Reviews

How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."

Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.

What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.

I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.

Jackie Brown was not a bad movie, but just a disappointment, since I was expecting so much more from a Quentin Tarantino movie. The movie still had the same style to it as all of Tarantino's other films, but the movie was a lot different and not as enjoyable as Tarantino's other films. Of course, this movie was based on a novel, so Tarantino didn't write it, he just wrote the script. The story is too drawn out, but the acting and directing are excellent, and there are a few very cool scenes that make the movie worth while. Sam Jackson plays a very funny part, and it was fun to see Robert De Niro in a Tarantino film. Both actors, as always, played their roles very well. It was a treat to see Michael Keaton in the film, as well as Chris Tucker. I'd rate Jackie Brown right beneath Kill Bill Vol. 2 as far as Quentin Tarantino films go. This was not a bad movie, just a little disappointing and too drawn out. If you rented the movie, you might want to watch it half at a time so that you won't get bored out of your mind during certain scenes. Seven stars out of ten.

I thought the movie Reservoir Dogs was very well made and had a good script and good directing. But even better than that was the movie's excellent acting and great cast. Every role was cast perfectly and acted very well, even Tarantino's bit, and, although Sam Jackson is an excellent actor, I respect and support Mr. Tarantino's decision not to use him in this film. Harvey Keitel was a special treat in this film, as was Steve Buscemi. The story is in every way perfect and the setting, although very different from that of Pulp Fiction, is every bit as good. Tim Roth didn't give as good of a performance in this as he did in Pulp Fiction, since he was playing an American in Reservoir Dogs, but he still did a good job. Michael Madsen did an excellent job in this film, playing his role perfectly (probably just as writer/director Quentin Tarantino originally saw the character in his mind), and it's a shame we didn't see him in another Tarantino flick until Kill Bill Vol. 2. Reservoir Dogs is second only to Tarantino's own Pulp Fiction, and the opening credits sequence is very cool and clever. I recommend this movie to anyone who has not seen it. Five stars out of five.

This film is excellent and one of the best European films I have ever seen, with an excellent British cast and screenplay. The story is very clever and the acting and directing are very good also. All the scenes flow together very well and wrap up comfortably in the end. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is fun to watch and also very funny and clever, with amateur criminals trying to pull off the perfect crime. Since this was a British film, and just got compared with a bunch of other British films, most people didn't notice that this movie was a lot like the movie Pulp Fiction. Anyone who liked Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs ought to see Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. I also recommend this movie to anyone who is into foreign films and to anyone who likes good movies. Five stars out of five.

This movie is about average for its genre. Anyone who liked Scarface should watch this film, though they probably won't like it as much. Excellent acting from Sean Penn, Luis Guzman, and Al Pacino, as always. Good directing from Brian De Palma, but not his best. Pacino plays his role superbly, but does nothing in this movie that we haven't seen him do before, except maybe speak with a Puerto Rican accent, not unlike Scarface's Cuban. Sean Penn did an excellent job with his role, considering he played a very unusual part, which proves that he is a very talented actor and can play all kinds of parts. Luis Guzman was a treat as well. Four stars out of five.

Scarface is an excellent movie with excellent acting, a good story, and minimal flaws. This is likely Brian De Palma's best directing, and the story along with Pacino's exceptional acting make it one of the best films of the 80's, if not of all time. This is Pacino's finest effort seen, not soon to be matched, and he plays a Cuban superbly. Steven Bauer also does an outstanding job acting, and Michelle Pfeiffer played her role perfectly. The plot was excellent and the music very fitting for the film's setting and era. Scarface isn't a short movie, but it's never boring and the scenes flow perfectly. I applaud anyone who helped make this film and I recommend it to anyone who likes good movies. Five stars out of five.

I never paid much attention to Star Wars and I was never a big fan of the films, but I did see the first three when I was a kid and again when I got older, and I still kind of liked them. But this addition to the series is nowhere near as good as the old films. First off, it's much more colorful, which I don't like, but maybe it's kind of fitting. Also, however, the acting, story, scene flow, and directing aren't near as well done as in the older films. There was hardly anything in the movie to keep me in my seat watching it. Most people hated the film, although it is impossible to rate this film without comparing it to the older films. Few people thought the film was okay, and even fewer loved it. The only people who did love this movie were small children and idiots who thought the androgynous Jar-Jar Binks character was clever, and die-hard Star Wars fans. Yet some big Star Wars fans hated it, because they didn't have to hypnotize themselves to convince their minds that this movie was actually good, and they actually liked it, because all Star Wars films are good, right? They just accepted the fact that this movie sucks.

This movie was very strange and awful. It seems that everyone who saw it either really loved it or hated it, but nobody hated it as much as me. While I was still planning to see the film I was delighted to see it on the top 250, because I thought that means it's a good movie, but I guess it doesn't really mean that at all, because this movie sucks. After I watched the film, I had to check again to make sure it was the right movie I'd seen on the top 250 list. I was surprised it was there, though I wouldn't have been surprised to see it on the bottom 100. This movie wasn't the worst movie I've seen (the Inner Circle was), but it was terrible, and I'd say it's the worst movie I've seen this century. Anyone who gave this movie more that a 1 out of 10 was either Charles Laughton or one of his robots that he had specially created to like his movie, because even the craziest human wouldn't like this movie. The only thing that could've saved this low budget movie was Robert Mitchum, an acclaimed actor, but even his acting was bad in this movie, though it seemed good compared to everyone else's acting.

The title doesn't even make any sense. I guess Mitchum is "the Hunter," or at least he is for the second half of the movie, but he never did anything climactic on any night. As a matter of fact, this movie has no climax. It sucks.