Perhaps one of the worst teenage slasher films I ever did see. I'll start with the bad points of t he movie, which pretty much covers the entire film. First of all, something no one can avoid: TERRIBLE ACTING. I swear they picked up some random kids off the street based on how they looked. Secondly, BAD/UNCONVINCING CHARACTER WORK/DEVELOPMENT. You hardly even know half the kids who are killed in here. All you figure is that they deserved it one way or another. The scarecrow's character was overdone, and a cheap rip-off of the other great fantasy killers such as Freddy or Pinhead. Next: BAD DIALOG: The Scarecrow was full of horrid one-liners that would make you laugh, only because it was so terrible. Lines like "Let's go find some small animals to torture!" really just leaves you with an eyebrow raised. Last but not least: Next off: BAD CASTING. How old was the guy who played Lester? Like 30? The back of his head was balding for God's sake. There is much more I could say about this film, like it's cheap special effects, it's "high school film class" effort, but the point is understood. It's just bad film making at it's worst. As for what I found to be "good" in the movie: -Entertaining for those with low, low, LOW standards -Would help put insomniacs to sleep. -A very cheap laugh, or even a giggle.
I see all these people grudging against this movie, and it's well undeserved. I am into all kinds of comedy, especially silly ones such as this. What some seem to forget is that this movie was made to appeal more to KIDS around the age group of 12 or so. I do admit however that some of the comedy was predictable, yet some of it was clever enough to make me laugh. I do acclaim Steve Martin for his performance in this one, his accent was simply hilarious! I also enjoyed the wonderful Pink Panther remixes; they kept the film to a modern feel. This film is in the spirit of a Leslie Nielsen movie, so if you enjoy him, you'll enjoy Steve Martin.
To kick off, this film sucks! Call me immature, but it's true. I don't blame the actors, I blame the script. The whole gory shtick did nothing to add to the film. The whole movie is just a waste of talent and viewer time really. Julian Sands is great actor; unfortunately he will have to add this horror of a movie to his resume. I started to see the film's decline in the scene when Christine and the Phantom meet for the first time. The whole meeting was just...stupid. Basically, it was just him revealing that he can read her mind and communicate with her the same way. The fact that Christine fell in love with him because of this just made her seem like a weak-minded bimbo. This movie was so unrealistic and cheap, I had to watch Andrew Lloyd Webber's version TWICE just to rid the feeling of disappointment. I hear reviews saying that the movie wasn't as bad as what others might think. True -- IT'S WORSE. To anyone who even considered renting this pretense of an attempt to a good remake: Don't waste your money or your life on it. Stick to the Andrew Lloyd Webber or the original 1925 version.
I was astounded after watching this short film. It's one of the few shorts were you can't help but get emotionally involved with the characters and everything they go through. Gerard Butler was awesome as always, he gave it his all in this performance, despite it only being 15 minuets long, only making the film more gripping to the viewer. The story is about a novelist past the brink of desperation after his wife and daughter walked out on him. A gun and thoughts of suicide are the shadows that stalk him throughout the film leading to a very dramatic and twisted ending. It's very worth watching and I hope it ends up on DVD someday.
Oh how I miss this show terribly. Freakazoid! was the absolute best show on the Cartoon Network around that time. The brand of comedy found in the series was probably the first of it's kind which only makes it hard to ever forget. Each episode was packed with sarcastic humor and hilarious parodies of celebrities and various pop culture as well as physical humor, making it enjoyable for older folks as well as younger ones. Every character is hilarious, from the leads to the announcer. To top it all, the voice acting wasn't bad either. Paul Rugg played a spectacular Freakazoid. I honesty believe Cartoon Network was crazy to have let a show like this slip. The series was only twenty-six episodes long, hardly enough if you ask me. It's shows like this that make me appreciate shows like Family Guy or Futurama. My point is that if they can give crap shows like LAX a second chance, (even after bad ratings) why not a great one like Freakazoid!?
I am a huge fan of the original King Kong but seeing the recent re-make only made me a bigger Peter Jackson fan. Much like what Jackson did in Lord of the Rings, King Kong was touching, and passionate, funny, action based and had Andy Serkis. What really struck me was the amazing detail put on the ape itself. Throughout the movie, you tend to relate and sympathize with Kong and develop an understanding of what he feels. You find that he was lonely and seeing companionship. Another thing that really got me excited was the amazing fighting scenes with Kong and the other island creatures. The detail and fierceness was breathtaking. The whole movie played out wonderfully with a few exceptions: For example, when only bits and previews of King Kong were being shown, I was confused at Jackson's choice of casting Jack Black, and I'm still confused. I admit, Black did have his moments both dramatically and comically, and you can tell he sure as hell tried to make the whole process look good, but I still felt that there was a better choice for the role of Carl Denham. Another thing I have against the movie was how it tends to drag mostly throughout the whole time in the jungle. There were just some things that didn't need to be there but were for the sake of visual achievement, which in a way make up for it. This movie is worth watching and is sure it be a hit on DVD sales. I give it a 8/10
This aside from Edward Scissorhands this is my favorite Tim Burton film. I first thought that Burton was trying to remake the classic 1970's version of Willy Wonka and the Chocoalte Factory. I soon discovered that the movie was far from a remake. Butron made Willy Wonka totally something of his own! The movie itself was visually stunning as was the special effects. As for the Oompa Loompas, I thought it would be the only downfall since it was played by one guy. However, as the movie went on and as you see the Oompa Loompas more and more, you eventually accept it. The songs sung by the Oopma Loompas were modern as well as great, proving just how incredible Danny Elfman is as a composer. Something I loved about the film was how Burton added a back story for Willy Wonka which explains more on why he acted in his strange manner through constant flashbacks. It showed his deprived childhood, how he came to the idea of his own strange chocolate making, and how he came across the Oompa Lompas. Another thing I loved was how that not only did the children learn a lesson, Willy himself also learned a lesson towards the end of the movie. This I found to be a twist. I couldn't help but to compare and make predictions based on the original. This movie is certainly worth watching with the family, it has no swearing or violence, which I found to be a surprise. I give it a perfect 10.
I was thrilled to finally watching this after watching the amazing original. Anothny Hopkins was incredible in the first one, as was Jodie Foster. As for this this one, you can tell Anthony Hopkins didn't put that much of an effort into playing Hannible Lecter as he did in the first one. In the original, Hopkins tried to resist blinking while talking to make Hannible more creepier. Little things like that just make the character more believable. Julianne Moore didn't play as good of a Clairice Starling as Foster, but she held up for herself. As for the whole movie, it's just a shame that it couldn't have been done by John Demme. One particularly thing I loved most about what him was what he did with the camera in first one. I loved how he did extreme close ups on Lecter, while you as the viewer have feeling to back away. This one just was not as thrilling as the original, it was more weird, really. Although, I do credit the dinner table scene. Overall, this movie is still worth watching if you're a fan of the original. 7/10
I am a huge fan of the 1950's original of the Twilight Zone. I heard from a few that if I loved the original, I should love the new updated version. I hated it! There were many things I found about it to just be a mock version of the beloved original. A few of those things are for one thing, the host is no Rod Serling. He doesn't have the same ominous presence as Rob Serling had. Another thing is that the new version has lost all the moral and originality that the 1950's original had. It focuses more on just mainly being bazaar. The original was bazaar but would still have moral entwined to the story. Twilight Zone is just one of the few series that should not and never be tampered with. The 2002 Twilight Zone is just a remake that should have never happened. It was probably the best choice for everyone (including the actors) for it to just be knocked off air.
This is probably one of the cheesiest but entertaining movies I've seen. The story is screwed up in so many ways and the acting and the dialog are kind of messy. However, the special effects still keep you entertained. Okay, the whole logic of the film is screwed up. Somehow, one of the lead characters Van Zan comes up with all these theory's of dragon extermination. He discovers that there is only one male dragon, and that it resides in London. He came up with this strange way of dragon catching which involves using a sky diving team to be used as human bait, which brings out the question of how they practice that kind of thing. Finally, at the end of the film when the male dragon is dead, all of the female dragons suddenly stop attacking? Did they go into depression because their gigolo is gone? All of these things go unexplained and that's just one of the things that gets to me about this film. If it weren't for the special effects, I would have given this film a much lower rating. but for now it gets a 4/10.
I have been a fan of Nielsen's since I first saw Spy Hard when I was still a kid. Leslie Nielsen was perfect to play this role simply because he has the presence of a dramatic actor only making his actions funnier. Nielsen is perhaps one of the funniest comedic actors around, though his movies like this are criticized as though they were supposed to be some Oscar Nomminated hit or something. What those "drama critics" don't seem to understand is that all his comedy movies are PARODIES of dramatic movies. They're not supposed to be taken seriously. Niesen movies like this are just for a few yuks and laughs. I have always loved random comedy movies like this, therefore, I love this movie.
Let me start out by saying that I'm the type of person who is open to all kinds of comedy, whether it's dumb or smart, that's just me. Though I'll admit, this movie was the kind of dumb comedy that my 8 year old brother would laugh hysterically at simply because of the physical humor. My parents however did not enjoy it as much. As for me, I found the movie to be funny despite what others may say. I found it be a clever dumb comedy, like watching a Leslie Nelson movie, things like that I enjoy. So, if you're the type of person who enjoys this type of movie, go ahead and enjoy it. If you're the person who would rather watch a comedy like "American Splendor" good for you. In short, this movie would only be considered funny, or even good, depending on the type of person you are.
I have been looking forward to finally being able to watch this film simply because my favorite actor, Will Ferrell, is finally doing his first romantic comedy. The movie itself wasn't as bad as everyone said it was in my opinion. The first half, I admit was a bit slow, but it became enjoyable. I'll admit that Ferrell and Kidman don't have the best chemistry, but I found it to still somehow work between them. The casting was somewhat perfect, I found that no one else except Nicole Kidman could have played the Samantha look a-like, (although her accent would sometimes slip) Michael Cain was perfect for the role of Nicole's father, he had a very "stern father" presence, though later in the movie you find out otherwise. Ferrell tried to make the best out of his part, I found he had some strong points as well as weak ones, and that Jason Schwartzman wasn't that much of a sleazy manager as he was set up to be. Over all, it was still a very cute movie worth watching if you're either a big Ferrell fan or if you're bored and looking for a few laughs.
A wonderful film, despite what some may say about the Phantom
I had no intention in watching this movie at first, I was never really big into musicals and I knew no one in the cast. I decided to give the movie a chance, expecting nothing to spark my interest. As I sat there watching it, I fell in love. This is one of the best movies I've seen this year! Emmy Rossum was a great discovery, born to play Christine. And Gerard Butler, what can I say about him? He was incredible! I heard from a few people that he was the only downfall in the movie...WRONG! He was perfect to play Sir Andrew Lloyd's Phantom for many reasons that I found. For one thing, Webber and Schumacher wanted someone who would portray that the Phantom was still a man at the end of the day, which Gerard portrayed perfectly. Another thing is that they wanted a Phantom who wasn't grotesquely hideous, but still showed the beauty of who the Phantom really was...which Gerard did perfectly! Some disagreed about Gerard's singing skills, since he only started singing around pre-production of the movie. I disagree. Webber said he wanted a "rock and roll" tone for the voice of the Phantom, which Gerard naturally had in his voice. I believe that what Schumacher and Webber tried to achieve in this was to make Phantom of the Opera something of their own, which they did. Sure, it doesn't hold up all of the same traditions of the original Phantom of the Opera, but isn't that the point of all remakes? To make a certain movie somewhat of your own? Despite what others may say about this movie, I give a perfect 10/10.
One of the better comedy shows Comedy Central came out with
I'll admit that I wasn't expecting much when I first heard about this strange show, after all, the ads for it didn't really explain much about the show except that it was supposed to be hilarious, but who would buy into that just because they said so? I later found out that by doing this it would only make the show better. I first thought that this would be another flop that Comedy Central would come out with in an attempt to boost ratings since Chappell left. I decided to watch it that night out of total curiosity and after hearing how funny it was. It was incredible. It's one of the few funniest shows to come out this year. Its random based humor was perfect. It was definitely one of the better half hours of my life sitting in front of a television. I truly hope that this is one of the few shows to stay a while on Comedy Central.
I'll admit, The only reason I even would watch a movie like this was because of Gerard Butler. I didn't expect much of this a movie like this, the whole time traveling concept, I found it to be too predictable like every other time traveling movie where the main characters future lies in the past. However, as I watched it, I found it to be quite enjoyable. The acting wasn't that bad, the effects were okay, and the ending was nice. However, like I said before, the twists in the story were too predictable for my taste. I figure that the rating of this movie depends on what the viewer is in to. But for me, I would have to give it a 5 out of 10.