Change Your Image
mentor397
Reviews
Dune (2021)
Well, wait a minute here...
I get the book(s) have fans. I get that the 1984 movie had its shortcomings. This one _is_ better. That being said, this movie can't stand on its own, because it isn't a full movie. It has a beginning, it has part of a middle, but there is no resolution at all. In addition, a movie like this needs to be watched more than once. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to be in the Top Movies Ever list, but I am saying that it doesn't deserve to be there _yet_.
While I'm here, I get that books have to be adapted to the screen - whether big or small. I don't deny there are things in books that are nearly impossible to show on screen. However, I don't agree that a movie needs to be "updated" to appeal to a new generation. Either the story is good enough to be adapted as it is, or it's not. Adding characters, adding arcs, adding subplots and character interactions make it a different story. If you want your own story, write your own story. Don't call it something famous so you can piggyback on established fame.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Did I watch a different movie?
I'm going to be honest here - I don't think I've seen the movie everyone else is complaining about. I didn't mind the movie. I admit, I have fallen behind on my comic reading in past years but the plot holes of the movie and between the movies is insignificant compared to the plot holes of the comics.
That being said, it's not high art or anything like that.
I guess my only complaint is the depiction of Deadpool. I realize that even in the comic world, abilities change from time to time, but his new powers really jumped the shark in this one. Again, it's hardly the worst backstory offense in these types of movies.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Corny
Two things - One, old Toby isn't apparently the tobacco I thought it was, and two, they smoked too much of it. I'm not going to get into the changes from the books to the movie(s). I liked the books. If the books weren't as great as they were, the movies would never have been made. Then, it stands, there should be little reason to change the bulk of the story. Ah well, I said I wasn't going to get into it.
I understand The Hobbit book was a bit... less serious than The Lord of the Rings. Radagast was a bit odd, but hardly the lunatic I saw in this movie. I really don't understand the bit about the rabbits, except that Peter Jackson was smoking some um "Old Toby" weed while writing the script.
Finally, I grew up playing RPGs - real table-top ones, like MERP. Those orcs looked scary. These just look deformed. Worse, the Great Goblin didn't look intimidating as much as he just looked diseased. Yeah, I suppose there was drama in worrying you might catch something from him, but aside from that there was little to fear there. And Dwarfs - half the Dwarfs barely had beards.
Ah well. If you're looking for an extension of The Lord of the Rings movies, this isn't really it. If you're looking for the book, well, you know this isn't it. If you're looking to spend three hours wondering what's in the water on set, this might be a good place to start.
-- Edit. Seriously IMDb? Tolkien had a big long discussion about it in one of his books - an appendix, I think, where he discusses the term Dwarfs. I even type it the way he wants it and IMDb changes it automatically to this. Dee - Double You - Ay - Ar - Vee - Ess.
Alien Express (2005)
If only I could think of something nice to say
We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.
The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.
Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.
Please, don't waste your time. Please.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Read the book, then watch the movie
Contains spoilers. You've been warned - BEWARE!
Over and over again, we have heard the argument that there is simply no way to fit an entire book into the time slot that a movie may be played in. Nowhere is this more evident than in this, the shortest Harry Potter movie that incidentally is adapted from the longest Harry Potter book.
I'd like to say that the cast seems to do great things with the little on-screen time they are given. Helena Bonham Carter and Robbie Coltrane were hardly in the movie at all. Almost no time was give to Mr. Weasley either, considering his importance in determining the nature of the connection between Voldemort and Harry.
The biggest problem for me was the story behind the Thestrals. Forgetting that they were replaced in the earlier movies, the explanation of their existence was never given. Indeed, later, when others encounter them, no explanation of why they could see them survived either. Having read the book, I know why this is so and what has happened between scenes, but I shouldn't have HAD to read the books in order to understand the movie.
Finally, at the end of the movie, the ministry sees the errors of its ways - the newspaper transitions were useful here, since they imparted quite a lot of information without wasting a lot of time. It seems however, they've dug themselves into a hole considering Umbridge by overstating the implications of her time at Hogwarts.
In short, there were a lot of holes left in the movie, little or no explanation of plot progression - things seemed to just happen for little or no reason, unless you knew what was going to happen. I'm glad that the movies are subtly pushing viewers to read the books, but I don't think they should assume everyone has read them.
No Escape (1994)
A very underrated film.
I often think that a large segment of the population tunes out whenever they hear the word (or phrase) sci-fi. Add in the effect of having no women in the movie, and you have a recipe for automatic dislike from a lot of people. I'm not saying it was the greatest movie ever - but it's a movie that accomplishes what it's trying to do without a lot of cheap over-the-top cgi effects and campy sidekicks to tag along the main character.
Instead, the movie shows that there aren't any 'perfect' people, which is quite commendable for being a futuristic prison movie. Think of it as a sort of cross between Lord of the Flies and Shawshank Redemption set in a futuristic role. Quite entertaining and well worth the ten bucks to pick up the movie.
The Sum of All Fears (2002)
If you liked the book, don't watch the movie.
Oh my goodness. I've seen some bad movies in my time, and I've seen some bad movies that were based on good books. Clear and Present danger is one of them. I figured they would have learned their lesson. Nothing in the movie is as it should be in the book and, to make matters worse, any connection to previous versions of Jack Ryan are also destroyed by ignoring or completely changing aspects of his personal life. They couldn't even keep character names the same!
I know they changed parts of the movie for PC reasons. I don't agree with that but I understand. Arabic people have, as a rule, been the enemies of far too many movies. They are underrepresented in Clancy's works, but unfortunately, Clancy does not publish in a vacuum.
There are numerous plot holes in this book, and reasons for character motivation are unrealistic. If you've read the book, don't watch the movie. If you've seen the movie, don't take it out on the book.
Gladiator (2000)
Does everyone have to die?
I don't like the trend modern movies are taking. Simply put, they kill everyone the main character knows, and that forces him into action that will force him to action that involves killing all the bad guys. Normal antagonists aren't enough anymore, the bad guys must be literal psychos. It's depressing.
This movie handles things a bit differently. The main character actually remembers his wife and kid throughout the entire movie. Sorry, no more spoilers. In any case, I like the camera movement during the large action scenes as it helps to simulate the chaotic action experienced during action scenes.
Armageddon (1998)
Has anyone seen this movie without a chip on their shoulder?
Sometimes I wonder about the people who watch movies and those who comment on them. This movie was never meant to be the end-all scientific question/debate/answer on the subject of asteroids. I find it interesting that many of the people who complain about the movie either find fault in nonexistent problems (cups of coffee falling in space - that was back at NASA!) or they assume things they know nothing about. The solar system is a big place, and asteroids four times the size of Texas are found at regular intervals much less "just" the size of Texas.
It's true, this movie jumps around a lot. But they have a lot of story to cover. And, i'll say this for the movie, unlike Deep Impact - which is just as cheesy, this movie does keep your attention riveted. From it's comedy to it's music, to the shifting scenes, to the actors themselves, everything happens right after another.
This movie fulfills in some part a fantasy of many people. Being called to save the world because they know something other people don't. Sorry to ruin your theories guys, but NASA astronauts don't know everything. Often they are trained and trained and trained on specific tasks for years - just to eliminate mistakes. When you've only got eighteen days to train someone to do something important, you want to pick someone who's good enough to handle unforeseen problems that might arise. Drilling a hole in space isn't like rock collecting, it's something that requires skill and practice.
Some science critics apparently haven't watched the movie before they complained about it. The moon is far more than a thirty minute trip. Truman tells the astronauts good morning. That means a day has gone by. Gravity, even if it is far less, still works in space. "Heavy" - i.e. massive objects will still "fall". I admit the sounds was extraneous, but who complains about sound in Star Wars? And for people who argue that NASA would never run a mission like this, think about it. How many times has NASA had to identify, plan, and execute a mission in 18 days? How many times has the Earth truly been in danger of existence-threatening events?
My only complaint was the scope of the movie. It tried to do too much while still keeping it exciting to the average viewer. As a result, scenes are cut until they're only on a shot for a few seconds and then the camera is off to the next scene. It's hard to believe how much they actually do in such a short time, but its effect is measurable. This movie just keeps on going.
The Muppets Celebrate Jim Henson (1990)
A great way to deal with a hard subject
This is one of the saddest movies I have ever seen. Filmed after Jim Henson's death, the Muppets work to discover information about Henson so they can plan a memorial.
In typical Muppet fashion, the muppets have taken a difficult subject and found a way to handle it in a touching, funny, and sad way. I love this movie!
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
They stole a damaged ship!
this movie has some boring parts. I admit it. But all I have to say is that they stole the Enterprise! I love the technology of the Star Trek universe, but strangely enough, I like it more when it's broken. Damage in this seems far more realistic than the Next Generation movies. When does the hull get scorched and pitted?
There is a terrific fight between Kirk and the Klingon commander Kruge. This is a far more action packed and suspenseful fight than the face-stretching aliens of the Insurrection or the two captains of the Enterprises fighting an old man from a peace loving race in Generations.
All in all, a good movie which wraps up many of the questions left at the end of Star Trek II.
The Powerpuff Girls Movie (2002)
A great movie!
Far better than the Dexter's Lab movie, this movie has a two-tiered humor reminiscent of the old Muppet Show. It was funny and entertaining for the kids, but for grownups and older children, there is additional subtler humor - just like the show. Definately worth the trip to the movie theatre.
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Hey, still one of the best
This one isn't quite as good as Empire, but close. It shows how cruel Jabba really is, shows Leia in a skimpy outfit and shows the climatic space battle at the end of the movie. Sure the Ewoks might be cheesy, but go ahead and watch Phantom Menace and tell me who's less annoying - Jar Jar or the Ewoks.
Ten out of ten. I'd give it like a 9.5, but IMDB doesn't get that accurate.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Did Peter Jackson READ the books?!?
I realize some people will argue that there is no way to accurately translate a book into a movie exactly. There just isn't. Well, they might be right. I suppose I could agree with that. But not with this movie. He got nothing right at all!
Arwen - I realize Liv Tyler likes the character. I realize women are a bit under represented in the movies. So she took some other parts. AND MESSED THEM UP TOO! Since when does Glorfindel (or anyone for that matter) get into a fight with the ringwraiths in the first book? You know why? Morgul-knives. Black breath. It sucks when you fight a wraith, yet she came out okay.
Gandalf/Saruman - The whole reason they didn't fight in the books was because they weren't supposed to! That made the fight in the Two Towers that much more believable! In addition, if I was a wizard, and I wanted to fight someone, I think that I could scare him a little more by doing something other than spinning him around. If Gandalf had been to more amusement parks this wouldn't have 'hurt' him at all.
Goblins - Since when can they climb walls? Are they little spider-men?
The Balrog - Picture this. The entire Fellowship surrounded by goblins. They're gonna die. No way out. Right, left, front, back, and on top there are goblins. Then the Balrog comes. And they escape. THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO EVEN BE NEAR THE GOBLINS!!
The council of Elrond - Since when did everyone get up and fight?
Galadriel - I realize he filmed this but cut it out. The gifts scene was important. Especially for Samwise.
Elvish boats look a lot like Craftsman boats.
Merry and Pippin - they were good characters. Right up to the point they waved bye to Frodo and Sam and got captured by the orcs ON PURPOSE! The whole point of that encounter was that NO ONE was sure where they went for some time. That's how Merry and Pippin got captured - they ran off looking for Frodo.
The Watcher by the Water - since when did Frodo guess the "riddle" of the doors?
Anyways, the whole point of this is to show that Jackson needlessly changed events and sequences around to fit his weird idea of how Middle-earth SHOULD work rather than how it already has. I'm sure Tolkien is rolling over in his grave as we speak. I'm not saying it's a bad movie on its own, it simply shouldn't be called LORD OF THE RINGS
Dexter's Laboratory: Ego Trip (1999)
Why did they make this movie?
I love the show, it was great. The movie on the other hand, stunk. I'm glad they decided to make the movie, but not this one. The show is funny - filled with little tidbits that appeal to older as well as younger viewers. The movie was dark, unfunny, and very simple. It seems as if they just decided they needed to write a movie and made one before they got a good idea for it. (5/10)
Growing Pains (1985)
Hey, seven years can't be wrong
What can I say? It might not be 'The Maltese Falcon' or anything like that, but it was a pretty good show nonetheless. At times it was a bit corny, but you have to realize that it was a long running sit-com that had to be produced every week for seven years (barring summer re-runs). My only complaint was that they kept it going for two years longer than it should have. Once you start adding little kids and new people it's over. I'm surprised they didn't try and start a band, but perhaps I missed that episode.
Mallrats (1995)
A lot better than Chasing Amy or Dogma!
Don't get me wrong. I like all of Kevin Smith's work. But of all his movies, I think Mallrats has either got to be the best, or it comes in a close second to Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. I can't decide. In my opinion both Dogma and Chasing Amy get way too preachy. I loved Clerks and put that up above Dogma and Chasing Amy as well. This movie is funny and entertaining, which is a quality rarely seen. Most moves are just a few funny parts surrounded by really boring parts. This movie eliminates all of those boring parts.
Toransufômâ: Kârobotto (2000)
Oh my goodness
I know Transformers. I like Transformers. This is not Transformers. Time and time again, they have released new things they call Transformers only to have them fall even faster than the original. I have my theories on why the first show failed. I have my theories on why the original toy line failed. They're a heckuva lot different than the reasons this show will fail. The acting sucks. The voices suck. The background sucks. The art's not too bad. Oh, and the stories suck. This just follows the trend of even more inane shows catering to children now. Take my advice, go and rent the originals, if you can find them, or order the shows online. They're far, far better than this crap.