Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Mist (2007)
3/10
Darabont's true vision
4 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
So a lot of people have pointed out that the screenwriter, Frank Darabont, also wrote the film version of The Shawshank Redemption. What a lot of people don't know is that the ending we got in that film wasn't the one Darabont wanted. See, in his original script, Andy got trapped ten feet from the end of that 500 yard sewer pipe, and drowned in liquified human feces. Then Red hanged himself from the same rafter Brooks Hatlen used to kill himself. Then Warden Norton got so rich, he was able to buy eternal youth and marry six supermodels and live in a house made of cocaine. Too bad the studio forced him to change it to that sappy Hollywood ending we got, huh? Well, here's your chance to see how things work out when Frank gets to follow his heart.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The MOST predictable movie I have EVER seen
10 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen my share of horror movies, both good and bad. But this one could not possibly have been more derivative and by-the-numbers. In the first THREE SECONDS of the movie, it was completely obvious that the terrible, evil thing that was killing the flashback family was the father. Did the screenwriter somehow think no one had ever seen "The Grudge"? When they introduced John, I assumed he would be a red herring character, because it would be FAR too easy for him to be the family-murdering father. How sad when the only way a film surprises me is by doing things I assumed were too unsurprising to do. Frankly, I'm insulted that this movie thought I wouldn't see these "plot twists" coming.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
End of Days (1999)
5/10
Confusion
25 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not going to say this is a great movie. It's not. It's not even a very good movie. But hey, I've seen worse. And so have you. Don't try to deny it.

But there is one thing I've noticed in several of the other comments that I had to respond to. A lot of people seem to think it was dumb that Satan didn't just kill Jericho while he had the chance. After all, there were a dozen occasions in the movie where he could have just ripped the guy's head off and had sex with Christine without interference. What those people don't seem to get is that Gabriel Byrne's character was NEVER THE ONE WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO IMPREGNATE CHRISTINE. It was JERICHO who was destined at birth to be the biological father of the Anti-Christ. That's why Satan hired that particular bodyguard in the first place: to get him involved. That's why he didn't possess Jericho earlier in the movie: because Jericho wasn't yet ready to serve as a vessel. That's why, as he was leading Christine to the altar in the church to rape her, Satan/Jericho told her "Everything is as it should be". Old Scratch needed this guy to be alive and with Christine at the big moment so he could possess him. That seemed like a pretty obvious conclusion before the movie was half over, but I guess not everyone could see it even while it was happening.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Kong (1976)
7/10
You know what?
26 October 2004
I don't care what anybody says. I don't care how I'm supposed to feel about this movie. I don't hate it. To be honest, I kind of love it a little. Maybe if I'd been born in the 50's or 60's, and grown up loving the original, then gotten all excited about a remake, only to have my hopes dashed by a mediocre product, I'd loathe this like everyone else does. But I was born in '76. By the time I got around to being able to actually comprehend movies, this was already on T.V. every Saturday afternoon. For me, there have always been two King Kongs. Yes, the black and white ape is more believable, and scarier looking, and more lovable, and inarguably the star of a better movie. But when you're 5 years old, a man in a monkey suit is just as realistic as a stop motion model, because suspension of disbelief is not just easy for you, it's a way of life. So go ahead, hate this movie if you want. To me, it's an old friend, and I won't abandon it.
23 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Meh...
16 August 2004
Kind of disappointing. I'm not sorry I saw it, but it wasn't the movie that 14 years of waiting should have built up to. The commercials made it look like it was going to be pretty large scale, but those scenes are part of a flashback. The actual confrontation was more of a whimper than a bang. This really should have taken place in the future, like the Aliens vs Predator novels written in the mid-90's. Those weren't masterpieces, but at least they understood why we wanted this meeting to happen in the first place: to see lots of fights between the two species (and could someone PLEASE make a movie in which they are given unique, definitive NAMES?! It would be so much easier to talk about them without saying "the aliens from Alien", or using the generic term "Xenomorph", which is only known to hardcore fans (so one is usually forced to define it as "the aliens from Alien")).

Lots of minor nitpicks too. Why would the sled that lowers equipment into an ice tunnel have an emergency return that goes 300 miles an hour? Since when is the Alien life cycle 20 minutes from facehugger to adult? Don't Predators like hot weather? So why would they still visit Antarctica now that it's a frozen wasteland? Were there enough people left alive to spawn as many Aliens as we saw? We watched at least five of the things get killed, and see at least five more of them in a group later. If the Aztec calendar was metric, why does something happen every 10 minutes? MINUTES ARE NOT A METRIC TIMEKEEPING MEASURE! That's like saying something is metric if it uses 10 feet or 10 pounds as a benchmark.

Freddy vs Jason may not have been an earth-shaking confrontation, but as far as long awaited meetings between vaguely similar movie franchises go, it was a lot more satisfying than this.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pitch Black (2000)
Where's Val and Earl?
15 June 2004
About halfway through this movie, something occurred to me. I was watching what Tremors would have been without a charismatic star, likable supporting cast and a neat monster. A bunch of people, stuck in a desert, hunted by a bunch of blind creatures, who have to choose between waiting in a safe place until they starve to death, or making a dangerous run to safety through the jaws of the beast. Only these chicken-bats (their primary attack seems to be pecking you to death) aren't nearly as cool as graboids. Heck, they're not even as good as the shriekers from Tremors 2.

And can I just say that the liberal use of the f word in this movie seemed like nothing more than a desperate attempt to make the characters sound "tough" and "real"? I've never seen a movie where every single f-bomb dropped felt so forced. I can just imagine the writer sitting down with his finished script and saying "I'll put one here, and one here, and one in this sentence..."
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed