:: LEAST I COULD DO FORUM :: > The Review Thread

:: LEAST I COULD DO FORUM :: > The Interests > Movies

Pages: 1, 2, 3

Gi@nT

Jan 5 2006, 05:50 PM

So, a while ago I asked you folks what you'd like to see 'round these parts. One suggestion - courtesy of the lovely Katiz I believe - was for a premade review template allowing everyone to easily review films they have seen.

Well I've decided to take that one step further and create a Review Thread! Now obviously some films generate enough interest that they already have a thread directly solely for that discretion, and as such reviews for such film would go in their already appointed threads. This thread, however is for all those films that you still got out to the theatre or video store to see/rent, but didn't quite make it into our discussions here. With that in mind, what I'm hoping is that this thread will turn into a sort of database where one can browse through for suggestions on what to rent on a rainy/snowy/nothing-else-to-do type of night.

To get us started here is the template that I will follow for my reviews (I'll fire off a review sometime tomorrow afternoon when classes get out). It's as simple as possible and designed to be used by any and all who like it, but if you've got another way of discussing films than by all means have at 'er!

(Title of Film)
Make it big and bold for easier browsing.

The Good
What did you like about the film? What made this a good film? What parts of the film particularly impressed you?

The Bad
What parts of the film weren't so great and effect did these elements have on the overall film? Basically the opposite of the above category.

The Bottom Line
Given the good and bad points how did you feel about the film? Who would you recommend it too and why?

[Rating (out of 5 - explained below)]
Again, make it big for the browsers. To give these reviews some unity to the other forums on this board (i.e. Illusionist's book reviews) we'll make this out of five smiles. (Note: The board has a restriction on the number of Smileys allowed, so I've used numbers - hopefully this will be clearer with my review).

5

> An excellently, phenominal film. Only minor issues if any at all. One that everyone should see.

4

> Still a great film, but maybe not as widely appealing. One that any fan of the actor/actress/writer/director/genre should see, but possible not for everyone.

3

> Not a bad film, but now outside of the realm of greatness. May have one or two major issues that start to detract from the experience of the film. Good for a rental if nothing else is in.

2

> Issues begin to detract seriously from the film's quality and experience. Only the most die hard fans of the actor/actress/writer/director/genre should see this one.

1

WTF? Who green lighted this one? Major, major issues and errors. Avoid it like the plague.

Gi@nT

Jan 10 2006, 12:34 AM

Alright, a little late, but I thought I'd wait and actually find a decent film to review as my first post in this thread. So to get the ball rolling, we've got what is one of the best films I've seen in a long while, maybe ever.

Cinderella Man

The Good
First, I have to admit that when the inspiration for the script is the life of arguably one of the best athletes of the last century it's hard to go wrong. However, this film goes far above and beyond and is an incredible testament not only to the lives of James J. Braddock and his friends and family, but to the hardships faced by those who were alive during the great depression.

To the film...where do I start, it was all fantastic. Russel Crowe once again has proven why he is a worthy of so many Oscar nods - I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't get one for this film. To be perfectly honest, if I hadn't heard the film stars Crowe, I may not have recognised him at first. His manerisms, his accent, his movements, even his body (he reportedly lost 50 pounds or so) are all dead on. Moreover, it's like all those who he's acting with know it. The supporting cast (The movie is about Braddock) definately steps it up in a big way. Like Crowe, Giamatti is at the top of his game and Zellweger, who I'm usually not a fan of, is better than I've ever seen her. To reiterate though, Crowe does some of the best acting of his career right here, which is saying a lot.

Beyond the acting, the film excells in its use of a relatively simple plot. For the length of the film there are relatively few characters, and while there are a few different scenes, the whole film stays simple and relatively centred, which brings a lot of unity and heart to the film.

Lastly, while the film is set in the '20s and '30s and remains true to that period, during the boxing matches there are a few contemporary effects. For instance, when Braddock breaks a wrist, there's a brief shot of an X-Ray of the wrist to ensure that everyone knows what happens. It's used sparsley, but to good effect.

The Bad
Outside of my qualms about Zellweger - though she does well - the film has no real faults. My fiance tells me she would have liked to see Russel naked once or twice, but maybe that's for another time (hopefully never....)

The Bottom Line
A truly exceptional film. Its poor performance at the theatre is no reflection on the film itself.

Rating

- Definately one everyone should see.

Prodigal7512

Jan 10 2006, 01:30 AM

Sky High

The Good
Very entertaining look at how people learn from, and mis-learn their powers. Great back and forth with most of the characters. Great cameos from some cult figures (As the teachers). Much more entertaining than it should have any right being, especially for a Disney kid's film.

The Bad
Kind of devolves into a teen love triangle towards the later half of the movie.

The Bottom Line
I would recommend this if you have a liking for superhero movies, or want a film that doesn't require you to think too deeply.

4 Smilies!

Gi@nT

Jan 10 2006, 02:06 AM

QUOTE(Prodigal7512 @ Jan 9 2006, 11:30 PM)

The Bottom Line
I would recommend this if you have a liking for superhero movies, or want a film that doesn't require you to think too deeply.

4 Smilies!

Might just have to check that one out.... Many thanks for the review Prodi!

And so everyone knows, feel free to comment on the reviews!

DarkShinigami4711

Jan 10 2006, 05:47 PM

OK, I actualy went to see this one today, and it seems right that someone puts up a review having actualy seen the movie. SPOILERS TO FOLLOW. BE WARNED!

BloodRayne

The Good
I can see two groups of people really liking this movie. Group one dosn't care about the game and just wants an absolute gore-fest. They will get it in spades. There is more blood in this movie than you can imagine. Every few minutes, something dies or there is a flashback to someone else dying. There are a few exceptions, one of which ties in with group 2.

The second group who will like this are the people who just want to watch a nearly-naked "dhampire" running arround in tight leather pants. Hell, they threw in a sex scene for ya. Beyond that, there's not much to the film.
Which brings us to:

The Bad
If you liked the game, you'll likely hate the movie. Leave your brain at the door or it'll explode. Let's break this into points:

*In the game, Rayne is fighting Nazis, Zombies, Nazi Zombies, and the occasional vampire. In the movie, it's set back in Medieval times, with Rayne fighting Vampires and the humans the vampires have bound to them.
--At this point, I'm thinking "Oh, it's Rayne's backstory." No. No it isn't.

*In the game, Rayne has to stop the Nazi's from collecting the various pieces of Belair, a demon. In the movie, she has to stop the most powerful vampire from gathering the bits of Belair, an insanely powerful vampire who was destroyed and cut to bits.
--"So... It's a new take on the old story? " Again, no.

*In BloodRayne 2, Rayne mentions having killed her father between the first and second games. In the movie, the most power vampire IS her father, and yes, she kills him.
--"Wait... So it's set before the game, but with the same elements as in the game, but part of it bridges the gap between the two games?" *Brain goes pop*

A few other, minor points:

*Rayne starts off as a sort of Damsil in Distress. What the hell? No. That's just wrong.
*There aren't really any plot holes in the movie (if you ignore the game), but occasionaly it feels like you hit the "scene skip" button on your remote.

The Ugly
The effects in this were minimal at best. The CGI on the fangs left something to be desired (fangs were occasionaly a very bright white, but teeth were somewhat yellowed), as did the CGI on the vampires faces. But the real ugly of the movie is the disfigured friar (or whatever he was) guarding Belair's eye. He looked like somone cut the head off of Dogma's rubber poop monster and painted Sloth from The Goonies face onto it. Just bad.

The Bottom Line
If you want to see a slaughterfest, it's decent. Good, even. I'd still wait for DVD on it though. If you want nekked vampire chicks, there are other options. Google can help, I'm sure. If you want a movie true to it's legacy... Well, at least it's not Catwoman.

Rating

2 Smilies. It's not horrid, but turn off your brain first.

someguy

Jan 11 2006, 01:05 AM

QUOTE

Zellweger, who I'm usually not a fan of

Squinting! Always squinting! She never stops.... squinting....

ARGH!!

edit: Wow, that was a totally pointless post... gimme a minute to think of something to add value to this...

Actually, I'll post my thoughts about Prod's review. When I saw a preview, I thought "Hey, that looks interesting" and then "oh dear God, what am I thinking?" and was thoroughly embarrased at my lapse in logic and judgement. I'm surprised at your review, and now I don't feel so bad about considering watching it for a second

Katiz

Jan 17 2006, 03:15 PM

I actually saw this last week, but I thought it deservered a review.

The Producers

The Good
Very good, classic, Mel Brooks comedy. Yes, it is sometimes over the top. But this is the father of the original fart joke on film. You will not find refined or highly intellegent humor. But you'll still be laughing. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are very comfortable in their roles. However, it is the secondary cast that really shines in this movie. Will Ferrel absolutely steals his scenes and is the perfect part for the role. Even his accent is funny. And Uma Thermon... I never thought she's be able to pull comedy off so naturally.

The music was classic Mel Brooks. Don't go for soaring orchestrial themes, but listen to the lyrics. That's where the best comedy is.

The Bad
Horribly offensive in a funny way. Don't go if you take stereotypes seriously. Also, it takes you a good 15 minutes to get into the movie. At first it seems too much like a musical. The actors ham it up like in classic musicals, the set pieces are treated as they are in musicals, and the humor is initially almost entirely slapstick. The first 15 minutes I was sitting there thinking "why did I pay $7 to see this?" However, you do get used to the style soon enough. Also, the two leads are almost too comfortable in their roles. They play them like they have put no thought into them and just jump into it. Sometimes, that's good. Othertimes, it seems like you wanted them to work a little harder. I'm not sure how to describe it. All the other actors threw themselves into it and put forth 110%. Lane and Broderick seem to be thinking "I did this every night for months on end. I could do this in my sleep!" Not that they were bad, but they were outshined by those that obviously put the effort in.

The Bottom Line
Go for a really good laugh. I haven't laughed this hard in theaters for a long time. If you like Mel Brooks, you'll enjoy this. Just not for the thin-skinned, as with any comedy these days.

And I still have "Springtime for Hitler" stuck in my head

Rating

DarkShinigami4711

Feb 3 2006, 10:23 PM

Underworld: Evolution

The Good
Some of the best action scenes I've seen in a while, as well as some awesome CGI moments. If you remember at the end of the first Underworld, Markus' eyes had opened and turned that lovely shade of "Half-Vampire, Half-Lycan" black. Well, he gets a cool hybrid form as well, and his puts Michael's to shame. And nearly to death.

The Bad
It looks like someone skimmed the script to the last movie, then went "well, most of that was shite, I'm going to do it my way!" There are some huge plotholes, that pendant from the first movie is suddenly twice as large, and the film is just riddled with "WTF?!" moments.

The Borderline
There is a sex scene in the movie. You don't really get to see nudity, but the actual sex scene is borderline pornographic. I'm not even sure how they could have faked the scene, it looks very, ah, realistic.

The Bottom Line
Lots of blood, as with any vampire movie (though not nearly as much as BloodRayne had). The action is well-done, the special effects are great, and the acting is an improvement from the first movie. You can almost overlook the giant plotholes. Almost. See it if you liked the first one, but not if you loved the first one.

Rating

3.5 Smilies

DarkShinigami4711

Feb 19 2006, 12:35 AM

Double post, but if the rest of you would review stuff from time to time, that wouldn't be an issue

The Pink Panther

The Good
The cartoon/opening credits were good. That's about it, sadly. Oh! And there were a couple of good looking previews.

The Bad
I feel dumber having seen this movie. They actualy resorted to a fart joke at one point. I've got nothing against fart jokes, but I really didn't expect that from this movie. Sure, physical humor was expected, but they went to the lowest, crudest level they could to get a laugh. And they failed, for the most part. I'll admit, the setup looks good, the overall idea of the film showed a hell of a lot of promice, but they did some jokes to death. The biggest running theme is that Inspector Cleausou is paranoid about every room he goes into being bugged or there being someone hiding in the room, spying on them. At one point, he actualy beats the Chief Inspector with a chair because of it. And really, that should have been the end of it. But no, they had to add one final moment of stupidity to the movie.

And a final note, the missing Pink Panther diamond that is so central to the film? If you have eyes in your skull you'll solve that one in the first five minutes or so of the film. Ten if you're not trying.

The Bottom Line
This movie is so idiotic at times that it hurts to watch. Sneak in, watch the cartoon, then go see something better.

Rating

1 for Effort

caffeineavatar

Feb 19 2006, 12:39 AM

What? What have they done to my beloved Pink Panther movies with this remake?

Prodigal7512

Feb 19 2006, 12:49 AM

Firewall

The Good
Scary premise (Losing your identity and your entire freedom/safety/everything in a short period of time), and Paul Bettany pulls off a very scary villain. The supporting cast all pull off pretty believeable performances, and T1000 is in it! How can you go wrong with him present?

The Bad
Too much setup, and a lot of cliches. I mean really cliched. If you've seen any other thrillers (Especially Harrison Ford's, the man who practically created the "action thriller" has so many other ones that are better) you won't be surprised by 3/4ths of the things that happen.

The Bottom Line
This movie is somewhat serviceable, but too much setup and a cliched ending really detract from it. Paul Bettany is really good, and Harrison Ford is believeable, but it just doesn't all click together.

Rating
3 out of 5, not spectacular, but not horrible

Gi@nT

Feb 20 2006, 01:58 AM

QUOTE(DarkShinigami4711 @ Feb 18 2006, 10:35 PM)

Double post, but if the rest of you would review stuff from time to time, that wouldn't be an issue

Ack! I know I've not been meeting my weekly review quota. Will resolve to do better from now on. Will also resolve to try and see better films too

(Re: the following review)

Waiting

The Good
Ummm....Well for the ladies there's about a 6 second shot of Ryan Reynolds very nice abs. That's offset by virtually everything that preceeds and follows it....Ummm That's really about it for good.

The Bad
Where do I begin. Well if you've seen the previews you know this one would be pretty crude. That does, in now way do it justice though. This is the crudest, most perverse thing I've ever seen. How they got some of the bigger name stars to do this one I'll never know. Why you say? Well, for one you knew that crude humour + restaurant = nasty human substances added too food, but, while that stuff is sort of dumbed down, I'm honestly considering never eatting out again.

Second, the men of the restaurant like to play a game where they try and surprise one and other with their manhoods. No you don't actually see any full on, but you get a great shot of.... how to say? the beans without the frank

It's pretty likely a fake, but

nonetheless.

Lastly, a large portion of the film is centered around two of the male characters trying to bed an underage female. Yeah she's "18 in a week" but they take it pretty far and it pushes boundaries fast.

The Bottom Line
The title says it all. I sat through this shite waiting for the funny to begin and the vomit inducing humor to stop. Again

Rating

= 0 That's an hour and a bit of your life you'll always be wanting back.

Queen of Hearts

Feb 20 2006, 01:27 PM

now see I thought waiting was funny (and I just got the dvd)
I wouldn't say it's oscar worthy or anything...but its good...the acting isn't shitty, and they make some funny jokes... Its better than date movie, and scary movie 1,2 and 3 (they are coming out with a 4 this year)...Yeah their are crude parts, but hey...movies like Saw (never seen it, just using an example) have crude parts..just a different kind of crude..

my $0.02

Solar

Feb 20 2006, 01:33 PM

Gi@nT just curious but did you ever work in a resteraunt for an extended period of time (say ... more than 6 months?)

-J

Gi@nT

Feb 20 2006, 02:42 PM

QUOTE(Solar @ Feb 20 2006, 11:33 AM)

Gi@nT just curious but did you ever work in a resteraunt for an extended period of time (say ... more than 6 months?)

-J

Actually yes, spent about 6 months at a Ricky's and 8 months at an A&W. Oh and I worked at a local microbrewery/pub for 1 day - slicing the tips of two fingers off in a food processor because there's no safety guard and being told to go back to work isn't my idea of fun. Still didn't think Waiting was all that funny, but each to his or her own.

Solar

Feb 20 2006, 02:53 PM

QUOTE(Gi@nT @ Feb 20 2006, 12:42 PM)

but each to his or her own.

no i agree with that I was just checkin, glad you understand

-J

Xzarf

Feb 22 2006, 07:14 PM

Waiting -- gee Gi@nt a little harsh aren't we? I worked in restaurants for a couple of years and I thought it was pretty funny. I could see a whole lot of my jobs in that movie, the bitchy waitress, the man-whore, the crazy cook, the underage cock-tease greeter, the stupid games that were played to get through the day/night. (obviously that game was a little more extreme than anything we did to pass the time but still funny as hell).
I wouldn't say that the movie was a must see but I did find it funny and there are far worse fims out there.

out of 5

Gi@nT

Feb 22 2006, 08:46 PM

QUOTE(Xzarf @ Feb 22 2006, 05:14 PM)

Waiting -- gee Gi@nt a little harsh aren't we?

Maybe, maybe not. As I said, each to his or her own.

Ultimately my problem with the film was that there was no story to it. Yeah it captured some of the fun of restaurant work, but they might as well have saved the bucks on the actors and actresses - many of whom are usually quite funny - and filmed a documentary, finding some way to make it so no one knew what restaurant it was filmed at.

someguy

Mar 3 2006, 09:22 PM

Ultraviolet

The Good
Some extremely cool shots with the camera bouncing around between the reflections in different people's sunglasses. I've never seen anything like it in a movie before. Unfortunately, this effect is only used a few times and only for the first half of the movie.

Also, some random badass people. Unfortunately, the biggest group of badasses gets killed about ten seconds into the movie.

The Bad
Abysmal acting. I know Mila can act because she did in The Fifth Element, but here she was off for most of her scenes. The supporting characters ranged from average (the villain, for example) to abysmal.

Bad special effects. A few special effects shots were great, especially the sunglasses as mentioned above. Some were absolutely horrible, particularly in a chase scene where Violet is on a motorcyle racing around the city. The ending also had the worst special effects I've ever seen in a movie or even a high-budget TV show (though they were minor elements of a wide shot, they really stood out).

Bad dscript, directing, and cinematography. I swear, 50% of this movie is extreme close-ups of Violet's face, and another 10% is close ups of other people's faces. Most of the closeups have a smart-blur type filter on them but not all of them did, making it confusing and inconsistent. The action is shot similarly to Batman Begins - the shot cuts so often it is difficult and annoying to see what's going on. Additionally, most of the fight scenes are offscreen. The plot is pretty bland and uninteresting. Very little actually happens.

Additionally, a lot of things felt too much like Equilibrium. I never thought I'd say that but it's true. The gun-kata stuff was cool but not done as well (I suspect Mila is not as talented as Christian Bale), but there were so many scenes where she ended up in a room surrounded by identically dressed enemies (all holding the same weapon) that it just felt awkward. And as in Equilibrium 95% of the baddies wore gas masks. It also ended in a similar way.

The Bottom Line
Considering that Kurt Wimmer's last film, Equilibrium, is an incredible movie and one of my favorites, I expected Ultraviolet to be at least reasonably good. I was totally wrong. I don't understand how he could have gone from Equilibrium to Ultraviolet. I know the film was too ambitious for its budget, but while that explains the bad special effects, it explains little else. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie for any reason except the sunglasses shots, which are few and certainly do not justify the rest of the film.

Rating

Useless Trivia Man

Mar 4 2006, 06:39 PM

Oddly enough, I just watched this one last night for the first time...

Equilibrium

The Good

Someone tried to tell me what this movie was about (without giving it away), and all he could come up with was: "It's a cross between 1984 and the Matrix." I'll say the same to you, and tell you to go rent this one as soon as humanly possible.

Grammaton Clerics are the enforcers for a very Orwellian society where it's illegal to have feelings. Art, poetry, and music are all contraband, and just having any of these in your possession is a sense crime. All sense crimes are punishable by death. Christian Bale is outstanding as Preston, one of the best Clerics in the game. Strong supporting performances are given by Sean Bean, Taye Diggs, Emily Watson, and Angus MacFayden.

Gun kata is quite possibly the coolest fighting technique I've seen in the last decade. We're talking jedi cool. Some of that stuff was almost orgasmically awesome.

The Bad

The plot was largely predictable, but there were still enough twists to keep you on your toes. I expected the end to be drawn out a bit longer, but it does work just fine the way it is.

It's definitely a guy movie, but no sex scenes (more's the pity).

I can't come up with anything else bad to say about it.

The Bottom Line

I can't believe this didn't do better in the theaters. Fantastic movie (enough so that I watched it again this morning). I'll be owning this one very soon.

Rating

Five smilies. If you ain't seen this one, get off the computer and run down to the video store right now so you can watch it tonight. You won't be disappointed.

someguy

Mar 4 2006, 09:42 PM

See, see, thaat's why I expected Ultraviolet to be good.

*bangs head*

Demosthenes

Mar 6 2006, 07:58 PM

Munich

The Good
Excellent subject matter and acting. Some say it favors the terrorists by making them look human, but just because it didn't completely explicitly 100% of the time support the jews doesn't mean it's supporting terrorists. Besides, they are human, though they've made some bad choices. At any rate, he does a good job being fairly objective, and showing the cycle of violence in the middle east. Also shows how much the Mossad fucking rock.

Some feel that the ending to this movie was too abrupt. I didn't feel that way though however, as i felt that it was done on purpose to illustrate Spielburg's point.

Also some of the most well planned deaths ever. I won't put them here cause you just have to see them.

Bana and the other actors do a superb job conveying their character's feelings and troubles psychologically with what is happening to them, and the situation they have been put in.

The Bad
Not a whole lot honestly. At some points it dragged a little bit, kind of feels like it's rambling, as if he didn't know where he wanted to go from some spots. these are mostly minor issues. Like i said, some people might be miffed about the end, but I thought it had it's point.

The Bottom Line
All in all, the rambling issues were fairly minor, and all in all this movie was an excellent movie which I highly recommend.

Rating

- my five smiles go to this movie.

Cybercat

Mar 9 2006, 12:37 PM

Aeon Flux

The Good

I really liked the art direction. They managed to make the futuristic setting sufficiently different from the present without making it unbelievable. I also liked the pace. Even though there were some romantic scenes, they didn't slow down the story too much, as happens with some action movies.

The Bad

I personally liked the action scenes, but for some people they may have had too much wire fu. It also had a bit of a problem with the story, they didn't really have enough time to tell it all, not uncommon for movies based on a series. And I've been told by somebody who has seen the animated series that they did change a few fairly important things, like the origin of the main character.

The Bottom Line

I did enjoy myself, even though it wasn't a masterpiece. However, I never saw the animated series, so people who did may not like the movie because of the differences. If you like action, and pretty pictures, you may like this movie. If you want complex stories this won't really be your thing.

Rating

- Certainly not a total waste of time, but not the greatest movie ever either.

Tyreal Auran

Mar 9 2006, 12:52 PM

Doogal

The Good
You can MST3K the movie right in the theater, because there's either nobody there or a small group of people who are hating it as much as you.

The Bad
There's not enough room here and not enough profanities in the English language to properly express what's wrong with this movie. First of all, unless you're a British baby-boomer, the background makes no sense, because the premise is drawn from an animated short series in the UK that used to air in five minute increments. Five. Minutes. Not an hour and a half, and I'm here to tell you that's a good thing. If it were five minutes long, I'd be ok with it. Well, not necessarily ok, because there are better ways to spend five minutes. A prostate exam, for example.

They harvested the biggest group of A-list celebrities they could to try to salvage the nonsensical plot, painful dialogue, and immoral morals. This only makes it worse, because when you hear the voice of Sir Ian McKellen coming from a blotchy, mustached tomato on a spring that shoots fire from said mustache, you begin to cry. This movie wasn't even bad in a funny way, like B-movies, 90's action flicks, and Chuck Norris. It was just bad. Bad plot, bad script, bad everything. The only decent things were stolen from other movies. They ruthlessly reference everything that has happened in American pop culture in the past 7 or 8 years. When four skeletons pop from the ground and say "Pirates of the Carribean!" for no reason, I'm skeptical. When a rabbit says "I trained with Morpheus...I know kung fu" I'm angry. When a cow says something like "Here's the hammer" (referencing the Abyss, don't remember the exact line) I take a dump on the film.

The Bottom Line
This movie is, at best, for two year olds. It is the first in-theater movie aimed at people in diapers, and is failing miserably. You should not see this movie, no matter what, because it sucks under any light. I pray that Ian McKellen, Jon Stewart, and Chevy Chase were involved for some sort of charitable act.

Rating

Since I don't see a "0" option, here's my rating:

Useless Trivia Man

Mar 12 2006, 01:11 AM

Libertine

The Good

Johnny Depp and John Malkovich. This flick has two of the great actors of this day appearing together in the same film. Both gave fantastic performances, especially Depp. In fact, all of the acting was well done.

Oh, and Depp's manservant named Allcock. That guy was hilarious in a bit-part sort of way.

The Bad

My wife and I had high hopes for this movie, although we didn't really know anything about it aside from what we'd seen on a trailer or two. From the trailers I saw, I was expecting something of an action movie. My bad. The only action in this flick involved thumping pelvises. (pelvii?) The first five minutes were promising, and then it all just kinda fell apart. Despite very good character performances by Depp and Malkovich, I found myself with a raised-eyebrows-wrinkled-nose WTF look on my face throughout most of the film. The plot was... vague. I had no clue who 17th-century poet John Wilmot was before this movie, and I really don't have much more understanding now. There seemed to be a lot of insider information - unless you're a big fan of John Wilmot and are familiar with his life story (but hey, ain't we all?), you're left with a very unclear picture of what's actually taking place. And, while you can piece it together (sorta) if you're paying attention, I found my attention wandering several times.

The Bottom Line

If you're a fan of the Earl of Rochester, a.k.a. John Wilmot, then you'll probably like this film. If, like me, you've never even heard of him, then it could be a very dull two hours. The only movie I've seen that I can compare it to: if you liked the Talented Mr. Ripley, you'd probably like this one too. I can't draw any direct comparisons between the two, but I just got that vibe. If you're a really, really big Johnny Depp fan, I suppose you might like this one. He did well with what he had to work with.

Rating

As I said above, I'd only recommend this movie to die-hard Depp fans or those who want to see the sordid life of John Wilmot.

Prodigal7512

Mar 13 2006, 03:57 AM

I've got to agree with a lot of what you said Someguy about Ultraviolet. I was talking to Lynn (My GF) afterwards and she asked me what I thought (I love that it was her idea to see it. My kind of woman

) and the main thing that sprang to mind was "Why should I really give a crap who wins?" You aren't given anytime at all to CARE about any of the characters. And was I the only one who really wanted to know more about the Blood Chinois (Probably horribly misspelled) and their inerring ability to shoot their own guys?

That said I would like to see a director's cut of it just to see if they filled in some of that information.

someguy

Mar 13 2006, 07:02 PM

Apparently the producers cut 28 minutes from the film before releasing it, at least some of which was story.

Katiz

Mar 18 2006, 12:04 AM

V for Vendetta
The Good
Great Orwellian setting. The movie starts out convincing you that this world is very much like our own, and only gradually becomes worse and worse. I also really like how it's set in England. Not that I have anything against the English, but it's nice that it isn't blatently saying "THIS IS ABOUT AMERICA. YOUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS." That said, some could see it as having a political message. But, then again, so did 1984, which is exactly what the movie reminds me of.

Amazing acting on the part of Natalie Portman. She was the person that carried the movie. That said, Hugo Weaving was a perfect fit for V. I really questioned the choice when I saw him listed in the bill, but no doubt remains. He brought humanity to a character that has no ability to show it. Also, his use of the mask was beautiful, reminded me of Noh Theater masks. And the sexual tension between the two was perfectly balanced. There was only one shot in the entire movie that threw it off. But it had to be done.

The action was very pretty, and only once succombed to bullet-time. All scenes were very nicely shot. And the script kept me on the edge of my seat. Really, this is what the Wachowski brothers should be doing instead of directing.

The Bad
V's opening scene was weak. Like a Batman wanna-be. In hindsight, it fit the character. However, when I first saw it, I really thought this was going to be just another superhero movie. But it wasn't. So I'm happy. Oh, and some of the stuff they do to Portman's character is not for the weak-hearted. Don't bring small children (as some did).

Rating
Really cool, fun movie. I'm considering seeing it again before it leaves theaters. Brilliant characters. This movie is perfect for sci-fi fans, especiallythose with distopian fetishes.

So go see it.

someguy

Mar 18 2006, 04:04 AM

Oh. My. God. V for Vendetta was so awesome. One of the best movies I've ever seen. Nothing else so far this year has come remotely close to it. Everything is amazing. A must-see.

Jaenne

Mar 19 2006, 03:54 PM

I'm going to reinforce the fact that everyone should go see V for Vendetta. It was absolutely amazing. Some different parts from the comic but they did get their point across. Also, Hugo Weaving simply ROCKS. He makes V come alive.

DarkShinigami4711

Mar 19 2006, 04:04 PM

I want to see it so badly, but I'm flat broke until next Friday (I've got $1 in my wallet and a handful of change). I'm a huge fan of the comic version, and I actualy made the Guy Fawkes mask in an art class once. I don't know what happened to it though... It's probably just packed away somewhere.

someguy

Mar 19 2006, 04:47 PM

This is from 2002 but I just saw it yesterday. It's a Japanese movie.
Returner
(alternately, Re-turner, Ritana, or Ritaanaa)

The Good
A fun movie, with some great action and humor. The characters are all interesting and many are entertaining. The two male leads both do an excellent job and bring a lot of humor to the movie with thier acting and expression. The female lead is pretty good as well. The special effects are fairly good to excellent.

The Bad
Although the film is primarily Japanese and subtitled, in one part there are American actors speaking English. They are bad actors and their lines are delivered poorly. However, this is for a short part of the film, and it really didn't bother me. A few bits are corny, but there weren't many. Elements of the movie and plot seem to borrow from Independance Day, Men in Black, and one or two other films, but this didn't really bother me either.

The Bottom Line
Overall, despite minor flaws, it was a fun ride and I enjoyed it. It's not for everyone but if you think you might like it, give it a shot.

Rating:

Gi@nT

Mar 20 2006, 06:30 PM

Okay, this is getting somewhat excessive, and the thread is getting a little bogged down, so I've openned up a dedicated thread for V for Vendetta. Any and all discussions should be fired over there - I'll see if I can some how move these posts over there, but I don't know if that's possible. Anyways have fun folks!

Edit: Posts dealing with in depth discussions have been moved into the V for Vendetta thread. For the sake of clarity I will not move the posts from the other thread which contained the discussions, don't want the thread to get confusing.

machetejack

Mar 25 2006, 12:46 PM

Stay Alive

The Good
Believe It or Not, it does have some of this. The Movie is an overall Slasher/Haunting, with the twist of, “When you (your character) die in the Video Game, You die in the same manner.” The Legend Behind the “Game” is actually a good story, for a ghost story. The Beginning jumps you (gets scary) pretty good. It has Frankie Munoz in it, and I happen to think he’s a pretty funny actor anyway, but he is very good in this movie. Several other actors, who play hardcore gamers, are very good, but I don’t remember any of their names.

The Bad
Unfortunately, there’s quite a bit. I have a particularly bad problem with standard fare Hollywood Horror, and this Movie is all Hollywood. I know many members of the Forum are PC gamers, but I’m straight console, and If PC gaming was this far advanced, consoles would have died an ugly, brutal, bloody death years ago. They play a game they are basically beta-testing, they have one disk, and in less than six hours, they have five people playing in one room, networked with one guy in another building. They all have headsets, and they get NO lag. It didn’t make much sense to us. And if you think about it, this is basically a Freddy Kruger rip-off.

The Bottom Line
If you don’t like Horror Movies, you might not like this. If you don’t like Video Games, *cricket chirping* then you might not like this. If you Like one and not the other, I hope it’s Horror Movies, because with a few tweaks, the script wouldn’t even need the Game. If you don’t like either, avoid it like a Black Hole.

Gi@nT

Mar 27 2006, 05:04 PM

Also had a chance to rent a movie this weekend, but unfortunately that didn't turn out as well as my trip to the theatre....

Derailed

The Good
Truth be told, there really isn't anything good I can think of here.

The Bad
Where to start. Ultimately the bad starts about 30 minutes into the film. Reading the preamble on the box made me think that I was renting a nice romantic drama, maybe mixed with some crime drama. How mistaken that is. Up untill this turning point the film isn't too great, it has potential, but hasn't really gone anywhere. Then the audience is exposed to an act of sexual violence that just leaves a horrifically vile taste in your mouth. It gave me cold shakes. I won't go into details but suffice it to say this ruins the whole atmosphere of the film and it never recovers.

Beyond that bombshell, there is nothing worth salvaging here. Even though Clive Owen is usually fantastic, and Jennifer Aniston is capable, their acting here is pathetic. There is no chemistry between the two and neither of them performs even passably.

Moreover, if you do continue watching the film the twists and turns it undertakes are ridiculous. You figure out what's going on prety quickly, but the film still goes through excessive motions to try and trick you.

Lastly, the film also departs significantly from reality. None of the characters make decisions that rational, even resonably intelligent humans would make. Even in bbodily function the film is unbelievable - please someone explain to me how a man can get shot in the eye at close range and live?

The Bottom Line
The films is a total mess. Honestly the worst film I have ever seen hands down. Reindeer Games was better - that's how bad this one was.

Rating

There is no reason to see this one.

nicofiend

Mar 27 2006, 05:23 PM

The Ice Harvest

The Good

It's a movie with John Cussack and Billy Bob Thorton doing what they do best. Seriously, it's a pretty decent dark comedy that has a few surprise twists in the plot. The supporting cast makes it worth while as well. Oliver Platt plays a drunk, and Randy Quaid plays a pretty good mob boss (from Kansas

).

The Bad

My only complaint about the movie, is that it does seem to drag for a bit. But there's really nothing bad I have to say about this movie. Granted, the plot is a little generic, and you see most things coming, but eh. I look at it as a fun movie that's not to be taken too seriously.

The Bottom Line

This film is worth a watch, especialy if you're a fan of Cussack or Thorton. The film is on Focus Features, and most of their films turn out to be pretty decent. You may want ot rent it though, since the DVD doesn't really come with many features, and the re-watch value is at 5 max. I expect a lot of cable re-runs on this one.

Rating

Cybercat

Apr 6 2006, 04:59 PM

Ice Age 2

The Good
Scrat. Really great fur and water effects. Lots of jokes. Scrat. I really enjoyed this movie It has all the fun characters from Ice Age 1 (even some dodo cameos) plus several fun new ones. Nice action scenes, some romance, lots of comedy. Scrat. I could have easily watched another hour of it, didn't bore me at any point. Oh, and did I mention my favorite character, Scrat?

The Bad
If I really have to pick some bad things it'd have to be the use of a few words like "minefield" that don't make sense in that time period and one speical effect that looked a bit fake. However, these are really minor things that didn't spoil any of the fun for me.

The Bottom Line
If you hated Ice Age 1, don't go see this movie, but for everybody else I totally recommend it. Poor Scrat.

Rating

Solar

Apr 6 2006, 06:46 PM

Loved it, couldn't have agreed about Ice Age Meltdown any more, however I had one thing nagging me a few moments...

if Ice Age 1 was about the coming of the ice age, the world getting colder and what not...

and Ice Age 2 is the meltdown outta the ice age.... how did they live 1,000's of years?? really?

-J

spectrospork242

Apr 6 2006, 10:03 PM

movie magic?

Waycos

Apr 7 2006, 09:30 AM

I thought Ice Age 1 was the end of the Ice Age... Haven't seen the begining of the movie since I first saw it.

Prodigal7512

Apr 9 2006, 01:31 PM

Lucky Number S7evin

The Good
GREAT dialogue, great acting especially Josh Hartnett and Lucy Liu, and very well done over all. EVERYTHING in this movie ties together, and everything is actually explained well by the end. Lots of moments where the humor shows through in spite of the violence (Of which there is plenty).

The Bad
This movie is VERY violent (As in at least 6 people are dead within the first 10 minutes of the movie) and it earns its R rating. Do not go see this is you are upset by violence since it's always there.

That's really the only "downside" to the movie that I can think of

The Bottom Line
This was a great movie. However be warned that you will see A LOT of people die. If that's not your thing avoid this like the plague

Rating
4 and a half smilies

:
[/quote]

draegerMKV

Apr 9 2006, 09:34 PM

Oh yeah Slevin was great, I loved Lucy Lui's performance especially. I second the violence warning; I wasn't disturbed or put off by it but there are a few times where you just go 'woah' at the intensity. Good plot, great acting, and yeah lots of humor especially for such a dark movie.

Jaenne

Apr 10 2006, 08:35 AM

Slither

The Good
There wasn't as much CGI in this film as in others like it right now. It was done very well. There is a good amount of comedy in the film and it lives up to it's advertising. There was a good amount of gore and silme, aka everything this horror movie should have had. Nathan Fillion was great. Overall, it was a very entertaining.

The Bad
The director said that used little to no CGI. They didn't use as much as other films but, there was more than I was expecting. Also, if you don't like a good comedic horror film that will still give you some scares.. you wouldn't like the film. It's not for people that don't like gore. One of the characters is annoying, too.

The Bottom Line
I loved the film. I suggest everyone looking for a good, scary yet funny horror film, to go see this one. Also, if you love Nathan Fillion, go see it. If you can't handle gore, don't see it. My friend who didn't like gore went and he ended up covering his eyes a few times.

[Rating (out of 5)]

machetejack

Apr 11 2006, 03:22 PM

Beat me to it. I haven't had time to write this up. I agree wholeheartedly with Jaenne on this one. I was happy with the few jumps we got out of this.

QUOTE(Jaenne @ Apr 10 2006, 08:35 AM)

One of the characters is annoying, too.

The Mayor? I wasn't sure who you meant.

Oh and Jaenne, that reminds me of something.
Fuck you Fat-ass.
Sorry, that was our favorite joke out of the whole movie.

Jaenne

Apr 11 2006, 04:13 PM

QUOTE(machetejack @ Apr 11 2006, 04:22 PM)

QUOTE(Jaenne @ Apr 10 2006, 08:35 AM)

One of the characters is annoying, too.

The Mayor? I wasn't sure who you meant.

Oh and Jaenne, that reminds me of something.
Fuck you Fat-ass.
Sorry, that was our favorite joke out of the whole movie.

I mean the Mayor. My friend kept mumbling, "When is he going to DIE?" for a little while.

I quite enjoyed the part about Mr. Pibb... heh.

Now, I'll stop before this gets too off topic. I'm glad someone else enjoyed the movie... not that many people are going to see it. They should.

Gi@nT

Apr 16 2006, 12:16 AM

Been a while since I've hit this thread up with a new film, so I figure we'll give 'er three at once!

Inside Man

The Good
Honestly the hands down best feature of this film is the pacing. Things happen quickly and keep moving at such a pace that you feel as though you're always one step behind, which is appropriate considering that's how the cops are meant to feel by the bank robbers.

Second, the set. For the most part the film is contained within the bank and its adjacent street. While this is somewhat close quarters - especially for the acting egos in this one - it works well to the film and creates a very genuine mood. Not only do you feel as closed off as the bank robbers, but at times you also feel like the cops, that the world is slowly caving in around you.

Third, the story. I like this one as you're given all the pieces to the puzzle. You see what goes on fairly exclusively and it gets your brain working quickly. Although you can generally figure things out if you take a moment to stop and think (which, as said, is difficult with the fast pace), it's still a very enjoyable mystery.

The Bad
Surprisingly, for the exceptionally strong cast of actors and actresses in this one there isn't a lot of great acting going on. Most of the players feel as if they're sleep walking through their roles. This isn't necessarily bad, as these guys and gals are all pretty great, even at half speed, but it is somewhat disappointing given that the actors and actresses were probably a big draw to many.

Other than that, the 'what are they trying to steel' of the mystery is also something of a let down. For such a masterfully planned and executed heist, the payoff - though valuable beyond measure - doesn't quite live up to the hype.

The Bottom Line
A decent film, that will definately get you going if you enjoy mysteries. That said, though, if mystery and confusion is not your thing, you may want to stay home for this one.

Rating

.5 - Not bad, but moving outside of the sphere of 'great film'

History of Violence

The Good
Very strong, yet subtle acting. Both Mortensen and Bello both do very well with their respective rolls. Hurt is also good, but I was surprised to look back and see that he got a Supporting Actor Oscar nod for this one - he's only on screen for maybe 12 or 15 minutes, and while it's a powerful performance, it's not entirely memorable.

Another strength to this one is the running time. In Peter Jackson's world of film epics, it was surprisingly refreshing to see this one finish in a little over 90 minutes. Concise filmmaking is a rarety these days, but it adds power to the film.

Lastly, the cinematography in this one is very well done. You can see where the filmmakers have drawn from the graphic novel, and it adds some power to the images. Surprisingly there aren't a lot of shots wherein the camera moves with the actors; the static camera is another refreshing technique.

The Bad
First, but not foremost, there is some weird sex in this one. The first scene goes a little farther than what would be seen in most films. The second involves some rough (but consentual) sex. This scene is a little different as it's hard to understand the motives of the characters here; you're kind of left thinking, why? Ironically, however, neither scene contains any nudity, but then out of the blue one character walks out of a room stark naked, which serves no purpose and agains makes one ask, why?

The biggest problem with the film, however, is that it doesn't really go anywhere. While you're interested in the characters, you, or at least I, leave/left the film going, "well that was okay, what else is going on?" The film just doesn't really get you thinking. It starts, it goes on, it ends, and you're unaffected.

The Bottom Line
If you like any of the actors or actresses (particularly Maria Bello) it's worth seeing, but I think this one would have been better left as a graphic novel.

Rating

- It's alright, but ultimately forgettable.

Fun with Dick and Jane

The Good
Umm, there's a laugh or two in there, but if you've seen the previews then you've seen them.

The Bad
My problem with this film is that it tries to be far too many things. You've got slapstick comedy, high brow humour, economic humour, (brief) drama, and then at the end it turns into a message about corporate responsibility. By the end of the film it's gone so many different directions that you're not sure what to think anymore.

As to the acting, both Carrey and Leoni are talented actors, but, like the story, they go through so many different emotions, the power they may have in any one scene is lost in a confusion of writing.

The Bottom Line
If you really, really like Jim Carrey than maybe this one is for you, but there's realy little else here. Truth be told Carrey's ten minute interview on the Ellen Show where he discussed the film was funier than the 90 minutes of this one.

Rating

- As said, only die hard Jim Carrey fans need apply.

Well, hope that's helpful. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to find the obviously elusive 'great' film....

Demosthenes

Apr 16 2006, 09:27 PM

I saw Inside Man and i thought it was really good. I agree that the acting was subpar for such great actor, but they still did well enough for it to be very enjoyable. As far as not living up to the hype...well I mean I suppose to some extent, but I thought the way it was done and so forth was the main attraction. I mean anything they put there wouldn't have lived up to the hype unless you pulled a pulp fiction/reservoir dogs with the glowing briefcase...so i give him props for doing te best that he can.

4.5 smilies from me.

Gi@nT

May 5 2006, 02:10 PM

The Sentinel

The Good
The big feature here is the acting. It's good to see Michael Douglas back on the screen after almost a three year absence, and even though it's not a highly challenging role he plays it very well. Looking at his upcoming films, I'm glad to see he's jumping back into the ring.

Beyond Douglas, Kiefer Stuherland, Eva Longoria, and Kim Basinger all do well. Sutherland, though in a role very similar to his famed Jack Bauer, is as powerful as ever. Basinger is only on screen briefly, but nonetheless is convincing. PArticularly I was impressed with Longoria, who shows no hint of her Character from Desperate Housewives. She steps out of that role well, and does so with convinction.

Beyond the acting the film is well shot, and the locations are used to powerful effect.

The Bad
While the acting of the four principle players is well done, outside of these four the film suffers from too many unknowns. I honestly didn't recognize any of the actors or actresses outside of the main players. At one point they name the agent who is involved in the assassination attempt and I couldn't remember who he was untill they showed him again.

The film also loses some credibility with its story. The motives for the assassins are never given, and they are an interesting bunch. It's stated that they have ties to the KGB, but their ringleader has a British accent and employs several eastern european thugs, which is hard to make sense of. There are also a few other things mentioned that are never explained. Really, though, the story is about Douglas' character and his efforts to clear his name and track down the real mole in the Secret Service. The details are mostly swept under the rug.

The Bottom Line
A well shot, well acted film, but not a highly involved story. If you like the principle actors and actresses you'll get your moneys worth but otherwise what for the DVD.

Rating

.5 - Not bad, but a stronger story would not have been amiss.

Katiz

May 20 2006, 06:28 PM

The DaVinci Code

I had really been looking foward to this because I loved the book until this past week after hearing bad reviews from the Caanes (sp?) Festival. This is going to be a loooong post.

The Good

First of all, Sir Ian McKellen was, as expected, amazing. He had the crotchety, obsessed Professor thing down flat. And I should know; I'm a history student. I had forgotton that McKellen's a serious character actor, and that he's exceptional at playing other things besides wizards and supervillians. He even had me sympathetic, even though I had read the book. I only wish that him and Hanks had brought out the comraderie between them more. It would've made the ending more personal (I'm trying not to give anything away here.

The movie itself was beautiful. There are so many thrillers out there that zone in on the 3 necessary elements of character, plot, and location, and never stop for a little artistry. I'm not trying to call Ron Howard an artist or anything, but there were a few shots that served no purpose but to bring you in on the moment (a shot at wine that had been spilled even though the conversation had moved on, filming the eyes of certain portraits to suggest an historical or omnipotent watcher). And I really appreciated that. The locations were beautifully filmed (especially the Lourve) and the musical score was wonderful.

I was really afraid that the movie would drag, but it definitely did not. So much of the book is actually explaining various conspiracy theories and historical events, that a large percentage of the movie would be expository narration. But that was done quite well. Now, I still suggest that you read the book first, or else you may quickly become lost if you miss a line or zone out for a moment, but there's not massive loss of comprehension if the viewer has not read the book. The movie went by very quickly despite the 2.5 hour run-time. Granted, my butt did fall asleep, but in its defense, the chairs were very uncomfortable.

I also have to give a nodd to Audrey Tautou playing the role that could've easily regressed into an unwanted love story diversion, but did not, and Jean Reno in a role that necessitated having the audience see him as a villian but later sympathize. I think that point was well made. In fact, in the end I noticed that this particular movie was very easy on the "bad guys." Sure, some people screwed up, but their reasons behind their motivations were very clear. The Catholic Church was not villianized by anyone but the villian (or who turns out to be the villian). There was no evil guy sitting in his castle and twisting his beard. Every character has a sympathetic moment, and I think that really helped the film.

~~The Bad~~

UGH! Tom Hanks! I love this dude, but he totally killed Robert Langdon. He didn't seem to give two shits about history, or about the Grail Quest for that matter. He had personality buried in there somewhere, but he was the only character whose motivations were not explored, and the only character that you couldn't sympathize for. Tom, just because you have an Oscar or twelve does not mean you're allowed to phone in the easier performances. I have heard some blame Dan Brown for the lack of character development in the book. Frankly, if a character lacks depth, I think it's the actor's responsibility to put that depth there. Write up a history, even if it never comes into play. Develop a tick or nervous twitch, or even a lopsided smile. And it's not like the script lacked things for Hanks to work off of... he just never took the oppertunity. Langdon was supposed to be a more bookish Indiana Jones, and Hanks never came within miles of this.

The only other major critique I can offer is that, unlike the book, the movie is limited by time and can only present cursury evidence to its claims. Anyone walking into the theater with no background on it would wonder what all the fuss was about. There's no real support to the hypothesis, so it weakens the backbone of the movie: the possible impact if the theory were really true. Not that I'm saying I fell for the book lock, stock, and barrel (FICTION!!!), but there were a few "woah" moments while reading that just did not exist in the movie.

The Bottom Line

Although it's a little more that a popcorn movie, The DiVinci Code isn't too much more. Go if you've read and enjoyed the book, because you won't be disappointed. If you haven't read the book, it's a bit of a toss-up. The plot is intriguing and it's a fun ride, but it's like seeing Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings without cracking the cover: it just lacks the magic, and sometimes you get a little lost.

Smoke66

May 21 2006, 11:48 PM

Over The Hedge

I'm sure most all of you have seen the commercials for this one, as I did, and thought this looked like it should be pretty good. When my wife and I decided to go see a movie this weekend, it was between this one and Da Vinci Code, and we decided to go with the light-hearted fun one. It was well worth it.

The Good

First of all, the voice acting for this was top-notch. If you look at the cast, names like Bruce Willis, Steve Carell, Gary Shandling, William Shatner, Wanda Sykes, and a whole lot more pop up. These voices aren't overpowering, though. They just add the right inflections to the roles and make the characters really come to life. This is a Dreamworks picture, so you know you're getting some quality CGI, but they almost outdid themselves with their portrayal of the animals. I never saw Madagascar, so I don't know how they did with that one, but they did an excellent job of making these characters seem both human-like and still remain animals. They especially did a good job with Steve Carell's character, the squirrel Hammie (sp?). It was honestly like watching a squirrel run around, yet they gave the animal a personality that just fit. Probably the last "good" thing I can come up with, without spoiling the movie at all, is to say that the character voiced by Thomas Hayden Church (sp?) is flat-out hilarious. He cracked me up on Wings and the like, and it carries *really* well to this movie.

The Bad

This is a children's movie. Meaning you will be surrounded by children in a movie theater, and the plot (at least what there is of one) is formulaic and the outcome is blatantly obvious from the get go. It is also relatively short, clocking in at just under 1 hr 15 min after all the previews had shown. That said, I wasn't expecting much out of the plot, and the kids around us were amazingly silent, so the bads weren't really all that bad.

The Bottom Line

This movie was exactly what my wife and I were looking for in a Saturday afternoon matinee, and we're actually tempted to go back and see it again in the theaters. I've heard that it used to be a comic strip or something like that, and I haven't seen or read it, but you don't really need to in order to enjoy this movie. It's one of those movies that, if you'll let yourself just be a kid again, you'll find yourself rolling in the aisles while thoroughly enjoying the movie, and the ending will come all too quick, leaving you wanting more. Because of this, I give it:

Definitely worth seeing in the theaters, but would still be a worthwhile rent or purchase after it goes to DVD.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.