Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Unbelievably good!
27 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw this movie and loved it when I was just a little kid. I saw it somewhat often until I made the transition that all typical males make from the cute family movies to the shoot-em-up action movies as I grew up. Now I'm 17 years old, and I saw the movie again, and I think I actually enjoyed it even more than when I was a kid. While teenage males are probably the least likely people to want to watch this sort of thing, it just goes to show you that as long as you see it with an open mind, this movie, albeit short, will take you on a ride of laughs and tears (and even some "awwwww" moments when the cute poses of the animals are shown).

The best part about this movie is the good balance between funny, sad, and cute. Not one of these elements takes away from any other. Just because there are funny moments does not mean it makes the plot any less serious or emotional. Milo and Otis's friendship and perseverance is admirable and the viewer cannot help but love these two animals. The fact that this movie includes cute poses of the animals (i.e. Milo and Otis taking care of the egg while still at the farm) doesn't hurt either =).

This movie is good for both kids and adults alike. If you are a kid, you will probably like this movie for it's humorous and tear-jerker moments alone. If you are an adult, you will enjoy this movie just as a kid would, but you will probably enjoy it even more because you can't help but appreciate all of the effort that went in to the making of this movie (which took 4 years), as well as the simpleness and enthusiasm of the narration.

The reason I gave this movie a 9 and not a 10 is because I felt that at the end, they should've included an extra scene (with no narration/dialogue, maybe even as the music at the end was playing) of Milo and Otis and their families back at the farm (even if it was only for 30 seconds or so). If they had included an extra scene like such, I feel the movie would've had a more satisfying closure. Oh and speaking of music, the main theme song is clever and catchy.

All in all, this is a great movie for any ages, and it just goes to show you that kids don't have to watch stuff like Spongebob Squarepants to really enjoy something. This movie is as close as you'll get to nature and peacefulness without actually visiting a river or whatever of your own with no humans around.

9/10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alien 3 (1992)
3/10
A potentially great movie ruined by some unorthodox stylistic decisions.
22 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First off, I'd like to say that had Alien and Aliens never been filmed, Alien3 would've made a good movie just as it is. Unfortunately the reality is that since both of the first 2 movies were great, this movie had high expectations. Ultimately, Alien3 is not worthy to be accepted as part of Alien series.

Alien3 had some good acting and music and some excellent cinematography I thought. It was also darker than the first 2. Also, the concept of crashing in a maximum security prison was a good one I thought. But since this review only rationalizes a 3/10 for this movie, I will spend the rest of the time explaining what made this movie a bad one.

First of all, it completely ruins the second Alien movie for three reasons: Firstly by introducing the egg that had been on board that had hatched into an alien. How the heck did that egg get there anyway? No explanation is offered. Secondly by introducing the fact that Ripley somehow had a queen alien chestburster inside of her. How did that get there? No explanation is offered. Thirdly by killing off 2 of the main characters from "Aliens", Newt and Hicks, right at the very beginning, giving them senseless deaths. Many say this was for "shock value". Shock value my ass, it was just a letdown. Killing them off halfway through or something would've been more effective. Besides, they could've developed Newt and Hicks a lot more. The sole fact that the innocent child Newt has to live in a maximum security prison makes for some good character development. Hicks would've been a bit trickier, but with some creativity they could've come up with something (i.e. maybe Hicks went to prison when he was younger and he's scared of them now and has to deal with it). Maybe if Hicks and Newt were the first victims, it would've been more satisfying (and then Ripley would be a loner again, which is what her character is all about IMO, as nobody would believe her about the alien again, etc).

Another element lacking in the third movie is the absence of one of the dominant themes in the first 2 movies, about the protection of the innocent. Ripley went out of her way to protect Jones (in Alien) and Newt (in Aliens) but there was none of her "motherly" role in this movie. I felt this element was important to the first 2 movies, yet it became non-existent in the third.

Another negative point was that I feel this movie sort of ruined the image of the alien. Having the alien run after people at high velocities and having the people herd it like a sheep is not what the alien is supposed to be. The aliens are supposed to be slow, sneaky, and stealthy and pop out from behind you when you least expect it. By making the alien run, they were trying to make it scarier, but they actually made it less scary. Come to think of it, the scariest bad guys in movies are never fast moving creatures. And the aliens are supposed to be smart, not stupid. Remember in Alien how the alien was hiding in the escape ship at the end? Or in Aliens how the queen used the elevator and then stowed away? A final point that made this movie bad was a stupid stylistic decision: Kill off the main secondary character, Clemens, halfway through the movie. They had just begun to develop his character, and he could've been the next Hicks or Newt, but no, they kill him off halfway through. Then instead they try to develop the character of Dillon, however, they only get to developing his character halfway through as well. As a result, we have 2 half-developed characters (both of which die by the end), leaving Ripley the only character the viewer really cares about (unlike in Aliens where we had Hicks, Newt, Bishop, Vasquez, Apone, etc).

In conclusion, this was a well made movie with terrible stylistic decisions that essentially ruined it. The only good decision was to have Ripley sacrifice herself for the protection of humans at the end. This was done very well and ended off the movie well (albeit it was a sad ending).
309 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Works better than the sleeping pill!
15 January 2006
Despite the obnoxious voices of the characters, this movie still does a better job than the sleeping pill does of putting one to sleep. In a nutshell, if you are entertained by watching characters stand around, complain, and act foolishly, then this movie is for you! Basically this movie is ENTIRELY about kids acting irrationally, complaining, and whining in the forest. Nothing happens to them, and they're all so annoying that you just hope they die. The first 99% of the movie could've been shrunk to a total time of 2 minutes (and even then it would still be a waste of film), and then the ending could've been made such that it wasn't quite possibly the biggest letdown in movie history.

Nothing about this movie is scary at all. At the end, there is finally hope that the characters might all finally die and the movie will finally be over but nothing is resolved at all because you do not know what exactly happened. Actually, when I saw this movie, I thought that it was either a joke or a faulty tape or something because the end credits just sort of spontaneously popped up and started rolling. That is why this movie is such a big joke/scam. The entire movie is spent the viewer wanting something to happen (which is probably hoping the characters get killed), but nothing ever happens, not even at the end.

Come to think of it, it's hard to even call this "movie" a movie. Why? Because there was no plot, terrible acting, no character development, no conflict (other than the absence of a medicine to cure stupidness), no resolution, no conclusion, and terrible cinematography. The only thing that this "movie" has in common with a real movie is that they both run on film.

I must give props to whoever's idea it was to come up with this "movie". After all, right now he's probably rolling in cash. Throwing together a "movie", taking absolutely no care in doing so, and then marketing it such that people flock to the theatres to see it is a genius way to spend practically $0, but make millions. I should follow his example (except when I make my movie, I will actually take time and care and make a good plot).

If you've ever seen a movie called "Open Water", this movie is exactly the same, only in this movie they're on land, there's more complaining, more stupid acting, and less of a plot. If 0/10 were an option, I would vote that for this movie in a heartbeat.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the worst movies I have seen in my entire life.
15 January 2006
Too bad there's no 0 out of 10 rating or this movie would easily get that. The only reason you should ever watch this movie is if you are planning on shooting your own horror picture and want a good idea of what NOT to do. Here's a list of reasons why this movie is so bad:

1) The first half of the movie. Nothing happens in the first half. Basically it's a bunch of idiots in their van talking about random stuff without a point. There was so much potential for character development and make the viewer actually care about the characters, but no. This renders the first half of the movie a complete waste of film.

2) The second half of the movie! (surprise surprise) FINALLY the first half is over and maybe some interesting stuff will happen. Right? WRONG! The beginning of the second half consists of what I like to call "negative character development" (meaning the characters keep complaining and acting like jerks so I actually DISLIKE them even more than before). Afterwards when somebody goes missing, these idiots go one at a time to investigate (which is actually a good thing because seeing as I actually wanted the characters to die, it would increase the chances that my wish would be granted). And then when leatherface is chasing the last remaining character around, that is laughable because in one shot he is close and in the next he is far away and the next he is close again. The last remaining character acts really dumb as well. And then the ending (i.e. the stuff that happens after the night ends) is a complete joke. As a result, the film becomes funny in a pathetic sort of way rather than scary.

3) The cinematography wasn't done well (i.e. I know nothing about film but I could've done a better job shooting the movie).

4) There was no explanation for anything. This in combined with the ridiculous appearance and actions of the whole cannibal family makes it all the more silly (the grandfather character was especially silly and should not have even been in the script - he looked like some kid dressed up in some goofy halloween outfit that's not creepy at all).

5) The acting, for the most part, was terrible.

6) Too clichéd. (i.e. the main character running from the bad guy, tripping, falling, getting back up, and running more).

Final verdict: 0/10. Everything about this movie is all either laughable (in a mocking sort of way) or just plain stupid, and not scary at all. The only good thing about this movie is that many of the characters (who you grow to hate during the movie) die. So unless you feel like wasting your money buying/renting this, never see it. You'll just find yourself checking your watch every 2-3 minutes. If you're looking for a scary classic movie, go see Halloween.
7 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed