Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not a whole lot of VS.
24 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS***

Like most of my fellow geeks out there, I have been waiting for this

movie for a long time. Ever since that scene in Predator 2 when

you got a glimpse of the alien skull on the Predator ship. We've

waited, indulging our need to see these two species clash through

comic books and video games. But that illusive feature film still

haunted us. We waited and waited... Until now.

So here we are, 14 years later, and the film has arrived. And I have

to say, it wasn't worth the wait. The film itself was disappointing on

many levels. The script was weak. The characters over-explain

everything, treating the audience as if we were complete idiots. It

was insulting. "It's a pyramid!" Gee, you think?

And here's a tip. If you are going to over-explain everything, don't

use the same character to use explain it. This movie had a whole

room full of so-called experts, but it was the mountain climber that

seemed to know everything. The only thing she didn't know was

how to translate ancient hieroglyphs from three civilizations across

three continents. Fortunately, they happened to find an

archaeologist who happened to specialize in not just one, but

three dead languages. Lucky break!

Also, I have to say that I am tired of the same old story of alien

species (in this case, the Predators) coming to ancient Earth and

having the primitives worship them as gods. It's been done a

thousand times before, let's think of something new.

I am also a bit tired of having some alien temple or spaceship or

something buried under the ice in Antarctica. It's the Thing all over

again. Again, let's think of something new.

And since when did the aliens only take five minutes to gestate in

a human host? It seems to me that in past movies it took a heck

of a lot longer. In fact, it took the whole movie in Alien 3.

I questioned a lot of the choices used in this movie. The pyramid

under the ice, the Predators and ancient Earth, the casting of

Lance Henriksen as roughly the same character he was at the end

of Alien 3. (Again, let's think of something new) But the thing that

really annoyed me was the lack of Versus. This is Alien VS.

Predator, but they really don't fight that much. The first two

Predators get their butts kicked right off the bat. They spend half

the movie running after their little ray guns. Seems to me that a

Predator would do just fine without it, and would probably find

more honor in killing an Alien with a spear or just his bare hands.

Also, how many times do you have to put a Predator face to face

with an Alien? It's a face-off, we get it!

Anyway, all in all, the film was a disappointment. I don't expect a

whole lot from a Predator movie, but I do from an Alien movie. I

like a much more creative storyline, with interesting characters and

a lot of scares. There were none in this film. I am tired of people

making movies that, just because it's got a winning formula, they

don't make an effort to make a good flick, because it's gonna sell

tickets anyway. Take some pride!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enter the Matrix (2003 Video Game)
Very Enjoyable (PS2 version)
27 April 2004
I held off on buying this game because I had heard so much about how it sucked that I wasn't about to drop 50 bucks for a bad game. I picked it up the other day because it has become one of those "Playstation 2 Greatest Hits" titles.

Really what it all gets down to is this: This game is fun to play. Above all else, that's the most important thing in any game. The controls, which so many complain about, were really easy to get used to. I really don't understand what everyone was complaining about. The sound was great, and I really enjoyed the added dimension the cut scenes gave to the films. The graphics were weak, I'll admit. But frankly, I'd rather play a fun game with a good story than a beautiful game with no story that bores me to tears. All in all, it's a good game and if you like the Matrix, get it.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A weak sequel ***SPOILERS!***
22 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
It is with a heavy heart that I write this review. Like a lot of you out

there, I am a big fan of El Mariachi and Desperado. I am also a big

Robert Rodriguez fan. So when a third film was announced, I was

excited. However, after seeing it this past weekend, I have to say I

am disappointed.

The plot was convoluted. El Mariachi's character was a supporting

character at best. There were plenty of scenes that just made no

sense whatsoever. For instance, when Johnny Depp's eyes are

gouged out, within twenty minutes he was able to aim a gun by

hearing where the target was. That's an awfully quick recovery.

In addition, what was the deal with the shackles on Banderas and

Hayek? Was I in the bathroom when they showed up in the film?

Also, why was Danny Trejo in the film? He was killed in the last

film!

Once Upon A Time In Mexico fell very short of its predecessors. It

had none of the rough edginess of El Mariachi. It had none of the

cool, slick style of Desperado. It was missing all of the elements

that made the first two films such great action flicks.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Amazing
15 May 2003
The Matrix: Reloaded is one of those rare sequels which actually surpasses it's predecessor. The story is intelligent, the action is amazing, the special effects are the best I've ever seen, and the acting (even Keanu Reeves, believe it or not) is good. I was just beginning to think that bullet time technology was overused and essentially played out, but man, was I wrong. I can't wait for the third one. Also, be sure to stay until the end of the credits to see a preview of the next movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Futurama (1999– )
Excellent show on it's own right
25 March 2003
It was a sad day when FOX pulled the plug on Futurama. Matt Groening's show about the fate of the Earth 1000 years from now is hilarious. A lot of people I see have made comparisons between the Simpsons and Futurama. Some say the characters mirror the Simpsons characters. Well, I disagree. I find that all the characters are unique in their own right. The only similarity that I find could possibly be that Fry is just as big of a moron as Homer Simpson, if such a thing is possible. Leela has absolutely no comparison to Marge. Rather, she's pretty much the polar opposite. She's tough, independent, and actually has a personality. Marge, on the other hand, is so bland she doesn't even know what Oregano is.

Bender has been compared to Krusty the Clown. Truthfully, I don't see it. Yes, they both drink like fishes, but then again, so does Barney Gumble. They both have abrasive personalities, true. But unlike Krusty, Bender's main trait is that he pretty much hates humanity with every circuit in his body. Krusty's an aging performer with an addiction to anything that may remotely be considered a vice. The other characters have suffered the same sort of comparisons. Take Professor Farnsworth and Professor Frink, for instance. Frink is essentially s caricature of Jerry Lewis, especially his character in the Nutty Professor. Farnsworh bears no resemblance to either of these characters, other than the fact that he too is a scientist and inventor.

So, what does all this mean? Simply this: Futurama stands well on its own. It was inevitable when Groening decided to launch a new show that people would immediately try to draw comparison after comparison between the shows. It's only natural. The Simpsons is one of the most successful shows of all time. But Futurama is fresh and original. The one thing that is the same between the two is exactly what made the Simpsons so good. It's well written, extremely funny, and a great satire of life in America.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Audrey Hepburn Story (2000 TV Movie)
Doomed from the start
29 January 2003
Well, it's no surprise that this movie has gotten so many bad reviews. It was never going to be great. Jennifer Love Hewitt could never be Audrey Hepburn. We all know this. That being said, many of us who hated the movie have offered suggestions of who would have been better. Some say Natalie Portman, some say Winona Ryder. Many suggested actresses who looked more like Audrey Hepburn. I disagree.

Here's the deal: Audrey Hepburn had a style, grace, charm and elegance without equal. She had a talent and a screen presence like no other. She was a gifted actress who gave up showbiz and dedicated her life to UNICEF and helping children across the world. She had a rare beauty both outside and in. Who could play Audrey Hepburn? No one.
54 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed