Mitch-25's Reviews

The Dark Knight (2008)

10/10

18 July 2008

One of the ways I judge the quality of a movie is by how much attention the audience around me takes from my watching of the movie. With the exception of a couple of minutes at the beginning of The Dark Knight (when a little kid started talking to her mom, she was asleep soon after), I could not take my eyes off the screen.

This is a truly exceptional piece of film making. I will not give anything away by telling you what happens. I have to say though that the acting of Heath Ledger is just spectacular. They give him a lot of lines in this movie, probably a lot more than most would expect to a comic book villain to get. In fact, this movie has more dialog period than most would expect in this type of movie. That was also the case in Batman Begins, but is even more so in this movie.

While Heath was awesome, the other actors were almost as good. The only weak character was Rachel Dawes played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. I thought she was weak in Batman Begins, and she is even weaker here. But the strengths of the other characters/actors more than makes up for her.

Anybody who enjoys these types of movies will love this one. Even if you don't enjoy them, you should see it. It's more than a comic book movie. Nolan has managed to bring so much more to the surface than just special effects and explosions.

BTW, if Ledger doesn't at least get a nomination for Best Actor, that will be a shame. He deserves it.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Walk the Line (2005)

9/10

Walk the Line

24 March 2006

Warning: Spoilers

I must tell you, I am not a country music fan nor am I a fan of Cash. But still, this movie was Excellent. Johnny Cash had a very distinctive style of singing and acting on stage ("Hello, I'm Johnny Cash"). Phoenix BECOMES Cash in this movie. I know it's been said many times before, but he really does become Cash. His singing style is the same, he has the same low singing voice, his mannerisms are the same, everything. Very impressive.

As for Reese, I am not familiar with June Cash's singing so I can't really make a comparison. However, I have heard she like Phoenix was very close to how June acted and sang on stage. Oh, and Reese has a GREAT voice.

For two people who have never sung before or played any of the instruments Johnny and June did and to have performed like they did is just AWESOME.

Also, Witherspoon and Phoenix looked VERY good together. They looked like they were having a lot of fun making this movie. This is especially true during the concert scenes. They just work so well together.

I can't help but compare this with another recent music bio-pic...Ray. Is this as good or better? I'd have to say no. But it is really close. I felt Ray had a bit more story to it. And I the music Ray Charles made more than Cash's. But, that being said, this movie makes me want to get some of his music from Itunes as I did when I saw Ray.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Battlefield Earth (2000)

1/10

I wish it was possible to give this movie a NEGATIVE number

10 November 2005

A movie must be Truly bad to deserve a 1 rating from me. Battlefield Earh is one that qualifies.

I am a fan of Travolta. He is excellent in Pulp Fiction. He is good in Face Off. His really early success was Saturday Night Fever, and he was brilliant in that movie. I even rather enjoyed him in Broken Arrow. However Battlefield Earth shows that Travolta is capable of making a piece of crap too.

The script was lame, the acting was Awful, the special effects were not much better but they were the "highlight" of the "film." I am sure that everybody stank too even though we couldn't smell them (at least they LOOK like they stink).

Anyway, do yourselves a favor and avoid this turd like the plague.

BTW, about this being a great book, I am sure it is a pretty good one. But, L. Ron Hubbard to me is just as nuts as all those other Scientology nuts (including Mr. Travolta).

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Batman Begins (2005)

10/10

The Batman franchise is saved.

15 July 2005

Warning: Spoilers

I am not a comic book fan. However, as a non-comic book fan and as somebody who judges superheroes from just their outside appearances, I have to say that Batman is my favorite (followed closely by Spiderman and Superman). The reason is that Batman is human without any real "upgrades." Every other superhero has had something happen to him/her to make them special (Spiderman got bit by a spider, Superman is not human, etc..). I have always liked Batman because he is human without any character advantages that the others have (other than those "wonderful toys" of course).

That is also one reason I enjoyed Batman Begins so much. This Batman is a very flawed human who becomes Batman through a conscience choice (another thing that most superheroes don't have, choice). The only thing that he has going for him is a very powerful corporation that can produce all the tools he needs to become Batman.

Here are some of the other reasons I enjoyed this movie.

1. This Batman takes place in the "real" world. True, it's a modified world, but the real world none the less. Gotham in this episode does not seem to be otherworldly like the other Batman movies. In addition, everything Batman does to become his alter-ego seems to be at least slightly possible.

2. I loved the explanations of how Batman became Batman and how he makes use of his company to produce the tools he needs. In the other Batman movies, we just assumed that Wayne had the resources to become Batman from some mysterious place. Here we know where the batsuit and Batmobile, and everything else comes from. I also really liked the backstory.

3. The acting was also very good. Christian Bale was the biggest surprise. I haven't seen him in many movies, and I was not entirely sure how he would do. But, he was very good as BOTH Bruce Wayne AND Batman. He had a very dark quality that Batman MUST have (in my opinion). Morgan Freeman was also a very good choice. He is good in just about every single movie he is in no matter how good or bad the actual movie is. Michael Cane as Alfred was just a genius move by the producers. He has a classic quality in his acting. But he also provides some of the best comic relief in the movie (there is some, but not a lot). Garry Oldman as Gordon is another genius move. I have enjoyed him since he was in The Fifth Element. He is a great actor who provides the low-key attitude that Gordon should have. I really liked that Gordon has a central role to play in this movie, and Oldman is good at it. The ONLY actor I did not like all that much was Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. I understand this character is simply to give Batman a female character to play with (all Batman movies should have at least one female in it). But, Holmes is just not very good. She seems to be very plastic and not very believable.

Well, that is it. There are many other reasons to like this movie, but I have covered the important parts. There are some minor plot holes and such in the movie, but they never take away from the overall fun of the movie. This is without a doubt (at least in my mind) the best in the series. I really liked the first Batman, but this one is better. A must see for anybody even if you are not a comic book fan.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

9/10

ONE of the best of the entire series

20 May 2005

First, I will tell you the one thing that is bad about this movie: The acting is rather bad. The actors are very wooden and just don't seem to mesh well. Though, I must say two things about this. First, NONE of the Star Wars movies has had great acting. And, the acting in this movie is MUCH better than ep 1 and 2. I especially enjoyed Hayen's acting AFTER he swore loyalty to Palpatine.

Now that we have that out of the way, let me list the many good things about this movie: 1. The special effects are AWESOME. There is SO much to see in every single scene that when you get finished, you have not even seen half of what you want to. That is one of the good things about the original series.

2. The story is very very good. I thought it connected so much and allowed no huge questions between this one and New Hope. Of course there are questions about what Obi-Wan and Yoda do in between the two episodes and how Leia and Luke grow up. But, the really big questions like how Darth Vader comes into being are answered. That more than anything else is what I was looking for from this movie.

3. Ian McDiarmid's acting is extraordinary. I didn't think a lot of him during eps 1 and 2. But, in this movie, he shines. The conversion scene with him transforming into the dark evil emperor was very well done. His ability to turn Anakin was also ingenious.

4. Yoda was once again a BAD ASS. Yoda has always been one of my favorite characters. I am sure I am not alone in this opinion either. When he was created for ep 5, Lucas simply did not have the technology to make him move like he did in the first three episodes. Now he does, and he uses technology to bring Yoda truly to life. The scene where Yoda confronts Palpatine is great. When Yoda drops those two guards at the entrance, the audience I was with cheered.

5. The transformation of Darth Vader into the hulking figure we know today was very interesting. We get to view him in "human" form when he swears loyalty to the emperor, when is badly burned after his fight with Obi-Wan and then the big transformation when he is rescued by Palpatine and is fitted with his suit. I thought the stages of transformation were very well done and really made it seem that each step was progressively painful for Anakin.

Well, anyway, there are some of the good things about this movie. Overall, I think Lucas has really redeemed himself. While I enjoyed ep 2, and to lesser extent ep 1, this is the one that really brings everything together. It is also an excellent story and has just jaw-dropping special effects. 10/10 rating.

Oh, one thing, is this the best of the series? At this point, I'd have to say no. I am still in awe of Empire. This I would put at number 2. I need to see it a few more times though. It might replace Empire eventually.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

8/10

Atheist notes

12 April 2004

As a committed atheist, it is often hard for me to watch Biblical movies. Most are VERY idealized versions of Bible stories. Passion of the Christ is NOT.

This is a hard look at the final hours of Christ's life from his capture and torture to his crucifiction. It is VERY bloody and VERY violent. Almost the entire movie is a one scene after another showing the extremes that the Romans went to to punish Jesus. If that were the only thing on the screen, I think it wouldn't be as powerful. However, innercut between the scenes of extreme violence are flashbacks to happier times when Jesus was teaching his followers. The way this was done was very simple but very powerful. I don't know if what is shown on the screen is true, but it IS a powerful story and a VERY powerful way to tell it.

It's hard to call this movie "entertaining." It was very well shot, the acting was extremely good and the direction (Mel Gibson) was very well done. However, this is most certainly NOT a movie that is meant to entertain. It is meant to be a morality tale and an unabashed telling of the last days of Christ's life.

Also, parent should wait till their kids are at least 15 to have them view this movie. It's probably the most violent movie ever made and certainly the most violent I have ever seen.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

8/10

A great piece of art from any point of view

26 February 2004

This is the type of movie you will either LOVE or HATE. I as an atheist don't necessarily agree with the entire story. However, this is not necessary to understand and appreciate this movie. It is a great story of a man who suffered for all of us (if you go by the Bible).

One word of warning. This movie is NOT for young children. It is absolutely the most brutal movie I have ever seen. I think the R rating is correct because it lacks ANY swearing or sex (not so much as an ass cheek is shown). But all the same, it is VERY violent in places.

Having said that, I think the brutality adds a lot to the movie. What happened to Jesus was NOT kind in the slightest. Nor was it a "kind" punishment for the many people who died like this. The brutality adds a sense of how it felt to actually BE Jesus. The camera does not shy away from showing the most brutal and bloody parts of the punishment he recieved. However, the brutality is partially abated by the other scenes of Jesus talking to his followers in a few scenes before his capture and punishment. It's clear from the movie and the Bible that Jesus understood that he was supposed to go through this torment.

What else to say about this movie? Well, the acting was very good. James Caviezel as Jesus was great. The supporting cast was also very good. The portrail of the Jews and the Romans was pretty mixed. There were good Jews (the ordinary people) and bad Jews (the leadership). As for the Romans, I sort of understood the problem that Pontius Pilate had. According to the movie, he didn't want to execute Jesus but was forced into it by the Jewish leadership. I don't know what the real story is (nobody really knows), but I think Gibson took sort of a middle ground with these people. As for Gibson himself. I was surprised to hear that he put up his own money to make this movie. This shows that this story was very important to his. I also found it kind of enlightening that no major studio backed Gibson. This shows their true colors. They do not want stories like this to be made. Fortunately, Gibson was able to find a small distributor (Newmarket Films) that had the balls to put this movie out. I think that studio will reap HUGE rewards for what it has done.

Overall, this is the type of movie that EVERYBODY should see at least once. It's a very important story and a lesson for all of us no matter what your religious convictions.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Blue Crush (2002)

7/10

Don't search for depth in a movie like this.

15 January 2004

If you rent this movie thinking you will see a "deep" movie, then you rented it for the wrong reasons. The only think deep about this movie is the ocean.

However, if you like very good cinamatography with the best serfer scenes ever along with some of the most BEAUTIFUL serfer babes EVER then this is a movie for you.

Also, despite the comments putting down the story and acting, the story was NOT bad especailly considering what type of movie it is. The producers obviously knew what type of movie this was and didn't bog it down with a heavy story. The plot only serves to move the action from wave to wave which is what a movie like this is supposed to do. The acting by the three HOT babes was not bad either.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

10/10

The BEST movie of the series

29 December 2003

Watching this great movie for the second time, I remember some of the best times I had as a moviegoer especially as a kid. I remember watching the original Star Wars series with a SERIOUS amount of amazement. Raiders of the Lost Arc gave me a great sense of adventure. And, the first Jaws scared the hell out of me. All these movies (and others like them) PROVIDED something for me to remember. In addition, they were just plain FUN movies. Not pretentious, overwrought or just plain dumb.

Most of today's movies are just plain nonsense. They have no heart like they used to. They are all made for the sole purpose of making a buck.

Although I am sure that New Line Cinema would love to make billions on this series, and Peter Jackson and his people are being paid well for their efforts, that does not prevent these movies from being great works of art and just plain fun.

I remember reading these books as a kid, and I have always loved them and wanted somebody to do a proper adaptation of them. Now that the final book has been brought to the big screen we can see the entire series from a new perspective and I for one admire it more than I ever have. It would have been easy for Jackson and co. after the success of Fellowship to just give people a shortened version of the last two books with teasers here and there but no substance. But, he has not done this. Return of the King is the best example of this.

In this movie, Jackson has made a movie that works very well with the books and finds the most essential parts of it to make a movie that works on just about every level. From the scenery in New Zealand to the look of the battles (I felt as if I WAS there) to the incomparable computer effects of Gollum and the equally amazing effects of Shelob, ever part was filmed with a care to the details that the books deserved. The dialog in this movie is also much better than in Two Towers. I loved this movie from the first scene of how Smeagol finds the ring of power to the last frame of Sam closing his door in the Shire.

Back to what I was saying at the top. Very few movies today give me a sense of wonder that I had as a kid. This series certainly does this. From the beginning to the end, the movies are a stunning achievement and worthy of any awards it receives.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Primal Fear (1996)

GREAT first movie for Ed Norton

29 November 2003

I am NOT a fan of Richard Gere. I think he is a pompous ass. However, the story was very good and he wasn't bad.

The best part of the movie though was Ed Norton. This was his first movie, and he played his part PERFECTLY. The first time I saw the movie, I was completely fooled. He has done better movies since, but if you want a glimps of what he did earlier in his career, see this movie.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sling Blade (1996)

10/10

A movie of simple truths

29 August 2003

This is one of those movies that you either love or hate, and either get or don't get. It takes at least a couple of viewings to really understand the Thornton character. But, once you do understand him, you kinda understand his thinking, and the truths he uses to get through his life. The chemistry between Thornton and Lucas Black is very good. I also liked the John Ritter character, and I DO NOT like John Ritter. Overall, a movie that everybody should see at least once.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Mask (1994)

8/10

PART.....Y? Because I GOTTA!

29 August 2003

I am a really big fan of Jim Carey and this movie is one of the reasons why. He has such a kinetic energy in all his "funny" movies. And, that is especially true in this movie. The story is a little overdone, but that is the point, it's supposed to be. Another thing about Carey, that green mask is very nice. It really allows Carey to show his face.

Now on to Diaz. She is a KNOCKOUT in this movie. I have rarely seen anybody so beautiful. She was even more beautiful in There's Something About Marry. But, this was her debut. That long red dress in the first scene is just outstanding.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Staying Alive (1983)

A total throw-away

29 August 2003

In comparison to Saturday Night Fever, this movie is a total disgrace. Where that movie had energy and an actual story to tell, this has none of that. All the actors look like they are just reciting lines. Even most of the dance scenes lack excitement (even the Travolta dances). The music is OK for this movie however, by 1983 disco was on its deathbed and music had started to move on.

If you want to see a REALLY good movie, rent Saturday Night Fever and forget this movie.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Grease (1978)

Very cool musical

29 August 2003

I am most certainly NOT a big fan of musicals. But, Grease is one of the few exceptions. I really like this movie. Yes, it drags a bit in the middle, but the main songs are staples of pulp culture. And the chemistry between Travolta and John is great. The dancing of course it nice. This was also the movies that really started the careers of several people including Travolta and Olivia Newton John.

I especially like the Rizzo character played by Stockard Channing. Although she wasn't the cutest kid in the movie, she was a very good character and Channing did a really good job.

If you like musicals, this has to be one of your favorites. If you don't (like me) this is probably still a good movie for you to see. It is a light fun movie with lots of really good musical numbers.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005)

Can be a good series

28 August 2003

I have seen many of the comments about season one. What I have to say about the negative comments is that almost ALL the Star Trek series have started out pretty weak. All of course except TOS. Let's give this one a chance people. I happen to like the premise. Scott Bakula would not have been my first choice to be Captain Archer, but he certainly has not killed the show. Also, the first season stories have been decent. Some sucked, and some were great. The ONLY real problem I have with this show is the main title song. It SUCKS. I am REALLY glad I TIVO this show so I can fast forward past that crappy song. PLEASE give us a title song that DOESN'T suck.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

10/10

The best of the entire series

28 August 2003

I remember seeing this classic movie as a kid. I loved it then, and now that I am grown up and know a bit more about movies (and have seen many more of them), I love this movie even more.

Where Star Wars: A New Hope was a movie that introduced the main characters of the first trilogy, Empire is the movie that really gets into the meat of the story. Luke trains with Yoda to become a Jedi, the others (Han, Leia and C3PO) are chased by the evil empire, and of course Luke finds out that Darth Vader (the BEST villan in the history of the movies) is his father.

This is also the movie where George Lucas was free to do just about anything he wanted with his special effects. And, it REALLY shows in this movie. The scenes on Hoth with the Imperial Walkers are very cool even by today's standards. The asteroids and space battles are much better than in A New Hope, much more refined. Just about everything in this movie effects wise is an improvement on A New Hope.

I love all three of the first trilogy. I even like episodes 1 and 2 (although they both pale in comparison). However, this is by far the best of EITHER of the series. Let's just hope that episode 3 lives up to the greatness of this great movie series.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Drew Carey Show (1995–2004)

Very good sitcom

21 July 2003

First let me say that I usually HATE sitcoms. Even the "good" ones just don't do it for me. However, The Drew Carey Show is one of the best I have ever seen.

I started watching in reruns then eventually started watching the new episodes on ABC. By far the best character is Lewis played by the VERY funny Ryan Stiles. That guy KNOWS how to do comedy. Some complain about Drew in this show. However, I find him to be one of the best actors in the show. He has an "everyman" attitude, and can almost never get ahead in the world, especially in the first few seasons. I really like the themed episodes like the "What's Wrong With This Episode" episodes or the episodes with the musical numbers, or even the live episodes.

Now, all that being said, I have to admit that the "Who's Line Is It Anyway" gig that Carey picked up is lowering the comedy output on the sitcom. PLEASE Drew, stick to what works (i.e. the sitcom) and leave Who's Line to the Brits. Plus, I HATED when Kate left. She is a GREAT character, and the chick Christa Miller is CUTE and can be VERY funny.

However, even with these problems I will continue to watch the show. Mimi is still there as is Lewis and Drew, and they are still funny.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Planet of the Apes (2001)

6/10

Not bad taken by itself

30 June 2003

If this had been the FIRST Planet of the Apes, I think reviews would be quite different of this movie. But, unfortunatly, because of the cult following that the original series has (me included), it is compared with the classic. I myself can see why it doesn't compare with the original, and I agree, it is NOT as good as the first Planet of the Apes.

All that being said, I must say that taken by itself, this version of Planet of the Apes is actually quite good. The make-up effects were GREAT as were the other special effects. As for the story, I didn't it was bad. The dialogue could have been better, but what do you really want from Burton? As for the acting, so Wahlberg needs some acting lessons? Tim Roth was very good, as was Michael Clarke Duncan. And even though she had all that make-up on, Helena Bonham Carter was STILL sexy as hell.

Although not exactly up to the original classic, this version is a fun movie. I also, hope that there is a second one. This time maybe get somebody other than Burton to direct it.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

9/10

Great Christmas movie

30 June 2003

I am not a real big fan of Tim Burton. He is usually really good (Beetlejuice) or really bad (Mars Attacks!). Although he didn't direct this movie, he did write it and produce it, and it is one of his best.

The stop motion effects are very very well done. The story is excelent, and the actors worked well together and sounded like they had LOTS of fun making the movie.

As to it being too dark to be a Christmas movie (as I have seen here), well that is a matter of opinion. It is a little dark (as a lot of Burton's best movies are), but I still consider it to be a good Christmas movie. The story is all in good fun, and in the end, all sides get their way.

All in all, I would have to give it 4.5 stars out of 5. A good movie for just about anybody to see.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bruce Almighty (2003)

9/10

One of Carrey's better movies

29 May 2003

I am a VERY big Jim Carrey fan. I laughed my ASS off during Liar Liar and Ace Ventura. I also like him in his serious movies, especially Truman Show. This one is a cross between his VERY funny side, and his serious side. He is of course VERY funny in this movie, but there are parts that are very serious, and he pulls it off with a lot of ease. he is truely a multi-function actor.

As for the rest of the cast, I was happy with Jennifer Aniston's acting. I think she is more than just a couple of nice tits and great ass. Morgan Freeman makes a VERY cool God. As for Steven Carell, his limited scenes are VERY funny, especially in the anchor scene.

Overall, I would have to rate this a 9. Good acting, funny script, and some very serious situations make this a very good film.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Total Recall (1990)

8/10

Very good Arnold film

17 May 2003

Watching this again for about the 100th time, I have to say this movie is one of my favorite Schwarzenegger movies. He really expands his acting ability here. He isn't just a big bad dude (although he certainly is that here), he is thoughtfull and even funny.

Yes, this movie's science sucks, but what sci-fi movie truely is accurate as far as science? If Schwarzenegger died at the end of the movie, audiences would have been up in arms.

One other note, I REALLY liked the acting of Ironside. He always plays the evil dudes, but this is one of his best performances along with Ronny Cox.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

7/10

Good sequal

16 May 2003

After having seen this sequal, I have to say that it wasn't bad. The story although a little convoluted was good, the acting was very good (I like Fishburne). I espeically liked Morpheus' speech in front of the "rave."

As for the action, all I can say is WOW. The fight sequences were stunning. Neo's fight with Agent Smith (LOTS of him) was great. The freeway scene was also very well done.

For all those who critisize this movie for having a weak storyline, let me say one thing, GET OVER IT. This is an ACTION movie. Almost NO good action has story that is beyond simplistic. And, I have to say this one is better than most. You go to this type of movie to see sci-fi special effects, and action.

I was one of the 5 or so people in the world who DIDN'T know before seeing the movie that there will be a third. Frankly, I can't wait for November. It's gonna be WAY cool.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mission to Mars (2000)

1/10

Brian De Palma should NEVER direct sci-fi movie

15 May 2003

This along with Battlefield Earth are two WORST sci-fi movies ever made. The story is very weak, the acting is even worse, and even the special effects (which you would think would make up some for the general weakness) are bad. DON'T waste your time with this one.

A better Mars movie (though marginally so) is Red Planet. At least the acting in that one is OK, and the alien special effects don't look like dolls on wires.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

X2 (2003)

9/10

More of the same, but better

5 May 2003

It is not often that the sequel to any big-budget flick is better, but this is the case with X2. The action is much bigger in scope and the story is really pretty damn good (I liked that Wolverine found out where he was "made"). Plus, we are introduced to some new X-Men including Pyro and Alan Cumming as Nightcrawler (I REALLY liked him).

Are there flaws? Sure there are. The plot is a BIT over-the-top, but who cares? It is a big-time action movie, and it is just fun to watch.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Bourne Identity (2002)

9/10

Decent action movie

1 May 2003

For what it was, the Bourne Identity was a good movie. Action movies in general have many flaws. This one does too. But, if an action movie is as well made as this one is, then we (or at least I) generally overlook them. I am not a really big fan of Damon, but he was good in this flick. The twist at the end was TOTALLY surprising to me. Overall, it was a good movie.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mitch-25

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed