Reviews written by registered user


13 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

24 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
Who the hell says teens watch this?, 31 August 2008

I wish this thing has a lower rating than one, this horrible excuse for a movie, deserves it over and over again. First off, these movies are NOT fueled by dumb teenagers foolish enough to watch them. I'm 15 and even I know this is the biggest garbage ever. I don't watch these movies since Date Movie, because I learned right there that these movies suck. I went to a it with a friend and basically went to see how much it would suck. It sucked major ass. I walked out after a half-hour and hassled for my money back. When was the last time there even WAS a disaster movie? Juno, 10,000 B.C., Don't Mess With the Zohan, Indiana Jones, these are completely irrelevant, as are the hundreds of unfunny jokes ripped off the comedies they spoof (which is stupid as it is to spoof a comedy) and made them even less funny.

Because of this movie, I will probably never watch MadTV again because it ruined my opinion of many of them. They give pathetic, poorly performed excuses for "acting", and showed how horrendously unfunny they can be. (It's worse than when Tina Fey left SNL).

If you want comedy, don't watch this, spoofing is an art, a talent few posses, and these two jack-weeds don't posses it AT ALL. If you want to see good comedy, go to the store and buy Kentucky Fried Movie, Airplane!, Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs, Young Frankenstein, Scary Movie 3, and Superhero movie, because those movies are actually hilarious. Some less than others, but SM3 and SHM are far better than 10 Disaster Movies.

So anyone who says that dumb adolescent teens fuel this garbage, think again because this stuff is garbage and I don't watch garbage. (this was an exception because people like my friend fuel this garbage :P.) This films will give you AIDS, makes you lose your hair, make you go blind, become flacid, makes you get a purple sock, this movie will destroy you and your sense of humor. Excuse the graphic descriptions, that's what it does to you, on the inside. DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. IF YOU DON'T WATCH THIS, THOSE DUMBASSES WON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND THIS GARBAGE. THINK OF YOUR FUTURES! WHAT IF 80 MORE OF THESE FILMS ARE MADE WHEN YOUR KIDS ARE AROUND. THINK OF YOUR CHILDREN, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!

King Kong (2005)
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Under-rated classic....., 23 June 2008

No one has an excuse to dislike this film. If anyone had, I did. I was forced to sit in the front row of the theater, leaning so far back in my chair, my feet went over my head. Try focusing on action when you have to look across the screen to see it. Despite the poor seating, I find this movie to be a film as innovative and important as Jurassic Park was in 1993.

I saw both this film and the original King Kong and found several differences. To me, the original was horrible. It captured none of the emotion between Anne and Kong. It was more like Kong wanted Anne and Anne was just terrified out of her mind. Kong had no reason to be sympathized. He was a big, mean monster terrorizing the villagers and later New York. He even dropped a women off a building! In the new Kong, Kong is a misunderstood beast, alone because his species, "Mega Primatus Kong", went extinct. He has been alone on the island left with noting but dinosaurs and savages to attack him. When he meets Anne, he falls in love. While Anne is scared at first, she grows to understand him and almost seems to love him too. In the original, Jack Driscol is not a likable character and is a typical sexist male of the '30s. (Baxter gets to replace this role in the modern film.)In the new film, he is a likable protagonist and a hero. Carl Dehnam's famous line "It was beauty killed the beast" is delivered in the new film with sorrow, showing Carl learned what he did and felt bad. In the '33 movie, he blurts it like he wants the newspaper to make it a genius headline.

Now, why I say this film is near equivalent to JP in '93 is because of the special effects. As in 93's JP and even in '33 with the old Kong, the special effects are ground breaking for this day and age as they were back when they where made. The Fx are stunningly real-looking and you feel like Kong is really on screen with Anne. The Fx bring the creatures to life. I like the new spin on the dinosaurs, explaining how evolution made them better and also explaining the many factual errors wrong in the original Kong(no one studied how the dinos really were back then). With dinos like the Vestatosaurus Rex, the new T-Rex with a bulkier body and three claws, this Dino makes for an amazing fight scene, far surpassing the original Kong/Rex fight from the '33 film. Impressive new technology was used to create complete digital copies of characters indistinguishable from the real actors. This method made post-production re-shoots less necessary and made stunt work less frequent and safer. Every detail is beautifully represented from each hair on Kong's body, to sunlight patterns on the animals through the trees, to the scales on the dinosaurs. No detail is left out. The film won a much deserved Oscar for Fx which made me glad.

Now, the sound effects are equally stunning. Every sound from the flies buzzing, to the gunfire, to Kong's bellowing roar(another JP-esquire feature, using creative sounds to make unknown animal sounds) leaves your ears in awe. If you are blessed with surround sound, this film is just as good to watch as the opening scene from "Saving Private Ryan" to test out the new 5.1 speakers. It also deserved the 2 Oscars it won dedicated to its sound work.

The acting in the film is not bad but not really Oscar worthy. Most of the main cast, including Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Colin Hanks and Jamie Belle give good performances. Niomi Watts gives a performance that could be analyzed in different ways. One, it was poor. Or two, it was a perfect re-enactment of Fay Wray's airy speech as the "dumb girl" role all women seemed to have in the '30s films. I'm going with the second one.

Peter Jackson is a fine director as always, showing his talents with the Lord of the Rings films, and also showing he could effectively pace three hour movies. This is no exception. While the film starts out slow at first, taking nearly an hour to reach Skull island, once it starts, it never really stops, it just sometimes slows.

Personally, I see no reason why people disliked this film. Why it isn't in the Top 250 is a mystery to me. Too long? Grow a brain and watch expert pacing. Too boring? What movie are you watching?! This film far surpasses what the original film failed to do and made it an unforgettable masterpiece, and the next step in computer generated effects. The emotion, story, and morals of Kong make a great movie going experience. It is strange how one of the greatest "love-stories" many refer is between a woman and a big monkey, but it works somehow. I recommend this film to anyone who likes action, drama, and romance(and maybe a little nostalgia). Luckily for me, I have the DVD now so motion-sickness and comfort aren't a problem as I mentioned before, then again, the film was so good in theaters, I barely cared. Kong is an underrated classic that deserves a spot in history the over-rated '33 Kong is currently in place over. 10/10 film.

Army of Two (2008) (VG)
2 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
A decent shooter with some BIG flaws...., 22 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*contains some small spoilers*

When I read the first article in EGM(Electronic Gaming Monthly)about when this game would come out and what cool new factors it would bring, I was excited. Advanced partner AI that plays like a co-op partner, realistic weapons and upgrades, in-the-heat-of-battle medical healing, a two way revival in which one guy runs from the light while the other performs CPR. Hell, they said your characters would even stop and take a whiz in-game. But sadly, the developers words turns to empty promises. The game starts(after the tutorial) off with two soldiers, Tyson Rios and Salem Elliot, fighting in Somalia for the Army. When a PMC company sees how they are like an Army of Two, they are hired to become mercenaries and get payed to fight. At the start of the game, you can choose between Tyson and Elliot and then you may choose from a vast arsenal of weapons. This got me very excited but generally fell flat after you realize some things. 1. The guns don't feel right. They fire slower than any normal rate of fire and even the mini gun has a cyclic rate of maybe 700RPM at the most. 2. The upgrades aren't always realistic and most of the time, make a cool looking gun look very lame. 3. After you buy 1 gun, you generally stick to that one and upgrade as you go, meaning there is little variety in the single player the first time through. 4. Grenades are useless and if you ever use one once in-game, give yourself a pat on the back because you've done a rare thing.

Now off the guns, the game itself has some problems. When I spend $60 on a game, I expect to get my moneys worth out of it. When a game lasts 4 measly hours and is beaten in a day, you feel relatively cheated(and the fact that I don't have LIVE really hurts it.) Anyone who has ever replayed a game knows you always go back to your favorite levels and not the ones that drove you crazy. With only 5 levels to pick from, they may be long levels but if they were split into chunks, maybe the game wouldn't have such little replay value(I guarantee every level has its frustrating moments.)

Now, those promises. The game was delayed from a holiday release and many of these features were wiped from the game. What do we get left. Horribly long load times cut down to horribly annoying load times(not long loads, but very many load times) Your AI partner is far from ground breaking Artificial Intelligence. He may gain Aggro when asked(I'll discuss Aggro in a minute) but he dies often and can't be healed in time and when he must heal you, he drags you into the middle of a firefight and kills you(He has to restart healing every time he is hit so do the math) Many two man actions(climbing, co-sniping, hang-gliding) are brief and not used enough to make a lasting effect.

Aggro. Probably the most interesting thing in this game. Aggro is gaining enemy attention by firing at them. If you reach max Aggro, you are a(very slow walking) and generally useless tank. If your partner maxes it, you are completely invisible to the enemy and faster(which is much more useful) But put your team mate in it too long, and he'll die. You stay in it too long, you die.

The game play and story are two big parts of the game(obviously). The controls are very solid and never really muck up your progress. The story is a typical corruption story with no real surprises. Through out the game, the characters will say some funny lines but repetitive one liners and hammed up dialog sometimes kill the mood. The voice acting is good, but some rather gratuitous swearing gets annoying when used too often.

In the end, Army of Two is a solid but flawed shooter that got people so hyped, the actual result was somewhat disappointing. The game is indeed fun and warrants a rent or even a buy, but I feel let down in some areas which is why this review hangs more to the negative side. I give this game a 7/10 because of good graphics, okay voice acting, decent gun play and action, and generally a fun game. Give it a try but don't expect a huge 40 hour game world here.

Summary points:

Good: Sound, graphics, action, story

Bad: Short, little replay value, guns don't feel right

Annoying: Clyde, the high and mighty assassin, who spews dumb curses faster than he jumps around. His lines like "Fucko" or how many times he says "You...are f***in' dead" gets annoying. His boss battle should be more satisfying. Such as severing limbs and torturing to death.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not as bad as everyone keeps saying....., 19 February 2008

(I don't work for fox and I'm not a crazed freaky fan) I watched this movie with all the warnings of bad acting, bad screenplay, poor script and all of the other stuff still in mind. I find the script rather interesting and think it's a unique way to join the two infamous species. The idea of having the predators breed aliens for right of passage hunting for 1000s of years is certainly creative. And some of the predators presence in history are the writers ways to explain unknown facts in history. Some say the director knew nothing of the movies. This is a lie. The special DVD proves he watched all the alien and predator movies and was a huge fan of it. A lot of work went into this movie that was left unappreciated by haters. Hardly any CGI is used in this movie which brings back the old school ways and adds to the realism and when CGI is used, it is convincing and well done. The fight scenes are full of action with cool choreography. The predators are well designed with improved technology and a lot of cool gadgets. Some say the gadgets are unfaithful to the series because they're different. Predators can get new weapons and technology just like any military on Earth can. And after watching all the alien movies, it can be said that the chest-bursters development is not an exact time, hence why some could burst really early. While the acting is not Oscar-worthy, everyone does a convincing enough job and Lance Henrikson's acting and presence in the film is a nice treat for fans of the Alien series. I can understand why some people hate it. It's unfaithful to the comics and has quite a few plot holes that don't fit with the other movies. But most of them are only obvious when a fan points them out, so no harm done. This movie is still enjoyable to me(a fan of both predator and alien movies) and I'm sure there are more who enjoyed it. A good flick for fans of the movies, or new comers. Forget what you've heard, it's worth a look. A rent is justifiable at least. (I own the unrated edition 2-disc set which makes the PG-13 movie an even more enjoyable blood and guts flick.) This movie is more appreciated if you know how much work went into building the sets, designing the animatronics and simply convincing fox to let the movie be filmed.

Assassin's Creed (2007) (VG)
9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Awesome game!, 30 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As soon as I started playing, I liked it. The game starts out slow and you'll get lost at first but I pushed on and was glad to. Once you get to go to cities you have fun. I was a little confused with the games concept though. You play a man named Desmond in the present who is an assassin captured by a corporation who needs to use his memories t track his ancestor to find something.(Saying what would be a spoiler.) They put you in a machine called an Animus and then your Altair, a assassin who apparently invented free running. The controls are simply and you'll love hopping all over ancient cities, killing archers as you go. You'll have to do a lot of work before you get to kill your target. But it's satisfying once you get to kill. In the end you'll get to kill all nine targets assigned. I read that the ending was a total let down and left *too much* room for a sequel. Garbage. Your quest with Altair has a satisfying ending. The complete end is with Desmond though, and it's a neat one. After the credits, you'll get to explore the laboratory and learn as much as you can before you call it quits. Despite how it sounds, I've revealed nothing to ruin the ending. Buy it and enjoy it. I did. Takes a looooooooooong time though.

25 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
Best in the series, best ever!, 26 December 2007

As soon as I started this game on Christmas night, I knew I would love it. The graphics stun and make you think it's real. The guns reload as should and even shoot through walls and other flimsy material. The modern military tech is very impressive. The game will seriously make your heart pound. The game doesn't glorify war, it shows how messed up it can be with many things like, friends dying, see death through the eyes of others, rescue missions, and even an amazing assassination with a .50 caliber Barrett. From infiltrating a boat to sniping men while wearing Ghillie, you'll be amazed. The stealth missions are tense and full of suspense while firefights are full of action and violence. Infinity ward really took the gold with this game. The only down side is that the game is short. I beat it in one night but it did take all night so the game takes maybe 6 hours on normal but up the difficulty and you've got a couple days to play. Also, play the multi-player. It has a 1-50 rank, customizable weapons and it's full of action. I loved it. If you don't buy this game, you'll be missing a classic without a doubt.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Excellent Sequel...., 24 November 2007

The first game was excellent but this one is better. The first game was somewhat flawed. Stupid teammates, painfully hard at parts, and a mini gun that overheated more than it killed. But all those problems are fixed now. Your AI teammates are much smarter and will stay behind cover more often. The game feels easier now even though there aren't many changes. And the M134 mini gun on the helicopter levels shoots much longer. The weapons are much better and much more in quantity. And the levels are intense. The only main drawback is how short the game is. The first game took a while but this game whizzes by. In short, buy his game, it's worth the $30 bucks. 10/10 A+

Con Air (1997)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Kentucky Fried Cage....., 24 November 2007

Kudos to Jery Bruckheimer for making his first movie without Don Simpson. He showed he could still continue with one of his best friends gone. This movie is one of the best action films of the 90s. Many people compare this movie to The Rock. Don't! They are different movies and have very different ideas. The cast is very solid. Nicholas Cage plays the protagonist Cameron Poe, a man who's rotten luck got him stuck in jail. Now, he's going to see his daughter for the first time, but he has to get to her. And when convicts take over the plane, he has to do what ever it takes to get home. John Malcovich gives an excellent performance as the bad guy(as usual).I don't know why a lot of people dislike this movie. It's got plenty of "cons" but that doesn't stop it from being awesome. (I dropped my rating one point for Nick Cage's stupid accent that kills the idea of him being cool, since he sounds like Fog Horn Leg Horn.)

See this rock solid action thriller. 9/10 Rating A-A+

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
The best medal of honor in a while...., 30 September 2007

(Review for Xbox 360 game.) Despite knowing what will come, I still try the medal of honor games with hope that they will get better. It finally happened. This is not only the best medal of honor, but one of the best WWII games in a while. The game lets you play a US paratrooper named Travers as you jump into the levels from a plane. You steer your chute down to where you want and complete the sprawled out missions in the vast, non linear towns of Europe. Using a vast arsenal of realistic working and shooting weapons such as The 1928 Thompson, M1 Garand, Colt 1911, and several other realistic weapons, you fight several different axis enemies with okay AI. The games shooting is a mixed idea. Hitting your target is not as easy as other games. This could be a problem do to bad hit detection or major realism like in BIAs(brothers in arms) games. But it also has a very realistic shooting mechanic. You squeeze the trigger on the controller to maintain accuracy just like in real life. The game also features a weapons upgrade system. For each enemy you kill, the little meter moves up and then the gun upgrades. (Better accuracy, higher capacity, stronger bullets, etc.) And don't worry, most of these upgrades are realistic and stick to real life upgrades so you still have very realistic weapons. MOH:A also has excellent graphics and good working controls. The multi player is good as well. While the health system is not as forgiving as Call of Duty, you'll still have a fighting chance. Don't miss this game, or you'll be sorry.

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
The best of the three and the best western ever....., 8 September 2007

I spent all day watching all three movies and this one beats the other two and near every other western out there. (with a few exceptions...) Usually, Spaghetti westerns annoy me do to the cheesy noises, unrealistic shooting, and lots of bore. But this movie was different. Unlike the other two, this movie had lots of simple comedy. (Most from Eli Wallach's silliness and stupidity as Tuco adds a perfect sense of comic relief and Clint Eastwood's slickness and intelligence as Blondie makes him so.... cool. Lee Van Cleef does a perfect job as the villain giving a sinister performance. Instead of the fact that the slow parts in the first two movies were boring, this movie took advantage of long shots for suspense and to get a sense of things which is a great directing tool. (Kudos to Sergio Leone) I can surely see why this is #4 on the IMDb top 250. It feels more realistic than the other two movies. No whistling noises when things fall, suspenseful music(and very famous), stellar acting, and nice shoot outs. One of my favorite Clint Eastwood movies and one of my favorite westerns ever! A+. 10/10 Watch this one right away. (I recommend watching the new edition DVDs, the white cases, because the quality is better, the sound is great, and newer, and the dubbing is near impossible to spot.) Don't miss this or you will miss one of the greatest, classic movies ever made.
