Reviews

I was extremely disappointed in this movie. My review for the original gave 9 out of 10. This sequel would not even get 5.

The plot is the problem. What happened to the matrix? It was all but forgotten in the sequel and very well could have been any other action movie. What made the original movie unique was pretty much ignored in the sequel. There was a standard chase sequence which went on way, way too long and had no place in a matrix movie, as far as I'm concerned. And why did they feel the need to throw a romance into it? Not every action movie needs to have a romantic relationship just because there are two single available people in it.

I can't complain about the acting - they did the best they could with poor material.

The special effects were a little too much for my taste. It fell into the trap other sequels, like "The Mummy Returns", have fallen into before - because the first movie is a success, they open up the purse strings and end up putting in a bunch of unnecessary special effects just because they can afford to.

I disliked this movie so much, I haven't even bothered to see the third one. I suppose I will sooner or later just to see how the whole things ends, but I'm in no hurry to.

I shelled out the dough for the DVD versions of the original trilogy and wanted to comment on them. I'll stick to A New Hope, since that's the movie I'm reviewing. Overall, I love it. Looks great, and they really did a good job on making use of the 5.1 audio - spaceships flying from behind your head to the front, from side to side, etc; atmospheric sounds from all directions.

Since, everyone mentions it, I'll also comment on the added scenes. They don't really bother me, it's just that they fall under the rule "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I don't feel the additional scenes add anything important to the film. Did we really need to see the panoramic view of Tatooine? I was able to suspend my disbelief when I originally saw the film without that shot and believed Luke lived on a planet other than earth. Was the scene with Jabba necessary? Didn't add anything we didn't already know or learn in the later films. The extra creature shots for atmosphere. Okay, so they're nice, but, again, don't really add to the believability or the plot. Why put them in? To repeat, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.". I know Lucas said that the way it is, is the way he envisioned it, but seeing as it was such a big hit, obviously lots of people were perfectly happy with it the way it was, which is why he should have just left it as is. Again, for the amount of time those extras last on screen, it doesn't really bother me. I just feel they were completely unnecessary and didn't add anything worthwhile to the story.

If you're thinking of buying them, I say go for it even if you don't like the extra scenes (if you've seen them before on the VHS versions or on TV). The quality of the DVD transfer is awesome and you won't be disappointed with that aspect of the films.

Although I had expectations ( from watching the trailers ) that this might be a good movie, I was still surprised that it's as good as it is. The story is actually more complex than I had expected, involving cursed pirates and their quest to rid themselves of the curse. I won't say more than that so as not to spoil it if you haven't seen it.

There aren't as many action scenes as I had thought there would be in a pirate movie, but the ones that are in the movie were very fun and enjoyable. After seeing it, I think it had the right balance of action and drama. There are also, of course, a lot of funny bits interspersed between the action and drama. Some really good special effects also add to the enjoyment of this movie.

I wasn't much of a fan of Johnny Depp until I saw this movie. I think he deserved to win the Academy Award for best actor. It's largely because of his performance, IMO, that the movie was so good. Most of the supporting cast did well, mind you, just that Johnny Depp stood high above the rest. I did find Orlando Bloom's performance a bit wooden, but other than that the acting was good.

Basically, it's a really fun movie and I'd give it about 8 out of 10

What if the world around us was, in fact, a hologram? The Matrix is based on that idea and, because of that, is one of the most original movies I've ever seen. While the story isn't perfect, it's interesting and fast paced enough to keep you glued to your seat. It's one of those movies where you can't miss one minute or you'll be confused about what's happening next.

The action sequences were particularly good. After finding out the truth, Neil (Keanu Reeves) is able to perform amazing feats once he realized the 'rules' aren't rules at all and can be bent to a point in the holographic world.

I'm not a big fan of Keanu Reeves, but I thought he did a good job as did Laurence Fishburn and the rest of the cast. Hugo Weaving was great as agent Smith, who plays a computer controlled holographic projection who hunts down renegade humans who've stumbled onto the secret.

Definitely worth watching even if you generally don't enjoy action films. I'd give it about 9 out of 10 mostly because of originality.

Tarentino is very good at breaking the rules and doing his own thing with movies. It's been tried many times, but, for some reason, Tarentino can pull it off time after time. I'm sure you haven't seen a movie quite like this one before.

It's actually a bunch of stories put together in one movie, but, yet, they're all connected. It's not that any of the stories are completely original, it's just the way the movie is put together. It's non linear, for one thing. You see the end of the story at the beginning of the movie and the rest of the scenes are out of place as well, but somehow it all works. In the hands of someone other than Tarentino, I'm sure it would have been a huge mess.

The thing that's best about Tarentino is the dialog. He has the best knack out of all writers to create believable everyday dialog that's still interesting. As a person who's dabbled in writing, it is difficult to create good, authentic dialog, without boring the reader. If you've ever listened to two people talk in a restaurant or something, you'll know what I mean - dull as a felt tip marker. Tarentino can create authentic sounding dialog without making it boring. This movie is worth watching just for that.

The acting was very well done and most of the characters were original and non-stereotyped. Travolta was particularly good and showed he was capable of doing drama as well as comedies and musicals.

If you want to see something different, this is one you don't want to miss. It well deserves to be in the top 100 on the IMDb list.

This movie was okay, but I wasn't overly impressed with it. If not for the over use of the hand held camera, which had me feeling seasick, I may have enjoyed it more. While such technique can add a sense of urgency to a film, when it used throughout 99% of the movie, it just becomes totally annoying. It distracts from what is happening in the scene. The car chases were particularly hard to watch and follow what was happening. They did use some interesting, original angles in some of the action sequences, but, again, with that shaky camera it didn't have the impact it could have had. I hope if there is another movie in the series, they will make much use of that old movie making rule: Use a tripod most of the time.

I only laughed out loud once, a few times I chuckled, the rest of the time I just shook my head. One of the dumbest, waste of time movies I've ever seen. I'm no prude but when pretty much every other word is a swear it's too much. Why oh why are we being influxed with so many of these kinds of movies with juvenile humour? I can laugh at a lot of things but after the first 2 or 3 references to bodily functions it isn't funny anymore but you just know you're going to hear the same basic joke 10 more times before the movie is over and it wasn't even really that funny the first time. And I think i've seen the kid-who-pees-on-the-department-store-santa scene enough times, thank you very much. But these kinds of movies are cheap to make and bring in lots of teenage dollars so I guess they're going to be around long after I am. But if I've saved you from spending your 5 or 10 dollars then this review was worth the effort.

I avoided seeing this movie for quite a long time as I generally don't like straight dramas, but was surprised when I finally did see it at how much I enjoyed it. The movie is about a civil war soldier, John Dunbar (Kevin Costner), sent to an outpost in the western frontier. There he encounters an Indian tribe camped a short distance from his outpost. He gradually becomes acquainted with the members of the tribe and, in time, becomes friends with the tribe. What makes this movie so good is being able to see and feel sympathetic to how the indians' land was more or less taken from them by the white man. It was done very cleverly by showing how John Dunbar went from the attitude most people have ( the indians were savages ) to understanding their culture and coming to appreciate it and understanding they were only protecting their way of life and territory. Most of the really good movies, like this one, will have you come away with an altered point of view or, at least, make you look at something in a way you haven't before.

I don't like to rate movies based on hype or box office receipts, so I'll stick to the movie itself. In case you live under a rock, the movie is about a young man, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamil), who becomes involved in a quest to become a Jedi knight and rescue Princess Lea who has been kidnapped by Darth Vader. Obi Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness) becomes his mentor and they employ Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and his sidekick, Chewbaca (Peter Meyhew) to take them to Alderon. Along for the ride are two androids, C3PO and R2D2, to add comic relief. When they discover that Alderon has been destroyed, they find their way to the Death Star - an Imperial weapon capable of wiping out a whole planet in one blast - and, after rescuing Princess Lea, join in the battle to destroy the Death Star.

The movie is very well done, with amazing special effects that still stand up quite well even today. There are very good spaceship battles reminicent of world war I dog fights, as well as sword fighting using light sabers ( the traditional weapon of the Jedi Knights ). The idea for the movie is quite original, combining sci-fi with tales of camelot and world war I fighter combat. The plot is engaging, if somewhat predictable and the acting is top notch considering most of the cast were unknowns at the time.

It's one of those movies that doesn't show its age and continues to gain young fans who's PARENTS weren't even born when it was originally released.

I'm glad to hear it will finally be available on DVD soon and I'll definitely be adding it to my collection.

I have to say I was completely awed by the amazing 3D animation in this movie. Built on that is a solid story about an ogre named Shrek (Mike Meyers) who is sent on a quest by Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow) to rescue Princess Fiona ( Cameron Diaz ) from a fire breathing dragon so that Lord Farquaad can marry her and become king. Along for the ride is Donkey (Eddie Murphy). The voice acting is very well done (John Lithgow is my favorite) and the music and sound effects created a nice story book atmosphere. Cameo appearances by many classic fairy tale charcters also adds some laughs to the movie. This will, no doubt, become an animation classic in years to come.

I wasn't really impressed with this movie. It was somewhat of an original idea ( teaching the kids about rock n' roll ), but did use the teacher-who-frees-the-minds-of-his-students theme, which I've seen a few times before ( "Dead Poet's Society", for example ). The dialogue was smart and cleaver, which is a plus. I didn't find it all that funny, though. A few good laughs, but not as funny as the better comedies I've seen. I think the movie would have been a lot better if the kids had learned a few other classic rock songs ( I imagine the cost of using those songs was the reason there weren't ). Most of the performances by the kids were good, which is usually the downfall of movies featuring lots of kids. All in all, a little above average comedy.

This is one of John Grisham's books I didn't read before seeing the movie ( or since ), so don't know how well it translated. I did hear they changed the defendant from a cigarette manufacturer to a fire arms manufacturer. As you can surmise from the above, the movie is about a lawsuit against a fire arm manufacturer because of school shooting where the shooter was able to obtain a gun from a middle man with little or no questions asked. Gene Hackman is hired by the manufacturer as a jury consultant to, basically, learn all there is to know about perspective jurors so that they jurors who the defense deems is sympathetic to their side get picked for the jury. John Cusak is a loose cannon who gets himself on the jury, but I won't say anymore so as not to spoil it. Not a great movie, but not altogether bad either. It did have an interesting mystery aspect to it, which is what makes the movie okay. On the downside it was a bit long for the story and so was a bit dull in places. Overall, an average court room drama. 7/10

This wasn't a great movie, but not bad either. The basic plot is an average guy gets fed up with his boring job and, after a mishap at a hynotherapist, gets a new lease on life and decides no job is the job he wants to have and goes about setting it up with a couple of co-workers. I think what is good about the movie is almost everyone can relate to working a job they hate and this movie depicts what many of us would like to do - just walk out. The characters were interesting and quirky, especially Gary Cole who really did a great job playing an overly annoying boss. I did laugh pretty hard a couple of times, which is my main gauge for how good a comedy is. So, I would give it about a 7/10.

While this movie did have a couple ( and I mean just a couple ) good laughs, mostly it was filled with juvenile, toilet humor ( not that this is always bad ) which had nothing to do with the story itself. It looked to me like the main story wasn't long enough, so all kinds of dumb jokes were thrown in to stretch it out. Rob Schneider's role should have been completely left on the editing room floor - added absolutely nothing to the story. I suppose that is what I found very disappointing about this movie - it started out with an interesting idea, but got bogged down in the usual dumb jokes that usually fill an Adam Sandler movie. I really expected a lot better from both of them after "The Wedding Singer" ( by far, Sandler's best movie ).

Um, maybe I missed something, but I really don't see what all the hype is about this movie. It's one of those movies that critics seem to like and awards go to, but is Boring with a capital B. The plot looks like it was put together by throwing darts at a dartboard to decide what would happen next. It's kind of like following an average person around for a couple days - let's face it, the average person's average day is a bore. True, once in awhile something interesting happens to all of us, but this movie chose to focus on the days where nothing really interesting happens. I'll give it that it's quite different, but different isn't necessarily good, which is the case here, IMO.

A little different twist on the psychopath-who-toys-with-the-protagonist plot line by keeping him posted at a phone booth. The psychopath manipulates Colin Farrel into confessing some of his 'sins' to his wife and public. Eventually, the police get involved and news people show up as would be expected. The police are under the impression that Colin Farrel is the bad guy at first but figure out there's someone else involved. It was interesting that we don't see the psychopath until the very end of the movie. I was disappointed by the use of the warn out cliche of two police detectives with different ranks clashing. On the positive side, there were some good twists and turns that set it apart from similar movies, but not enough tension and originality to give it more than 7/10.

I can see this opinion isn't popular but I liked this movie. No, far from a 10, but a good popcorn movie, just the same. I thought it had a lot of the same elements as the first one: quirky, over the top characters ( I thought Arnold did a great job as Mr. Freeze ) like Nicholson did with The Joker, and an overall comic book feel to it, which I thought was missing from some of the other Batman movies. All I can say is I've seen lots worse.

I really like this movie a lot. It explores the road not taken in a very clever and entertaining way. Nicolas Cage plays Jack Campbell, a successful business man, who, seemingly, has all a guy could ask for - a ferrari, a posh new york apartment, gourmet food, beautiful women, etc. On Christmas Eve, he is given a glimpse of the road not taken - enter Jack Campbell the family man. The only problem is it isn't he life he knows. After his initial shock and dismay, he gradually comes to enjoy this alternate life. This is a good movie to watch when you feel unhappy about your life. Jack had what many of us hope for or dream of only to find that he could be just as happy struggling to make ends meet and dealing with daily family ups and downs that a lot of us do.

Misery explores the dark side of a celebrity meeting up with his 'number one fan'. James Caan plays author Paul Sheldon who is 'saved' by, psychopath, Annie Wilkes ( played expertly by Kathy Bates ), after crashing his car in a blizzard. She nurses him back to health and then forces him to write another 'chastity lane' novel after finding out Paul killed her off in his latest published novel. Paul spends the rest of the movie trying to find a way to escape his prison only to find each effort thwarted by Annie. Misery is thriller at its best, mostly due, IMO, to Kathy Bates Academy award winning performance, making Norman Bates look like a choir boy.

Although romantic comedies were made before "When Harry Met Sally...", it was the movie that invented the phrase. The movie is about the long, over more than ten years ( though the movie focuses on the last two years ), relationship between Harry and Sally who first meet on their car pooling trip to New York after graduating from university. It explores the question "Can men and women really be friends?". It's a whole lot of fun to watch them find out the answer to that question as well as to illustrate a lot of the differences between men and women in terms of wants and needs in a relationship. If you like romantic comedies, you really have to see the modern one that started them all.