Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Good animation, terrible story
19 December 2011
I just watched this with my 3 year old grandson and 1-1/2 year old granddaughter. Lucky most of the appalling story plot went over his head and she lost interest and started playing. I considered turning it off but decided to let him finish watching it, so I wouldn't have to explain why I didn't think it was appropriate.

Aside from the fact that Niko's mother had a one-night stand with one of Santa's reindeer, Prancer is a dead-beat father who first didn't even want to admit that he was Niko's dad. Afterall, what would a womanizing, conceited, barhopping, flying reindeer want with a little kid around, right? And then they even showed all the reindeer burping after they had their drink, giving Niko some too and looking expectingly at him until he burps too. Nice manners to be teaching! That singing weasel was extremely annoying, I could have done without that. And that tune she was singing at the bar reminded me an awful lot of "Santa Baby".

And don't even get me started on the pink poodle lost in the woods and the moss eating (vegetarian?) wolf who wants to be taught how to be a dog.

I'm glad the 1-1/2 year old went off to play before the black wolf and his horde started getting really mean, she might have gotten scared. She started crying during the part of Disney's Snow White, when Snow White was lost in the woods in the dark and all those eyes were scaring her. I can just imagine what would have happened, had she seen those growling, snarling wolves.

The dubbing was terrible. Like one of the other commenters, I also had trouble understanding what they were singing in the beginning and caught on to it later on: flying forces, not flying horses. And why did some of the characters call the kid Nieco and others pronounced it like Nicko? No consistency whatsoever.

Terrible terrible movie. No humor whatsoever and a plot more akin to a reality show. What a waste of time, money & talent.
8 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Arctic Blast (2010)
Very predictable, very similar to Absolute Zero and The Day After Tomorrow
7 October 2011
I found this movie to be very similar to the movies Absolute Zero and The Day After Tomorrow. All three movies have a sudden deep freeze as the main theme. Of course you have the lone scientist who goes against the theories of the main stream scientists and gets ostracized for it. Then of course it turns out that he is the only one who is right and all the others are wrong. They screw things up more by trying to fix it with the wrong approach and in the end it is up to our outsider scientist hero to save the world. And of course you have to have the scientist be a dad who has to go rescue his kid. It's really nothing new, it's the same old story, just told in a slightly different way. An OK movie to watch, but too predictable.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ben Hur: Episode #1.1 (2010)
Season 1, Episode 1
2/10
Weak and unnecessary remake of one of the greatest movies ever made
14 April 2011
I had misgivings even before watching this one but wanted to check it out nonetheless. I mean, how could they possibly top the 1959 version with Charleton Heston? Answer: they can't! This made for TV version has a weak cast with mediocre acting. The characters that were so memorable and likable in the Charleton Heston version were poorly developed in this one. I couldn't get myself to care about any of them at all, not even the title character. The movie seems hurried throughout and the scenes that were so spectacular in the 1959 version, particularly the galley battle scene and the chariot race, left me utterly disappointed in this one. I would dare say the silent version from 1925 was better than this one. I don't know what the director and producer of this mini series were hoping to accomplish, but whatever it was, they failed miserably. Lew Wallace must have been turning over in his grave, it simply did not do his book justice the same way the previous two film versions did and even the early 1907 version as a matter of fact. I can see the need to make a remake for the silent black and white movie to update with sound and color. And the 1959 MGM Technicolor version was one of the greatest movies ever made. A monumental epic with a cast of thousands, great stars in the leading roles and William Wyler as the director, they just don't make movies like that anymore.

Just like with the remakes of War Of The Worlds and Planet Of The Apes, this remake was totally unnecessary and can't hold a candle to the much better 1959 version. I say: Leave the timeless classics alone! A great movie can stand on it's own without the need for an "updated" version.
7 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
DEFCON-4 (1985)
8/10
I've seen worse, I actually liked this movie
13 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this one when it first came out, back in the 80s and was looking for it to watch it again. I didn't think it was all that bad, I thought it was actually entertaining. The WW3 aftermath was much more realistic than in most other post-apocalyptic movies of the time. The beginning of the movie was really good but lost some steam towards the 2nd half. I especially liked the beginning, when the crew realized in horror that a nuclear war had broken out on the Earth below. Just as they are trying to decide if they should go back or not, the decision is made for them and they end up crash landing.

Yes, the acting was mediocre at best, but that is to be expected in a low-budget movie with largely unknown actors. Taking that into consideration I thought it was done quite well. Compared to some of the stinkers that received high praises by the movie critics, this one would have been Oscar material. I would rather watch this one several times than having to watch Last Days all the way through one more time.

*SPOILER* I vividly recall one scene, where the guy with the broken back is strapped to a board and being teased with a steak.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
House M.D. (2004–2012)
10/10
best medical mystery show since Quincy M.E.
19 December 2008
Here we are with House M.D. in it's 4th year and the show is still going strong. I love medical dramas and like most people I also like a good mystery. House M.D. combines both in a very interesting way. Instead of having the lead character of the show be a very handsome and likable guy who is compassionate with his patients you have the exact opposite. Hugh Laurie's Greg House is a scruffy-looking, sarcastic character with a bum leg that hurts him all the time. The constant pain is making him pop vicodin pills as if they were m&m's and he makes no effort to hide his addiction to the painkiller meds, not even infront of patients. Sometimes he even cheats to get his hands on some. Yet despite his seeming unprofessionalism he's somehow the most brilliant diagnostician in the entire hospital. The viewer ends up with a love-hate relationship for the guy.

The supporting cast is also excellent and lends variety to the show with the diversity of characters. You have the very compassionate oncologist Dr. James Wilson (played by "Swing Kids" star Robert Sean Leonard) who deals with cancer patients all the time and is House's best if not only friend. Dean of medicine Dr. Lisa Cuddy appears to be an inadequate doctor but excellent boss who is often finding herself in the position of having to defend House's actions. Then there is African-American neurologist Eric Foreman who is sometimes a bit stereotyped as having come from the hood but makes a great contribution to House's think-tank team and favorite person for House to pick on. Dr. Allison Cameron, the sex-kitten of the show, is not all that likable in my opinion. I find her constant arguing with House about ethics annoying. She will go against House's directives even if the "right thing to do" will end up costing the patient his or her life. Dr. Robert Chase, the young, easy on the eyes Aussie doctor seems to be doing most of the labwork and going to patients' houses to check for possible causes for the patient's illness (reminds me of the show Medical Investigation). Speaking of Medical Investigation, I liked that show, but not nearly as much as I like House. The lead character in Medical Investigation was a very unappealing character and the rest of the cast forgettable. For some reason what didn't work for Medical Investigation works with House. Maybe the show wouldn't have been cancelled if an actor of Hugh Laurie's caliber had been in the lead role.

I used to watch E.R. for a few seasons but lost interest after Paul McCrane's character of Dr. Robert Romano was killed off. Thereafter the show had lost it's appeal to me. I liked Dr. Romano, he was sort of a precursor to Dr. House with his no-nonsense attitude and biting sarcasm - another guy you loved to hate. As said before, I like medical shows and also mysteries and I think House M.D. combines this very well. The show reminds me a lot of the 70s Quincy M.E. starring Jack Klugman. Both characters aren't physically attractive and go against the rules quite often if the end result justifies the means. Both characters get in trouble with their bosses a lot. What do a doctor of diagnostic medicine and a coroner have in common? They both search for clues to find out what happened to a person. The only difference is that House's patients are still alive and he tries to find a cure before time runs out.

In my honest opinion House M.D. is the best medical mystery show since Quincy M.E and I look forward to every new episode. I hope the show sticks around for as long as E.R.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
great acting, wonderful scenery, excellent movie - way ahead of it's time
11 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have not seen this movie since it first came out in the 70s and just caught it again on TV yesterday (with the first sequel right after it). After all these years it still holds up well. Many have compared Dances with Wolves to this movie for good reason, even Richard Harris himself accused Kevin Costner of blatantly using scenes from it for his lengthy blockbuster epic. I dare say that the depiction of the Sioux way of life was even more realistic in A Man Called Horse than it is in the more romanticized Dances With Wolves. While some of the earlier westerns using so called "hollywood indians" have no doubt great entertainment value I do welcome movies that don't portray the native Americans as barbaric savages. Using native American actors speaking their native tongue instead of painted white actors wearing oh so obvious wigs and speaking in a made-up language was not common back then and A Man Called Horse was one of the earliest movies to do so, way ahead of it's time. The cinematography of the wide open prairie was breathtaking and the scenes portraying the suspension in the sun vow ritual were extremely realistic, making me wonder if Richard Harris actually did have his skin pierced. Interesting that so many young people are now trying suspension as a means of getting an adrenaline rush, although in a more modern setting using surgical steel hooks, the principal is still the same.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wild Hogs (2007)
6/10
These 4 guys don't need a complicated storyline to make a movie funny
9 March 2007
So it wasn't a masterpiece but I thought this movie was really funny, my husband and I watched it and laughed throughout the movie. The storyline of Wild Hogs is simple: 4 middle aged guys hitting the open road on their motorbikes to try and recapture their youth and get away from their humdrum lives for awhile. What makes it so funny are the little things that happen to them here and there and the dialog between them. All four (Allen, Travolta, Lawrence and Macey) did a superb job to make this movie hilarious. And Ray Liotta is the perfect bad ass biker villain.

There isn't a whole lot of violence in it, no blood and gore, and the language is kept in check too which makes this a cute comedy a family with older children can watch together.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
great race car action with a hint of suspenseful crime drama
14 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My expectations for this movie were to see familiar comic book characters come to live on-screen and to include great racing scenes. I was a bit disappointed that it did not contain any formula 1 racing scenes which were the main focus in the comic series but I actually liked this movie quite a bit anyways. I watched it in french and didn't understand much of the dialog, interesting enough all of the people in the Leader team spoke English which helped me understand more of the conversations. The action sequences speak for themselves and the emotions of the characters came through clearly enough.

The story of the rivalry between the brutal Leader team and the french Vaillante team continues when the Leader's daughter takes over and seeks revenge on the Vaillants whom she blames for the misery and death of her father. Suspenseful racing action, sabotage, tragedy, love and crime drama: this movie combines it all in a fairly well-written story plot (I've seen worse).

Having read almost all the comic books when I was a child I remember the characters well and for the most part the movie does them justice although I found several inconsistencies: Ruth was transformed from a caucasion woman with short blonde hair to an oriental with long dark hair(in the comic Ruth had an assistant who looked that way - I assume the director got confused???). And what happened to Jean-Pierre's son Jean-Michel? I don't recall him having a daughter named Laura. And since this was supposed to be 13 years after the original incident with the Leader, Michel should have been married to Francoise by now and have a son named Patrick, so what was he doing with Julie Wood (who btw was the motorcycle-racing sister of Jack "Indie" Wood the young driver who replaced Steve Warson when he went MIA after finding out the truth about Ruth).

When you base a movie on a comic book series you should at least get the characters straight (can you imagine the uproar of fans if they would have changed the names of some of the characters in the Superman movies?)With Michel Vaillant they created a mishmash of story lines thrown together from different points in time (afterall the comic book series ran for several decades). In my opinion the title character of Michel was a bit over the top, almost too cocky (he never would have done such an irresponsible thing like driving with his eyes closed in the comic books - KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!!!) The cast was well-selected otherwise and it's not the actors' fault that the director and screenwriters didn't do their homework.

Even though the movie wasn't entirely believable, at least it was not cheesy like the animated series or live action TV series. One must bear in mind that the movie IS based on a comic strip geared towards kids and therefore reflects that (I used to read some of the stories in a kids comic book collection called ZACK when I was a preteen).

Update: I have now watched the German version of this movie and was able to understand the conversations. Interesting enough the people who spoke English in the French version suddenly now all spoke German as well and the dubbing was terrible, I almost prefer the French version LOL.

Bottomline: If there ever is a sequel to this movie I sincerely hope that the people responsible will do a better job to stay true to the comic book series.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed