Reviews

18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
There's a reason this film is obscure.
12 October 2007
That reason is that it is just not worth watching.

Put aside the shock value of the mock-documentary beginning and set aside the disturbing idea of children killing people with big innocent smiles on their face. What have you left, unfortunately, is nothing of substance.

The background of the movie is easily summed up as follows: a couple travels to an island the husband knew to be peaceful and beautiful, only to find it's currently having...issues. It all goes downhill from there.

Despite the murderous intent, the dead bodies piling up, and all the many things one would be disturbed by at this point, the husband insists on leaving his pregnant wife alone, in the open, for long periods of time. He, on the other hand, takes the time to do some exploring, but only after stopping to lie to his wife in effort to justify staying, and also to grab a quick drink. Feh...

Unrealistic and unbelievable garbàge masquerading as a 'cult classic' when all it really bothers to be is classically corny.

There are better movies to watch, I recommend you stick to them.
14 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pathfinder (2007)
7/10
Not great, but....
10 September 2007
...I don't understand why Pathfinder was received so poorly. Let's address some of the complaints:

Historical Inaccuracy - If you want historical accuracy, go watch a documentary. This movie wasn't made to inspire debate on history or for people to be offended by who their ancestors were and how they're depicted. This is a fictional story about one man versus a group of men who destroyed his family. I don't know if vikings were as obnoxious or evil as portrayed and frankly I don't care. No human is without his evil, so to become indignant about something like this is shallow and simple-minded. It's just a movie. Go with it.

Bad Acting - I don't see how bad acting can be when there is so little actual dialog in the movie. Perhaps that was the problem? If that is the case, then I would agree. The movie is made to be action-packed, yes, but I would have enjoyed some more in-depth dialog throughout. It seems as though a large portion of the movie's sound is just grunting and sword clashing. But did I believe the protagonist was upset his people were killed? Yep. Did the actors playing the vikings seem evil and unyielding? Yep. Were the battles fraught with real energy? Absolutely. Sounds like fair acting to me, at worst.

Rushed Scenes - This one, I agree with, to some degree. The story really could have used much more fleshing out. The movie seems to happen so quickly you may sometimes find yourself feeling "lost in the sauce", but not to a point that the movie becomes hard to enjoy. The plot was definitely moved along at a somewhat hustled pace, but it's not as if Pathfinder was to be some deeper-meaning movie that you'd need time to comprehend. It's about a guy that's peeved and wants revenge. How much depth could you possibly need? The scenes are lush and beautiful, the action is incredible, and movies are better fast-paced than sluggish from my point of view. If you cannot enjoy a movie, purely for its entertainment value, then I pity your jaded existence.

I didn't watch Pathfinder expecting to learn something new or walk away thinking differently. I expected to be entertained for an hour or two, and I was.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Versus (II) (2000)
8/10
Mindless entertainment!
10 September 2007
Oh wow, I did not expect to have so much fun watching this movie. Gore, intense action sequences, an amazing amount of eye candy (every one was just plain gorgeous), and dark humor! How could you possibly go wrong?

Actually, you can, but just slightly else Versus would have received a higher rating. While I can appreciate the intentional campyness and forgive the lackluster cinematography, not a lot of people can. That, in a nutshell, is Versus' flaw; it is not for everyone.

This would, however, be a great "Guy's Night" flick. It's pure action all the way through with some semblance of a plot that doesn't really seem that important to begin with. A portal, and a girl...and...stuff...whatever? Who cares!? The Yakuza are a mix of Charlie's Angels and The Three Stooges, the protagonist is an ass-kicking, matrix wannabe with a flair for dramatic trench coat flinging, and there are zombies...with guns!

Seriously, don't expect for this to be the next Living Dead, or anything of that sort. Pop it in, find a friend, and be prepared to have a blast as you laugh at the wrong moment and root for your favorite person!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Watchable....
10 September 2007
...is really the best way to describe this movie, because that's truly about all it was.

I went into watching this movie hoping it was be at least as good as the first remake, its predecessor The Hills Have Eyes, and was honestly disappointed. The first movie was filled not only with gore but pure, unfiltered horror, especially the beginning scenes with all that the family goes through not even half hour into the movie.

The Hills Have Eyes 2 tries for gore and to some extent succeeds, though blood without believable intent isn't nearly as exciting as watching an unassuming family fight for their lives (even if most of them fail). What ultimately destroyed the movie for me was the fact the this movie's victims involve a rookie group of army twerps. While they were in fact, rookies, I referred more to the fact that these actors could not have had much, if any, real training as to how a real person in their position would act. From their backs obliviously facing open crevices and darkened corridors to bringing the scope of their guns to their mouths, instead of to their eyes, HHE2 lacks any kind of believability. Now, that's not to say the acting was low-grade. They were, in fact, believably frightened people, just not believable soldiers.

The gore is also downgraded a bit, and a lot of the suspense of the original remake (oxymoron, I know) is gone. Perhaps it was more exciting to watch two kids become heroes than it is to watch "trained soldiers" fumble, bumble and die. Who knows.

Worth a movie rental if you enjoy horror movies. If you paid to see this in theaters, I'm very sorry for you.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not for children
10 September 2007
Pan's Labrynth deserves a spot as one of the greatest movies of all time, in and outside of its genre.

Many hearing of the movie's plot, its involvement with mythical creatures and a magical world through a child's eyes, might confuse this for a family fairy tale; I think, at times, I might have preferred that.

In actuality, Pan's Labrynth borders on horror. Ivana Baquero plays a young girl named Ophelia who struggles through a life rapidly spiraling out of control, one she as a child cannot influence. A sickly mother, a brutal step-father, and amidst a war in literally her own backyard, one can't help but sympathize with Ophelia's desire to escape. She finds just that opportunity within an entity, the Faun, straight out of the fairytale books she carries about with her. The Faun himself seems frightening, almost demonic, with a snake-like tongue that leaves you unsure of whether his requests of the girl are truly in her best interest.

Ophelia, desperate to escape into a world so like the fairy tales she's read, sets off through dangerous territories as the Faun's request. Yet, as dangerous as her quests are, her return home becomes a gradual descent into the brutal darkness of her own human people, leaving one to question just who is the real monster in the movie.

In the end, it all seems very bitter; it starts to seem that no one really cared about Ophelia to begin with. I found myself so wrapped into the movie that I felt my own heart-breaking despair. I kept hoping it would suddenly get better, that someone would rescue Ophelia and protect her from the darkness encroaching from every corner.

It's hard to say whether Pan's Labrynth truly had a happy ending. Losing the people who meant most to her, one was left behind, one last person who cared, and it seems no one in this story leaves without their wounds. The entire movie, from beginning to end, tugs at the darkest despair and deepest sadness you could only hope to avoid, with every happy moment tinged with poignancy.

I think, all in all, this is a very adult movie that a family can enjoy with some serious parental guidance; the horrors within are as fascinating as the wonders to come. The top-notch acting will draw you in and hold you despite any language barrier (cleverly overcome with subtitles) and when it's finally over, it's hard not to feel the shame, anger, and triumph, as if the trials were yours alone.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
999-9999 (2003)
6/10
Fun!
9 September 2007
999-9999 is by no means a great horror film, but it was still fun to watch. I felt some of the acting to be slightly overdone but the characters were, for the most part, believable.

The general idea of the movie is that, when calling a number past midnight, a person can ask for anything from a mysterious entity only the caller can communicate with. The wish, when granted (and it always is), comes with a trade which, of course, is the person's life. Gore hounds will enjoy the torture and deaths in all their close-up glory, despite some horrible attempts at CG gore near the end, as no victim is spared a gruesome end. The film actually opens up with something ogreish, though it's never explained how exactly it occurred. Trust a horror movie to disobey the laws of gravity, but whatever.

The plot of the movie is most definitely generic and there are occasional campy moments, but the film was still worth the time I spent watching it. If you love gory horror don't miss out on 999-9999.

Oh, and yes...I saw the ending coming, too. ^_~
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eragon (2006)
7/10
It's not the book, but...
5 September 2007
It's not bad, really. A lot of the bad reviews are from people who have read and loved the book. I can understand their upset, as much of the book's original storyline and prominent characters missing, but the movie in and of itself was enjoyable. Some of the acting was campy, specifically the dramatic flair surrounding the evil mage, but oh well.

Fact is, the movie was fun to watch if you watch it as a movie, and not an animated version of the book (and by animated I don't mean cartoon). Edward Speeler's acting won't win any awards but frankly I think he did a better job of his ~first~ acting role than some actors who have been working for years, some of which were in this movie. The special effects were a joy, and this is most definitely a movie that an entire family can watch; it is neither kiddied up nor dressed-down.

People seem to enjoy comparing Eragon to movies like Lord of the Rings. No movie will be like Lord of the Rings because no movie ~is~ Lord of the Rings. Comparing movies to one another leads to generic movie traits; enjoy movies for what they are and stop comparing them to each other. Why would you want movies to be similar in the first place? What a bore that would be.

If you're a parent and want a fun fantasy movie both you and your kids can enjoy, kind of like Neverending Story but with updated special effects, rent Eragon. If nothing else, it's fun hour and a half with your family.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shortbus (2006)
10/10
Not for the faint of heart, butt...
21 July 2007
And no, that's not a typo in the header. Heh, header...*pun* I'm going to start off the review with a question: Where did they get people who can actually act this well and yet are still willing to get naked and have real, extreme sex in front of a camera? Whoever did the casting for this movie deserves a hell of an applause; the performances in Shortbus are absolutely top-rate and, wow, is there a lot of eye candy.

As mentioned above, the cast is one of the best I've ever seen, which is sad considering I've never seen ~any~ of these people before. How is this possible!? I have to wonder if Hollywood would make better movies should they dip into this pool instead of handing lead roles over to talentless hacks with a 'Name'.

Anyway...

Each and every character in Shortbus has a story that can bring a sudden, unexpected humor to the movie only to later break your heart, or maybe pain you because it's ironically funny when it shouldn't be. These are all stories and issues we've all experienced and deal with sometimes on a daily bases.

I admit, originally I rented this movie for shock value, and yet though there is sex aplenty is completely fades into the background; you stop noticing it because it's a small part of a bigger picture. I did not expect myself to be so immersed in the storyline or feel for these people so deeply.

There's humor, angst, wit, and even bits of complete randomness that one can't help but laugh at (i.e., the guys that decided to break out in song at a particularly interesting moment) however laced with subtle depth they are. And oh, there is a lot of subtlety in this movie, which is ironic considering how bold it is.

One should be warned, this isn't really porn star sex. This is sex between 2 or 3 or however many people that are craving ~something~ and looking for it in each other.

An incredible movie so worth the rent I ordered a copy to keep for my own. Highly recommended but only for the mentally matured.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An intriguing tale of revenge
19 July 2007
I haven't read many reviews on Hannibal: Rising but the few people I spoke with prior to watching the film seemed to have mixed reviews when delving into the specifics, but in general found the film 'enjoyable'. The general sympathy however, was that the book was better; that usually seems to be the case anyway. Having never read the book myself, I think my opinion was somewhat less biased.

Firstly, the acting: Gaspar Ulliel was a ~wonderful~ Hannibal! When I first saw him, I found him way too beautiful to play the part of a madman, but that faded quickly. What was once almost angelic became comparable to a black rose; beautiful but ominous and almost frightening, enhanced by Li Gong's performance of Lady Murasaki, who was both in love with and afraid of the young Lecter. Gaspar absolutely mastered the look of a psycho as he brutalized his victims in ways gore-hounds (like myself) would enjoy; slowly. Li Gong, as mentioned above, plays her part and really made me feel the kind of complicated love that would come from such a relationship. On a whole, however, I felt she was somewhat wasted and should have had more on-screen time. The character of Lady Murasaki was complicated and at times, as possible of brutality as Lecter, if only for his sake. I would have liked to see that more.

Now that we covered the acting, on to the gore; GOOD STUFF! Seeing as this is a spoiler-free review, I can't delve into the details. Needless to say, however, there is plenty of blood and, in the case of a specific character, implied brutality that rivals Lecter's and shows not only the reason for his psychosis, but may actually have people rooting for him! How many movies actually have you rooting for the psycho serial killer? Not very many, at least that I've seen to-date.

There are some pitfalls to the movie, I must admit. On many occasions, both Gaspar and Li's thick accents, though ridiculously sexy, had me rewinding the movie several times before I could understand what they said. A few times I gave up trying to understand at all and just made up words in my own mind to help progress the story along. There were also some scenes that, as typical of Hollywood, would have been much more interesting if the camera didn't turn away at the pivotal moment.

On a whole, I found the movie very enjoyable and great eye candy. Definitely worth an hour and a half of your time.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
BloodRayne (2005)
1/10
Fast forward to the Gore
31 January 2007
IMDb should consider addict negative numbers to their scores, or at least a '0'.

Bloodrayne is so unbelievably, disgustingly BAD, I gave up watching the movie and just set it on fast forward, stopping only when I saw a suitable amount of gore worthy of keeping my attention off the bad dialog and horrible acting. I really wanted to give this movie a chance, but I gave up around the time they brought in Meat Loaf.

I'm sure everyone's heard about this train-wreck of a movie already, so I won't go too deep into the critique other than to say that Uwe Boll wouldn't know a good movie if it ripped his nuts off and shoved them up his backside. Assuming, of course, he can take his head out of it long enough to make the room.

How anyone can take actors that are at worst, 'decent' and continuously ruin their careers with this...CRAP...is beyond me. Who the hell keeps giving this guy money? Have any of these actors ever ~seen~ a Uwe Boll movie? The actors in these films have lost any and all respect I have ever had for them; there is simply no excuse for it. Either you're kissing his butt, desperate for any kind of movie role, actually ~like~ this crap, or don't have a clue and have an ego so big that you feel you alone can save it based on just presence.

*sigh* No amount of groaning or bad-mouthing will every justify the SUCK that is Uwe and anything he lays eyes on, let alone makes. I'm so annoyed I wasted time on this movie I'm actually bordering on angry, angry enough to friggin' scream.

So yeah, this movie sucks, as do all his movies. I have to go wash my eyes now...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Water (2005)
8/10
Right movie for the wrong audience.
16 September 2006
First off, Jennifer Connelly is just awesome, in this movie and everything she's ever done since she was barely a teenager (Labrynth). With that said though, I have a bone to pick with this movie.

Dark Water has set itself up as a 'ghost' horror movie, and thus attracted an audience who expected to see blood, gore, chase scenes, a creepy ghost, and maybe even a naked Jennifer. Dark Water has none of these things, except the ghost, who is actually a small part of the movie.

What this movie should have advertised was a mother struggling after a divorce...a woman unable to escape the demons of her childhood...a ~mystery~ only she can solve, brought to her attention by the ghost of a child whose life clearly mirrored her own past before it was tragically ended...and a daughter caught in the middle of it all. If this is what Dark Water portrayed itself as, it would have been better received, as it would have had the correct audience. It may have even impressed those who weren't originally interested (Fathers/Sons/Boyfriends getting dragged along) as they wouldn't have expected gooey, gory, bloody things only to be let down.

Anyway, I tend to be a little more open-minded, so though Dark Water wasn't what I expected I still found it very enjoyable. The storyline was deep, and sad...maybe even worth a tear or two. Connelly's acting was top-notch, as always. And after watching the original, I have to say this is one of the better remakes out there.
21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Schramm (1993)
5/10
Could have, should have been much more.
12 September 2006
The first thing I would like to point out for all potential viewers is that this is not a gory film as much as it might be mildly disturbing. There are scenes of blood, but this doesn't necessarily constitute 'gore'. This is just my opinion, though.

Schramm is, as most already know, based on a lonely psycho with issues, many of which revolve around women and 'unrequited love' as someone else put it. While I understood the base and idea behind the film, I was left wanting.

Schramm managed to pique my interest but did little more. There is nothing here to flesh out the serial killer; just hints of his self-loathing and dementia. I would have liked some kind of inner monologue at points in the movie, to hear what the killer was thinking during and after his murders. Did he hate his body or did he just enjoy pain? Was he afraid of women or really just somewhat of a necrophiliac? Did he hate was he was doing, though he could not stop, or was he laughing maniacally on the inside? What exactly drives him? Many questions, few answers. Perhaps that was the point though, to leave one thinking and drawing their own conclusions. Maybe not.

In the end, I found this film did not live up to the hype. It wasn't necessarily bad, but it most certainly could have been better.

For those interested in 'gore', find something else. Schramm will not entertain you.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Begotten (1989)
3/10
Interesting if not for the message.
17 August 2006
It's no secret by now that I'm morbidly fascinated by the dysfunctional, which describes 'Begotten' almost too well.

Honestly, I enjoyed the presentation of the film much more than the zealot message behind it. God, Earth, Christ, blah blah...wah wah wah...done a million times before, do we need to see/hear about it again? Feh.

While the portrayal of creation was unique, I found the message still came off as overbearing and pretentious; as if the bible wasn't cryptic enough, let's make a movie that ~also~ makes no sense! Pay little heed to the reviewers out there. Wherever films like this exist there will be someone crying "Brilliant!" to hide their own confusion. If you believe you know it all, then surely the thing that proves you wrong must be of great significance!!!...or you're just an idiot. That works too.

Anyway, watch the film just to say you've seen it. Be genuinely awed by the effects achieved but also be sure to keep that fast forward button handy.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
How can you not love this movie?
4 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
When I think of going to the movies, I think action, or horror, or whatever has a woman in leather with guns/swords/pointy shooty things. I would have never gone to the movies for a movie like this.

I totally missed out.

First off, you have to understand that, despite the title, this is not a movie about magical pants, or anything along that whimsy. The movie is about 4 girls played by young and incredibly talented actresses (who have since faded into relative obscurity, God knows why) who all, over a Summer's vacation, find themselves in uncomfortable situations that force them to grow as people. I'll break it down a bit.

First we have Tibby, played by Amber Tamblyn, probably known as Joan from Joan of Arcadia, who takes on the stereotypical role of a rebellious and apathetic teenager. She is fixated on her camera and spends her summer working to afford better equipment. Along the way, she meets a little girl that, from then on, proceeds to act as a zit upon the chin of our dear Tibby. Said girl, however, eventually ends up changing Tibby for the better in a predictable, yet still heart-warming way.

Next is Lena, played by Gilmore Girl Alexis Bledel, who is an almost complete introvert and artist to boot. Her vacation is spent in Greece with her grandparents and about 100 cousins. Lena has a hard time taking chances, and finds herself pleasantly thrust into a situation that forces her to let loose, greatly motivated by a major Greek hotty.

Then we have Carmen, played by America, who is desperately seeking a relationship with her father who, after leaving Carmen's mother, has found a new family. Carmen spends some of her summer with her father, trying to build a bond, before giving up. She later comes to a realization that the problem isn't only her father.

Last but not least is Bridget, played by Blake Lively who, far as I know, is pretty new to the scene. Her issues center around her mother, who was mentally ill and committed suicide, and her father who has a hard time showing affection, thus leading her down a sad path of seeking out men for the wrong reasons. Her role in the story is the most adult and probably why this scored a PG rating.

So there you have it. A movie based almost entirely around stereotypes and clichés yet still manages to work oh so well! I not only enjoyed this movie as a rental, I'll be purchasing it for future viewing as well.

Oh, and you can't forget America's wonderful line: "They're like the sunshine twins on uppers!" buahaha...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Grudge (2004)
7/10
What a shame...
4 July 2006
Another movie that's received a bad reputation, and hell if I know why. This remake was quite good, far as I'm concerned.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is an American nurse in Tokyo, blah blah, substitutes for someone who goes missing, blah blah...I'm sure you all know what this movie is about by now What you probably don't know, however, is that unlike what most of the critics will say, this movie is filled with suspense. The noises and sound effects are played up extremely well, fitting in and filling the atmosphere of the movie with fear and horror while at the same time being ambient enough to draw little attention away from the screen. While Sarah makes a better Buffy than she does a victim, she still plays her role well, though if it were me I probably would have reacted a little more...extreme...if there were some weird bloody ghost thing in my grill. But whatever.

I don't know a lot about the Grudge series (though I intend to rectify that) but I got a vague idea and, having some familiarity with Japanese culture, understand the lore and superstition this movie was developed around. For those complaining none of it makes sense, make a half-assed attempt to research the background for the movie and within a few minutes you'd understand what is going on. Needless to say, the Japanese are a very spiritual and superstitious people, especially the older generation, and that was likely who this movie would most appeal to despite it's American remake.

In any case, my toes were literally curling, waiting for something to happen or materialize, and what makes me happy is that it always did. I hate horror movies that build suspense only to end it with something dumb like...oh, it was just a cat O.o silly me...and go on to something else. God that annoys me. The gore factor is fairly low, with the exception of one particular part that was just plain disturbing (the tongue scene, as it is known as) but that wasn't the purpose of the film. The point was to scare its audience, and I was scared, so the job was done.

The reason for the title of this critique, however, is the ending. It was horrible. Right up there with some of the worst endings of all time. If there was a better ending and a little more information about the ghost kid, this would have gotten a 9 from me easily. Oh well, still a good movie. If I paid for a theater ticket, I wouldn't be upset.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House of Wax (2005)
6/10
WTF, this was actually decent!
4 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Because it's usually what most people want to know about, I'll get it out of the way right now; Paris Hilton dies a horrible death, and it's exciting, because she does it well. Yep, I'll admit it; for her first film she did a good job. No grammy, but she did a better job than some of the other cast members in making her death and the events that lead to it believable and fun. She runs, she fights back, and her character was supposedly **Major Spoiler** pregnant, so when she dies it's even more of a shame.

That said, Paris is annoying in her indifference and pompous attitude...

There, conscience cleared.

Anyway, this movie received a lot of crap but I found it enjoyable. In fact, part of the reason I liked it so much is probably because I was expecting so little. I honestly just wanted to watch people die, but a couple of the victims' deaths were surprisingly upsetting to me. Especially Dalton, who grew on me in an odd, annoying way I cannot explain. Like fungus.

Unfortunately, this movie wasn't all great; everything was predictable. From the beginning I predicted who would live and die and in what order. Imagine that, I got it right! I managed to figure out the ending before the bad guys were even dead, which is really bad considering the ending is supposed to surprise. I also found the main character, Carly, just plain annoying. I can't explain why, so maybe it wasn't the fault of the actress, but I still desperately wanted her to die. Oh well.

In any case, the movie was fun and enjoyable, not to mention plenty gory, even if some of the gore didn't make a large amount of sense, i.e., Wade being encased in wax yet his eyes suffered no dry ickyness because of being unable to blink. It's the little things you notice...

Would I have paid to watch this in the theatre? Probably not, but as a rental I didn't regret my decision.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ultraviolet (2006)
6/10
It's not meant to contain the meaning of life, for God's sake...
2 July 2006
Many people have bad-mouthed this movie for, to sum it up, its campyness.

Unfortunately, to some degree they are correct. This movie will not win any awards. Some of the movie's cast overacted, while others didn't seem to try hard enough. Some of the CGI scenes could have used a clean-up as well.

However, overall, I enjoyed the movie. Milla is always fun to watch, and she does her usual ass-kicking well; quite possibly her best action work. The kid is adorable, the villain is a prick, and I personally find the idea of riding a motorcyle up a building kinda cool. Alls well in the world. The movie is centered around futuristic vampires, it's not supposed to be realistic. Get a clue people...

I've seen people complain about her fending of a whole legion of soldiers without taking a bullet. She's, for all points and purposes, a genetically enhanced super heroine with all kinds of uberness; the impossible is ~what they do~.

For those complaining about character development, read the comic book. The same thing could be said about the X-Men movies, accept anyone who hasn't been living under a rock already knows the history of the X-Men so the development wasn't necessary. Did Storm get a chance to talk about her past as a thief and connection to some evil demon entity in Africa? No. Did Wolverine get to mention that Lady Deathstrike was at one point a love interest? No. But I don't hear anyone bitching about them. Why? Because it's already common knowledge. The point to this movie was Milla/Violet's interest in a child and how that child changes her views and perspectives. Cliché, maybe, but the movie did its job. If you want to know her life story, read a f*cking book.

It's not supposed to be rocket science. It's not supposed to be deep. It's not supposed to teach you how to be a better person.

It's supposed to be fun, action-packed, and pretty to look at. And that's exactly what Ultraviolet was.

3.5/5 - Plot holes and occasional misstep aside, still entertaining. Makes a wonderful rental.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Irreversible (2002)
3/10
Awful...
8 June 2006
Unlike most of the pompous around here, I'm going to get right to the point.

Irreversible attempts to make a bold statement further emphasized by the music and camera effects rampant throughout the movie. In my opinion, it fails.

Hard as I tried to enjoy this movie, and understand what it all meant, I found myself bored. Gore fanatics will be mildly entertained by some of the movie's scenes, mostly because the camera stays (for the most part) focused upon the happenings, rather than the typical Hollywood horror trash of today (camera looks away, only screaming to let you know what's going on...pfft), but will eventually end up frustrated as, not only is the movie extremely dark, but by the time the camera stops moving enough for you to focus on what is going on, you're not that interested anymore. Those looking for a deeper yet just-the-same disturbing meaning and peek into the workings of the depraved are better off with movies like Salo or May.

And for those interested in an off-the-wall movie with homosexual/homophobic themes should stick to Skin Flick. Don't lie to yourself, you know that's what you were ~really~ looking forward too...

Now with all that said, I will say that this movie wasn't a total waste of my time. Though I think it tried too hard, I did find myself immersed in the story following certain points in the movie. Unfortunately, just as quickly as I became interested, I began wishing I had something else to watch.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed