Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Kemper (2008 Video)
2/10
Please make an actual true story
15 January 2011
I rated this movie a 2 out of 10 for the simple reason it is fictional. The story of Ed Kemper is interesting especially to people who enjoy reading and studying serial killers like him, but this movie isn't that. They take the name of Ed Kemper and use it to make a movie and use the whole "based on actual events" trick to get it to sell. While they did use little tid bits here and there that were factual(like Ed sticking his moms vocal cords in the garbage disposal), this movie was fictional. That ruined the movie for me knowing that while watching it I wasn't seeing the actual story of Ed Kemper. Overall, if this was just another movie I would rate this up to a 5 for it just being a straight up independent film of new actors and directors(people have to start somewhere). But since this film used a serial killer's name to sell and claim to tell a true story, I give a 2.
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Could have been could great
12 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I am a fan of the Resident Evil series despite(not yet anyway) not playing the games. I know the games and movies are different and I hear complaints about that, but that is actually a good thing. The movies took elements from the games and made the movies. If the movies follow the game exactly, well then, it would be boring. Might as well play the game.

Anyway, about this movie. The movie was being advertised as 3D (which is overrated to begin with) and they may have done more harm then good to the movie. In the action parts of the movie they really played with the effects way to much using slow motion and close ups and it really ruined the action. The more I watched it, especially the beginning, it was like the writers wanted to show what the Matrix or 300 would have looked like in 3D.

The movie itself had a good storyline despite what other critics have said. It is continuing from the previous movie so if you haven't seen the other 3 then this one would be boring. The movie also had a Dawn of the Dead feel, just like the 3rd one had a Road Warrior feel. It had action in the beginning, the characters staying refuge in the middle, then escaping in the end. The best part was the part in the middle, where they were in the prison, didn't last long like the whole mall part in Dawn of the Dead did, so the movie didn't drag too much.

The movie overall was good and it could have been great if they wouldn't have played with the 3D so much. All the slow motion in the beginning and the end was pointless. Also, there are some other parts I hated, like, they (Claire and Alice) meet some survivors and here we are in the end of the world, no malls, no hot water, etc., but yet they are clean and done in makeup and what not. And after Alice runs into Claire, Claire is a mess. She gets tied up but in the plane she is in makeup and looks hot. Be real here, 5 years after the end of mankind people wouldn't be looking like they are going for a photo shoot here. The people taking refuge in the prison have to be told of the armor vehicle. I don't know about you, but if I am stuck somewhere having to survive then I would search every square inch of that place. Those reasons made this movie a potential 8 to a 6. I gave it a 5 (almost a 4) because of the ending. As much as I like the series, I kind of wanted to see it end. The find survivors on the ship, and they kill the head guy of Umbrella, now just end they movie. All they are going to do now is start the growth of mankind again and we don't need to see that. Instead a bunch of planes start coming and they are under attack. Now is the time to end it.

Anyway, overall, good, could have been great if some certain, little aspects were changed, and it is now time to end the series.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
some funny moments
25 August 2009
Another cookie cutter movie ridden with lots of sex jokes. I am not a big fan of these types of movies (movies like The 40 Year Old Virgin and The Wedding Crashers) and that is how this movie starts. The acting was average at best, at most times, below average, the character playing Zooey (Rashida Jones)was particularly bad, but she had a small part. This movie was going to receive almost a failing rating (like a 4 or a 5) but then they inserted Sidney (Jason Segel) and he played an amazing part. He makes the movie alone and up my rating to a 6. The movie really moved with him and left all of the sex jokes and the ones that were inserted were well places. The movie moved the same way most movies do and ended the way I expected. So to sum up this movie, it was bad, then saved by a good actor, and pretty much ended the way I expected. Nothing great, not bad, worth watching if one has the time but nothing worth watching twice, 6 out of 10.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
vastly overdone and overrated
5 August 2009
This is a review of all three movies, because really, they are all the same movie. Each movie is about 4 hours long which totals up for about 12 hours, so basically this is a 12 hour long movie. When watching this I am amazed that people can stand to watch this that long. The movie was really well done up, had above average acting, and had some cool fight scene, but in all, it was 12 hours of a couple of midgets walking to a mountain to pitch a ring in a pit of lava. Now a storyline like that isn't bad, the idea of going to a journey for one task (Saving Private Ryan was that, that movie was great) but when it is 12 hours long, the movie goes from being great to be crap. When watching the first one I thought the movie was great, a small story line that was going somewhere and had amazing scenes and creativity that impressed me, I thought "this movie is great, simple story line but it is interesting." But the problem is that this movie didn't end, I had to watch the next two. When watching the second (Two Towers) and the third (Return of the King) I got to the point, really about an hour in the second one, on thinking if this movie is going anywhere at all. I am watching a group of people walk, fight, ponder over what just happen, then walk again. Like for example, a scene that is so vivid in my mind because it was the point that about made me go crazy, the two midgets (Frodo and his little buddy) are laying there and there is this group of some weird creatures arguing on if they should eat them or not, then a bunch of horsemen come and another battle breaks out, then Frodo gets kicked in the head (which by then I was hoping that he died and the movie really changed course, but it didn't) then we found out later he got away, he runs into a talking tree, then blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc., the movie just went on with a bunch of crap, I got sick of it. They eventually get rid of the ring, but after that, the movie wouldn't end, there is more fighting, very annoying. So in all, if you enjoy watching 12 hours of people walk, fight, walk, fight, dramatize over everything, then so be it, but I would stick to my movies that get to the point, say what needs to be said, then ends without a bunch of crap in the end. 4 out of 10 for the whole series.
0 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Watchable
4 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is another slasher film but it is a step above your typical teenage slasher film. Basically a guy comes back after disappearing for 10 years and murders start happening again. In the end he is the killer. Not much to it. The film leads you on on to thinking of if the sheriff or Tom is the killer. To much of my disappointment, it was Tom. Pretty generic ending. The movie wasn't bad, it had some decent acting. What help the plot was that it didn't involve a situation with a bunch of high schoolers going out for some fun but end up getting killed but more townfolks that are connected in some way, putting it a step above your typical teenage slasher like unlike movies like Friday the 13th, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre for instance. What ruined it was it was pretty generic everywhere else. Killer ends up somehow in a certain situation, kills someone in a violent manner, the somehow, magically, gets away. All while the victims never get help, like why didn't Sarah or Megan call for help on their cell phones when being attack- unless they had them in their purse, and why didn't deputy Ferris call for backup when entering the house or why didn't the sheriff call for backup when going after his wife, little things like that bother me in these types of movies. Overall, really, the movie was pretty generic, would have liked it better if they would have had a better ending. I was hoping the the deputy was the killer and the sheriff and Tom were not, that would have been a great ending that no one would have saw. So, I give it a 6 out of 10, passing, will watch again if on TV, maybe on DVD if I have time, but nothing really great. Somday now I have to watch the original to compare.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good, but overrated
31 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was good, but I wouldn't call it great. The pace was a little bit on the slow side but overall wasn't bad. Enough suspense to keep it going and keep interest and had a good story line. The ending was really surprising (and lame) in how it just ended in an Ol' West shootout at a motel and the bad guy in the end got away. A kind of slow pace movie with an slap you in your face ending, wasn't really good. The movie was moving along pretty well, then 'bang, bang', the guy is dead and the man is gone. Wasn't mad that Moss got killed, it does add a different taste for a movie, (same reason on why I loved the Vanishing) I just hated how it happened, wasn't smooth on getting to that point. We are moving along, then he is dead, in the most boring way possible. It wasn't like The Vanishing in how the guy died, he died by...surprise, getting shot in broad daylight. Then the movie had about 15 minutes of crap that wasn't really necessary. The man dies, the bad guy gets the money, kills the wife, and get away. All that other crap with Tommy Lee Jones should have been left out. Great acting and story line made this movie good. This movie is far from great though. Terrible ending(the ending always makes the movie), it is like the directors wanted the man dead, then they realized that they still have some time left so they added some other crap. Also, nothing is really nothing great about this movie. I put it on about the same level as The Fugative. Worth watching, will watch again if I see it on TV or if I am on an date, but overall, nothing really special. 7 out of 10, should be a 6 because of the ending, but it is still passable.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Flawless (1999)
7/10
Entertaining
16 July 2009
The movie moved very well, not to slow but not too quick, and included all that need to be said in the 2 hours without going overboard and too dramatic. The dialoque in the movie was great with quotes like "Mr. My Left Foot" and "Here Comes American's Least Wanted". And plus the acting was great. Robert De Niro was great as usual and Philip Seymour Hoffman showed why he is one of the most underrated actors ever. I gave this movie a 7 because of what I mentioned above. The movie was pretty generic though, denying it a rating of something higher then a 7, and despite the fact I said it moved pretty well, there were a couple of slow spots that took place. So overall, it was entertaining, not completely flawless but will watch again, if asked about it I will make good remarks about it, but not quite good enough to recommend it to someone else as a must see.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed