Change Your Image
bullions27
Reviews
Veritas: The Quest (2003)
Laughable
I had my suspicions and doubts when I saw that the writers from "Schlock Raider: Flaunt Angelina Jolie's Mountains" were behind this series. After enduring the first two episodes painfully, my fears were clearly, without a doubt, warranted. All characters in the show are cliches. Yes. You heard me. Each and every one of them; generic, stereotypcial cliches. You could debate whether they are truly characters, or just blocks of wood regurgitating whatever crayon-written dribble the writers had for them but in anycase... badly drawn up and acted characters also equal to a comical storyline.
The Zonds are a family of adventurers (except for the reluctant rebel teenage son of course) and they prance around the world with their crew of Indiana Jones misfits to hunt for lost treasure. Oh yes, there's also a secret U.S. government faction that is closely monitoring and getting in the way of their work. Somewhere along the way, the wife bites it. The son blames dad and so on and so forth. Predictable stuff. Even though this could spawn a decent enough character building subplot, the show does a horrible job handling it.
Now the supporting cast... wait there's none to speak of. Arnold Vosloo is relegated to the mystical zen master role (hilarious) with about 3 lines of ridiculous dialogue per episode. The one with the beard plays the usual geek and comedy relief. The girl screams cliche. I can't figure how they managed to pick one of the absolute worst actors for the lead role, and the whining kid is just plain annoying. He either whines about how his life sucks and his dad sucks, or he somehow bails out the entire crew with his amazing deus ex machina powers. Does that justify for him being in the series?
Veritas is a mistake, unlike its other sister-show Miracles which features far better acting and writing. ABC should be lucky they also debuted Dragnet this season to counter this monstrosity.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Not-so-good finale
It definitely is a vast improvement over the last installment (I still think they were tailoring to the Barney and the Power Rangers demographic but who knows what Berman and Braga were thinking), but nevertheless, this movie was dull and bland. Similar to Die Another Day, it attempts to be different, unique from the series formula and it fails miserably. I can sum up the entire plot of the movie with these two lines.
Hero A: I have a twin. He is evil, and I am good, or is it that I am part of that evil, and he is part good? Villain B: I, too, feel the same way.
Data and Picard and their respective counterparts can be interchangeable with any of these characters. How ridiculous is that? Eventually, Berman needs to pull that stick out of his you-know-what and realize his horrendous ideas, like Voyager and Enterprise, and this monstrosity are insults to Roddenberry. Bet he's spinning in his grave right now.
5/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
The legend continues...
*SPOILERS*
I'll say this right off the bat. Whatever problems I had with this movie (and there were a few), I nevertheless was impressed deeply with Jackson's handling of CGI and camera. I don't care if you're a naysayer of the series, or a fan. If you're not impressed with the choreography and direction of the battle of Helm's Deep, you need some serious help. No director, to this date, has done what Jackson has done on the screen. He doesn't just throw rambunctious CGI as you would throw a bucket of paint on a murel and call it art. He has a formula. He knows what fits, and what works. Call it good instincts, or maybe he's just a genius. The most important trait for a director is being able to tell the story without the script. Can the audience understand the feeling, or the gist of the story just by looking at the scene, and the actors, and the lighting? Can you integrate CGI into this and still achieve the same effect on the audience? If you mention Final Fantasy, or Star Wars, you'll probably say "Heck no". This movie stands alone. The Two Towers, if not going to be recongnized for its good storytelling, is cinematic masterpiece by biblical proportions. That said, I believe Andy Serkis needs some serious, serious consideration for the best supporting actor role as Gollum. It's not just Jackson's employment of some of the most realistic CGI ever used, but the script and acting was done perfectly. We're not just looking at a mindless talking CGI, like Jar Jar, for that whole moment. We really believed we were actually seeing a living, breathing Gollum.
Now on to the story itself. Some dedicated Tolkien purists will probably have a few beefs with Jackson for the myriad of changes in the characters. For those who have never read the novels, these changes are only additional subplots for the audience to remember. These aren't detrimental to the actual storyline (to some degree), but nevertheless not very subtle and made rather obvious. I'm a bit on the neutral side in this, but I thought Jackson could have done a lot better. Two things that stand out:
1) Legolas - I find it disturbing that fangirls seem to like this character only because Orlando Bloom is "cute" despite the horrible dialogue Jackson and Walsh provided for him. This only cheapens Legolas. If he were any other movie character concocted by any other writer, it can be excused. Not Legolas. I thought Jackson should've given more thought to him. Give him one personality (he seems to bounce back and forth between optimism, and pessimism at the whim), and make him kick more butt. He's an Elf. His combat prowess and reliability should be paramount. Why make him act and look ridiculous (the surf scene with the shield bugs me to all Hell)? I'm not saying give Legolas the powers of Jet Li, but at least enhance his fighting abilties if you are not going to give him good lines. Just wishful thinking. This brings me to the next point:
2) Legolas / Gimli - I can somewhat see the need of comedy relief in something as dark and morbid as the Two Towers would eventuate towards the final hour of the movie. I have no problem with that. However, because Legolas seems to shift between personalities, and Gimli seems to be more focused on creating comedy relief, their friendship is virtually non-existant. As a result, their whole "how many can you kill" little adventure in Helm's Deep is out of place, and awkward.
Not exactly detrimental. None of this detracts me from enjoying the movie, but it stuck in my mind even at the closing credits. Oh well.
The Two Towers succeeds in telling the story, and that's important. Not exactly Tolkien's story, but Jackson interpretation of the novel series. He provides enough, without going overboard, or cutting too much. The dialogue isn't exactly top-notch, or memorable (in fact, it's actually quite subpar in my opinion) but it gets the job done.
Anyway, I'm not going to go anymore deeper. For me, I'm not going to remember this movie for the story. I'll leave that to my leather-bound collector's series (yes I am a Tolkien fanatic). I'll remember this movie for its technical achievements, and the way Gollum stole the entire show.
8/10
Equilibrium (2002)
Implausible and cheesy but oh the Gun-kata
Virtually no spoilers...
First off, I didn't come to this movie to be completely enlightened. There is a message to be heard and the director does an excellent job in allowing it to be subtle and not interfering with the real show of the movie, the gun-kata (unlike the Matrix, but I enjoyed that to a degree). The fight sequences in the movie are pretty unique, and plenty of style. I left the theater remembering how cool Christian Bale was with his assortment of weapons but not remembering a single good line he said. Is that a good thing? I suppose it depends on the movie and the context.
There's a reason why I kept the review short. If you're coming to see Equilibrium, expect a million rounds of ammunition fired "creatively" on the screen and little else.
By the way, I find it humorous and ridiculous that some people claim that a movie is the best ever, yet in other reviews that say the exact same thing. Funny stuff.
6/10
Treasure Planet (2002)
Disney's turn for the worst
Whatever accomplishment and respect they had achieved and redeemed with Lilo & Stitch (a pretty good film that didn't rely heavily on CGI) was sacrificed for this monstrosity of an adaptation.
Treasure Planet is based loosely on Stevenson's novel but with none of its charm, wit or even a sense of adventure. Instead, we're presented with generic and boring cartoons we've all seen done a dozen times from previous Disney mistakes. It's actually quite similar to Atlantis but imagine pieces of cardboard talking on the screen.
Jim Hawkins, the antagonist of this sorry tale, is the cliched adventurous young'on who yearns for the openess of space rather then his reclusive home. Well it just so happens luck was on his side (and pretty convenient for the writers) when someone drops him a map and a couple of vague warnings about riches, pirates and the whole enchilada. It gets pretty straightforward from here on out as he brings along comedic sidekicks aboard a galleon built for space travel (yes this is hilarious) of boring misfits pandering to 4-year olds (which I guess was the main intention of this film) while outwitting and outsurfing very evil and menacing space pirates.
Thank you, Disney. My nephew will never forgive me for taking him to this after Lilo & Stitch.
3/10
Resident Evil (2002)
Mind-boggling stupidity
SPOILERS... After a year since I last saw this mockery of film-making, I figured maybe a second-viewing would help me tolerate this film. That had to be the second biggest mistake of my life next to agreeing to go see Wing Commander. The mistakes and flaws in the film were made that much more obvious with a second-viewing I nearly had to gouge my eyes out in spite of its sheer medicority and utter ridiculousness.
I tried to like this film... it was, after all, based on the cheesy video game from Japan that had some pretty good moments. I guess it was too much of a task to have both actors and a script in a movie even though Anderson has made some horrible films with some decent acting (Event Horizon) or cheesy acting with a pretty good film (Mortal Kombat). Resident Evil has neither. The plot is generic, and serves only as an excuse to develop a senseless sequel, have Milla pose half-nude (to appease the RE fans I figure) and have plenty of zombies go ballistic. With some stretch of the imagination this COULD be tolerable and FUN but there are two very glaring mistakes in the film that stand out like a leper in a crowd:
1) Their choice of Actors - Cheesy, screwed up action films have only 2 saviors, excellent action sequences (to some degree), and at least average acting. Brotherhood of the Wolf, as ridiculous of a story as it was, had very decent acting and incredibly well-done sequences and cinematography. Resident Evil, with its silly storyline, had characters with the uncanny power to read their lines off script cards. Impressive. Can they act that horribly, or did they put effort into it? The leader of this ragtag bunch of soldiers was pretty cool. He could deliver all of his lines in monotone and display one facial expression. Needless to say, he was killed off quick. In fact, nearly all of the useless soldiers were killed off quickly (just like John Carpenter's Vampires) which I guess was a plus for Anderson. Michelle Rodriguez, playing in vain as the Vasquez-hack of Aliens (more about this later), tops him by emoting one emotion along with her delivery of lines in monotone. Sad, she was wasted in this film. A myriad of other characters share this same profile, including the dear Milla who can kill zombies with martial arts even though an entire clip of a MP5 will do nothing. By the way, why was she trained to do this? She could kick some serious behind for no explicable reason yet her partner/husband (this was never explained either) had none of the training? I assume all of this was discarded to ensure the people will return for the explanation in the sequel. At the other end of the spectrum, we also have Eric Mabius, who could display two emotions... slightly confused, and very confused. You know I've read the early drafts to this heinous monstrosity and he annoyingly keeps adding about how the suspense of this movie will freak you. Sorry, buddy, your whole crew of actors actually made us laugh more.
2) Hacking other movies - I can point out at least a half dozen different scenes where Anderson (who loves to recycle other people's work) pulls from Aliens. These aren't subtle attempts, or clever renditions. I'm assuming his thought process was like this:
Anderson: Wow, I just thought up of a cool and gruesome way to kill off all of my useless actors! What can I do to make it "suspenseful" and filled with "tension".
Anderson's Brain: How about watching the movie Aliens and copy the scene where the marines were attacked for the first time?
Anderson: Good idea! Let's see, I'll take the Hive, the Queen, and even the Aliens popping out of nowhere and snatching people. I could even recycle the lines without changing them! I am a GENIUS!
Pretty pathetic, and I'm not even going to bother pointing out the stupidity of some of the plot elements or the other movies it borrows heavily from (like Odyssey). By the way, if this T-Virus was so powerful we are led to believe, why does it take a millennia for it to take effect on a live person?
All in all, I couldn't find a single shred of entertainment in this. Why would I? If you took a recipe for Chicken with sauce diable and you thought it'd be neat to recycle it and throw in tang and peanut butter, it's not going to taste any good.
3/10
Le pacte des loups (2001)
A mindless amalgam of horror genres but fun
SPOILERS....
I can't decide how I should look at this movie, but whatever happened in the two hours of seeing this, I ended up enjoying the movie in the end despite its over-the-top production and rambunctious directing.
Brotherhood of the Wolf is about a secret society of noblemen/gypsies (???) under the leadership of a manic priest (yes you heard me), for no explicable reason seem to think the current King of France needs to be taught a lesson in religion. Their weapon? Some lion, we assume, from Africa (it was never fully explained) that is trained to be super evil and to eat women and children. With a stretch of imagination we can accept this as the plot. The King of course is horrified by its powers and so hires the two heroes, Francos (the scientist/lover/semi-ninja) and Mani (the quiet-American Indian who has the uncanny ability to kick your ass in a couple of hundred different ways), to investigate. Needless to say, conspiracies follow and a whole lot of subplots are resolved through an abundance of martial arts.
The action alone in this movie was handled pretty well, although there were way too many scenes involving Mani, or Francos tearing someone a new one. None of the characters in the movie were adept with their respective fighting styles, but excellent camera work by Gans took care of that. I was actually genuinely surprised by this.
Everything else is over-the-top and lavish... the costumes, the women (Bellucci is especially delicious here), the blood, and the parodies (keep the rhyme "Mary had a Little Lamb" in mind when you see this movie, heh). It's almost an equivalent of an orgasmic frenzy of violence and action. I can't stress enough how well the cinematography was in Brotherhood. The scenes and choice of locations were incredible and a perfect fit for this dark and murky movie.
This movie is about personal taste. You either like French-directing, or you don't. For me, the movie was nothing to write home about, but it was entertaining and it did not leave a sour taste in my mouth as many action movies do (like Swordfish).
By the way, anyone who is claiming this a rip-off of the Matrix needs to have their head examined.
7/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
One of the greatest fantasy films of all-time...
The first installment had its moments and yes, I was wowed and thrilled by seeing one of my favorite novels come to the big screen. However, FotR didn't exactly leave a lasting impression on me unlike, for example, Platoon, where I would always remember the message it brought to me... sort of like a novel. FotR, to me, was more like a spectacular fireworks show.
The plot behind the story is simple and Jackson and his group did a very good job transmuting what was in the novel to a screenplay. I don't know why some people complained about the "complexity", or didn't understand the purpose of the characters or the plot. How much clearer can Jackson make it without smacking you all in the face and telling you to wake up? It's about a ring, a very powerful ring, crafted by a evil menace. That evil menace lost his ring, and now he's back to reclaim it, but it's now in the hands of an innocent Hobbit. That Hobbit goes to Place A for advice, meets a myriad of characters all of whom describe how evil and powerful the ring is, and now he must go destroy it. Jesus Christ, this isn't quantum physics here.
In any case, the movie does a more than adequate job portraying Tolkien's world in oh, 3 hours. It's a monumental task and I'm sure Jackson has spent many a sleepless nights pondering what he could use and what he had to throw out from the 600 pages of the original novel. The sets were done flawlessly (Khazad-Dum ranks as one of my favorite scenes) with the amount of CGI and excellent directing and lighting, and it provided a real and genuine fantasy feeling unlike the schlockfest from Attack of the Clones. My only gripe would be the characters themselves. All of them, decent acting, but the decision how they were going to be relevant to the story... well... that's my gripe. Examples, Jackson's poor handling of Boromir's death scene, the lack of the Broken Sword story with Aragorn, and Gimli's 180 of character from the novel. Regardless, it didn't detract me from thoroughly enjoying most of the movie.
I am eagerly anticipating for the Two Towers based on the second novel, IMO, the best of the trilogy, this winter.
9/10
Plunkett & Macleane (1999)
Great score, lousy movie
I couldn't help but wonder what the heck did I just saw after viewing the credits to this movie. Was it a cartoon? Was it a rom-com film? Buddy movie? I still don't know because this movie combines the elements of all three haphazardly in this mess. For example, and a bunch of critics brought this up as well, how the hell did Plunkett, trapped inside a carriage surrounded completely by guards, slip by everyone including the audience? Not only did he do the impossible, but as a joke he left behind a slab of dynamite for the guards. Apparently, Liv Tyler must have swap Plunkett and buddy with the dynamite by some 18th century transporter we've never heard of. Slips of logic like this are prevalent throughout the film and on top of that, we have some incredibly inept directing. Either that or Scott pretends the audience are morons. Who knows.
The score was great though. About the only positive. I highly recommend purchasing the soundtrack.
5/10
Hidden Hills (2002)
Run for the hills
The show advertises itself by insulting the general public and their so-called "mediocre" lives. Whatever. This is essentially a collection of stereotypes and caricatures who aren't even funny and offensive themselves recycling "funny" situations and jokes that were left on the cutting room floor from other shows for good reasons... like they are not funny, or they are boring material. I laughed not once sitting through this sludge pile of lame comedy. If they seriously wanted to do a show of wacky people living some cartoon life, why not save money and everyone else's patience and sanity and hire animation artists rather then real actors?
Kingdom Hearts (2002)
Square should remember this as a lesson
If they intend to continue appeasing the console RPG populace with its stories and so on, they need to take this game and remind themselves that THEY can not write, and only through the assistance of others not in Square can they come up with entertainment. The last time Square trusted anyone outside their company to help with their games ended in disaster with Square of America. However, this is only a result of the megalomaniacal grip Square so loves to keep. Now that they've decided to relinquish that grip, and welcoming the idea of partnership with another company, perhaps in the coming future Square can come up with better games.
Onto the game itself... Kingdom Hearts, although it's nothing new (we're taking Disney characters everyone and their brother recognizes combined with certain Final Fantasy characters only fans will know of) is kind of fun but easily forgettable. It's definitely not the grandiose self-important stuff Square shells out prolificly since SNES but it's okay. You play a character drummed up by Square who finds himself in an alien world (Disney) where he has to go through a myriad of quests to find Mickey for example, while aided by characters from both Disney and Final Fantasy. It's an okay RPG, and worth a rent.
Heat (1995)
Great movie with excellent characters...
*Spoilers*
The movie is an incredible film and it serves as an excellent piece to show you how a great director and writer like Mann can take many characters, and give each of them enough depth so you understand and pity them when their time comes. Examples, Breedan (played by Senator Palmer from 24) has about 10 minutes of total screen time altogether in the movie but we know he's an ex-con, and we know he's trying to get his life back together. However, as we can see in the film, not everyone has a welcome mat for him, and he struggles. The short dialogue between him and his loyal girlfriend afterwards serves as a great scene as he vents his frustrations which ultimately leads to his decision to rejoin De Niro's crew. Subplots like this, done smoothly and all tie in with each other, help establish each of the great characters. Val Kilmer is a reckless gambler and a horrible husband, but his wife still loves him and he finally acknowledges that when the world's coming down on him. Sizemore is the complete opposite. He tries to be a good father and husband, BUT he has trouble balancing his loyalty to De Niro whom he has worked with for years, and his family. His job is dangerous, how long can he continue doing this? And there are plenty of others, all question their obligations towards family and their work which is good. I simply don't understand how anyone could consider this "boring"? Would people have preferred no character development and just mindless explosions and shootouts? Let's not forget Heat is a drama/action film (by the same man who brought us Miami Vice), not an action film.
And to all of the other naysayers of this movie, based on your inane and asinine remarks of various scenes, it's quite obvious you have NOT seen the movie. If you intend to criticize a good film, try to watch it instead of taking what little negative remarks (when they are themselves fabricated out of their bungholes) out there and using it as your own. You sound like a complete moron when you do.
Heat is a great film, with memorable characters.
9/10
John Doe (2002)
Horrible
Just the banal voice-over done by Dominic from the start alone is enough of an indication how lousy this is. His character, the namesake of the series, is supposed to be this supergenius with amazing and uncanny powers of processing information quickly (sort of like the Matrix except the data is fed by God we assume). Speaking of Matrix, pay attention to certain scenes John Does attempts to rip off from. Unfortunately, he has no idea who he is or his real name. Now this is something we've all seen before from the Pretender, minus the acting. I know it must be a tough job to try to match up to Michael Weiss' Jarod, or even Bugs Bunny but come on folks... could we try to do some good acting?
John Doe is boring and uninteresting. In the first 10 minutes of the pilot, he immediately solves all of his money, transportation, and shelter problems by drumming up a SSN right off the top of his head and winning thousands at the local OTB. This is hilarious material! Afterwards, he begins to play a generic self-righteous hero by happening upon silly contrivances (if he sees color, there must be trouble because he is color-blind) laid out carefully by poor writing. This man has no flaws pretty much. He might act like a moron now and then when he discovers something new, like displaying various emotions, but he's flawless.
Pass this.
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)
?????
Good thing they decided to allow Director Kaos have his way with this thing. It is afterall a movie about complete chaos and the effects of explosions on movie sets. There's supposed to be a plot behind all of this mindless mayhem... something along the lines of global conspiracy but none of that the Director nor his crew really cares since it gets lost about a third of the way through the film thanks to some explosions, dubious acting, and more explosions. Lucy Liu plays the most boring and monotonous character I have ever seen in recent decade (well, since Padme from Episode One), and Banderas acts pretty goofy and hilarious in his role. Neither of them we really care about since the explosions take center stage. I left the room about 20 minutes before the ending (I assume this unless there's more to the movie and the audience like me just got up and left) so I can't tell you anymore. I will say though this movie is about as brainless and moronic as the title itself.
2/10
The Best Damn Sports Show Period (2001)
Damn Mediocre Sports Show period
I find it hilarious when one person says he dislikes one show, another person is gonna ridicule the person with asinine remarks. Anyway, to call this show the Best Damn title is more like a marketing move with nothing substantial to back it up. Rather then provide news, rumors, and insight (which they do few and far between), they go more into the "fun" things which consists of copying Tonight Shows' skits and running around the set slapping each other asses when they do sports trivia. Is this supposed to be a Man's show? Yeah, right. I agree with the first post. If you want humor combined with EXCELLENT sports analysis, you go check out PTI on ESPN. With this, well, I'll rate this next to Mohr's Sports. Both equally humorless and idiotic.
Cops (1989)
About as close to a reality show as you can get
The recent wave of reality shows on television, or in more precise terms "wave of crap", still can not compare to the only true series of the genre, Cops. Survivor started off well, but it began showng signs of utter ridiculousness until its obscene state now. Everything else is just a plain hack of it. By the way, I'm confused by the point being brought up by the naysayers of this show. What the heck were you expecting, actors with scripts?
We Were Soldiers (2002)
We Were Trying Too Hard To Be Different
I consider We Were Soldiers an okay film at best. It conveys a simple message, and we understand the gist of the first major battle between the U.S. and North Vietnam. However, as it goes into details, that's when things start to go awry and near borderline tedium and boredom. My main problem lies with Randall Wallace's approach into making this film. Aside some shoddy directing, the script was mediocre. Unlike previous Vietnam War movie attempts, Wallace gets rid of all the negative aspects of the war (refreshing change), and fills the movie with good Christians and loving fathers versus a determined enemy composed of mostly cannon fodder. I liked how he portrayed the NV leader as a strategist, and a bit of human emotion (he is defending his homeland from the American invasion) but can Wallace do better than letting the NV soldiers run mindlessly towards blazing M-16s? Another question, what's the deal with the tacked on fictitious scenes towards the finale? Is this supposed to be more patriotic and dramatic? Hardly. The acting was average at best. It's difficult to deliver good characters with solid development, and recount the events of a major battle all under 2 hours, but it CAN be done. See Glory for a prime example. We Were Soldiers, falls a couple of steps short however. BUT, I can pardon that because like Black Hawk Down, this movie was made to only tell you about the La Drang battle and not provide characters to remember.
Of course, all of these questions are a matter of personal preference with war movies. You either feel moved by tear-jerking scenes, or you can be joes like me that simply don't buy it (especially those who've read the novel). For me, I say again that this movie was okay, but certainly not great and certainly no Oscar contender.
7/10
The Scorpion King (2002)
Hecules/Xena episode with a bigger budget
I don't understand how anyone could compare this to the original Conan movie. Conan the Barbarian was handled with great direction, music, and an excellent storyline. Maybe if you compare this to Conan the Destroyer, then yes I can see the similarities.
Anyway, forget what you've seen with the Mummy Returns. Scorpion King tosses all rationality out the window, and is essentially a drawn out Hercules/Xena episode (with the horrible costumes included), with a lot of rock and metal and absurd dialogue from the Great One to make it look "modern" and "cool". Hey, this reminds me a lot of Kull the Conqueror in fact. Nothing in the movie makes any sense, and when actors begin to show emotion and drama (forcing them to actually act), it becomes ridiculous. Dwayne Johnson has done better as the Rock then he does as Mathayus. Sad to say, I did expect more with this movie. I had hoped this would resemble something of Ghengis Khan (you know, how one man became a powerful and fearsome warlord) but all I got was a generic movie made with zero effort and to milk the Mummy franchise for all its worth.
3/10
The Glow (2002)
Ridiculously bad
SPOILERS!! This is without a doubt one the funniest thrillers I've ever seen on television. The basic premise is this... each person has something called a Glow (sort of like a soul) that keeps them youthful and energetic and as we age, we lose that Glow. So how do the villains of the story (cliched old men and women) retain that Glow? They steal them from their youthful neighbors, HA-HA-HA-HA, and them dump their wasted bodies into the basement dumpster. The directing was pretty good actually considering how incredibly horrible the script was. The acting was equally atrocious. Every sort of cliche you can think of (dump cops, clueless neighbors, silly contrivances of the story) can be found in here. It's amazing, LOL.
This movie is about as ridiculous and ludicrous as its horrible ending where the nosy cop bites the big one but luckily for the female protagonist who needed a weapon, the body was buried with his gun together.
1/10
Swimfan (2002)
Boring and unoriginal
It's a typical teen movie with a recycled plot made to insult the audience with its self-importance. Nothing too special here. Its by the numbers, formulaic and none of the actors were great. I quite frankly didn't care for any of the characters and I doubt anyone from the audience will.
2/10
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002)
One of the few movies I walked out of
It takes something "Jurassic-ly" abominable and monstrous for me to get up and walk out of the theater room and you know, Pluto Nash did just that. All I can deduce from what I've seen is Eddie Murphy refusing to sell his club to the local Lunar mob (who also has some grandiose plan to takeover the Moon or whatever), and as a result, he and company are chased around for about 2 hours (I assume 2 hours). Add to it some of the lamest jokes ever exposed to celluloid since Carrot-Top and many eye-gouging, sleep-inducing twists and we have here a total disaster. No big surprise considering this was never screened for crtitcs, and shelved for about a year.
Oh well, I'm sorry if I can't divulge anymore info for you. My eyes and ears can only take so much.
1/10 for the first hour or so
Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)
Horrific and appalling
I'm guessing either something's completely screwed up in that La-La-Land of theirs or they really get a kick out of insulting the audience. It's probably a combination of both.
Speed 2 is a disaster by the numbers... bad acting, bad writing, and bad script (talking Power Rangers suck-arse-dom). What we have here is a heartbreaking story about a zany cybernut (Dafoe) on a warpath to insanity because of some injustice or whatever done to him in his former sane life. He hijacks a cruise liner filled with comical cannon fodder, so that he may acquire some invaluable diamonds for his evil schemes (???). On the good guys side, we have token black guy, moronic crew, bad acting LAPD cop-person (Patric) no one's going to ever hear from again, and Sandra Bullock on her worst day... all of whom are equally worthless in this script. There's really no development or story which is sort of hilarious. All we get are Dafoe's wacky and zany antics and LAPD cop-person pretending to be smart and clever while Bullock whines and grunts every now and then as a reminder that there are other important cast members in this monstrosity. What garbage. But hey, there were plenty of EXPLOSIONS on both badly done and well done sets so I guess it wasn't a total loss, right? LOL.
Thumbs down.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993)
The finest Trek series I've seen
I'm puzzled by some of the vague points brought up by the naysayers of this series. They didn't like the fact the series took a more serious and gritty approach at the universe, the fact there were politics, scheming, and so on (you know, a little bit of some realistic stuff)... what's wrong with that? Does the thinking hurt? Does the complexity drive away fans because actual intelligence and brain usage were involved with each episode? Oh, please. What were you expecting? The self-righteous crapfest Voyager spewed out in its 7-or-so seasons-too long series? Or maybe the self-mocking borefest of Enterprise?
DS9 is great and it has everything sci-fans want... drama, suspense, action, conspiracies, great acting, and magnificent fleet battles that will be unrivaled for ages to come. You can't get any better. Truly, the last great Trek series.
Lilo & Stitch (2002)
A decent family film for 2002
There's nothing grandiose about this Disney film. It is, after all, about a super-strong lonely alien crash-landing on Hawaii and looking for a bit of refuge. What it does accomplish is good, clean, fun entertainment for children AND adults alike in one movie (toss in a few family value lessons, too); something I have yet to seen accomplished in the Summer of 2002. That's all you could really want and Disney does it with good style with nothing over the top. Lilo & Stitch is a pure gem, and certainly worth the time to go see, or if you have already, add to your DVD collection.
8/10
Scooby-Doo (2002)
Ruh-oh, this movie grr-blows chunks!
I seriously detest anything that has to do with Freddie Prinze but since there was little else to see, and my friends were bickering that I should go and make a mockery of this film, I went anyway. B****rds. Anyway, I never was a fan of the original cartoon (it killed my goldfish and my first puppy after they were exposed to this monstrosity of pencil-animation... I was like ten) so I had little expectation this movie would be any good. Good thing.
I'll put it like this, running your head into a wall to test the thickness of your skull is more educational and fun than watching this thing which features Freddie looking utterly ridiculous and a talking block of CGI. I couldn't find a single shred of entertainment in this. I just sat there, my face expressionless throughout the two hours of this torture (except feeling sorry for Mr. Lillard killing his career on screen by doing the Shaggy voice). Shrugs.
Its really a travesty that there will be a sequel coming soon. I can't imagine how many more eyeballs that could be gouged out.
2/10