. Overall, I've seen Charade at least six times, and

have thoroughly enjoyed it.

I think Weird Al should rerelease this on video and DVD. This film, particularly the opening sequence, is classic Al, and is so funny, I have really enjoyed it every time I've seen it. Michael Richard's Stanley is a hoot. I loved his role as an inept, but loveable janitor, who is so interested in playing his janitor, he wants to stay on even after he receives his starring role. The best part of the film, in my opinion, is the end when Kevin McCarthy's R. J. Fletcher loses his network licence after losing U62, then he gets kneed "right where it counts" by an offended granny. If Weird Al doesn't rerelease this film, he should at least make another of the same quality. Don't forget to look for Dr. Demento's cameo role, which is fine closure.

I bought this film on DVD so I could get an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Thankfully, Mike, Crow, and Tom Servo are watchable, because the film itself is not. Although there is a plot, a story one can follow, and a few actors that can act, there isn't anything else. The movie was so boring, I have firmly confirmed that I will never watch it again without Tom, Crow and Mike. As summarized above, however, it was better than the film featured in the MST3K episode that preceded it; Mitchell.

I truly enjoyed Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi. I thought it was excellently done, and better than either episodes IV or V (and after seeing Episode 1, I still think VI is the best). Although the story's beginning is in Empire Strikes Back, I felt the characters were well introduced, and the plot well constructed. My only disappointment were the ewoks, as they were too teddy-bear like, and seemed to detract from the film's overall serious nature. The story would have done better making the natives of Endor Moon more fearsome and less cuddly. The highlight of the film, to me, was the battle between Luke and Vader, and the subsequent battle between Luke, Vader and the Emperor. The setting of the situation, in both the original and the Special Edition, gave me a feeling of satisfaction, and properly influenced a sense of tension, as I fell all good films should do (I still think the Star Wars IV Special Edition Death Star explosion was tops). Overall, George Lucas pieced together an excellent film, and I wish he'd used some of the concepts utilized in Return of the Jedi in Phantom Menace. Additionally, I would say all four Star Wars movies are well worth watching!

Mitchell was such worthless crap, I am thankful I saw it on Mystery Science Theater 3000, where Joel, Tom Servo, and Crow's comments made the movie watchable. I have seen very few movies without a plot, and this was one of them. A movie without a story, a concept, or an idea seems to have become a common symptom in the movie industry today, and I feel we could, at least in part, blame these on Mitchell. The characters were one dimentional (if that), and the action sequences were extremely predictable and boring. Mitchell was a worthless movie, and the producers paid too much for its production. Definately worth having been placed on the worst movies list of all time!