Reviews Written By: A1FMJJKSVQDDQprovided by Amazon.com |
 | ||
 | The Excorcist: 25th Anniversary edition | |
 | "Try sleeping at night after watching this . . ." | 2009-10-31 |
| It's really hard to name every single horror film that's ever been made. Many deal with zombies, ghosts, serial killers, classic monsters like Frankenstein, and mutated species. Some are classic, others are mediocre, and several are ridiculous and dull. Out of all of them, only a few have been recognized as the greatest in the genre. The Exorcist, Psycho, and The Shining have been rightfully praised for the terrors that they have conveyed. Dozens of others have never topped them ever since they were released. While my favorite horror film of all time is actually The Shining, I can perfectly understand why The Exorcist is considered the best. First of all, is has an unusual storyline (back in the 70's, at least). Instead of ghosts or zombies or werewolves, it's demon possession. The body of a young girl is being controlled by a spirit from Hell. With every medical analysis being inconclusive, the mother has one last chance of bringing her daughter back. She brings in Father Karras, who has a crisis of faith, and Father Merrin, who has seen this sort of prediction when he visited Iraq.
So why is it that this is considered the scariest movie of all time. Well, the shock effects may be outdated to some, but it's the eerie atmosphere and the thought of being possessed that makes it truly horrifying. The silent, quick shots of the infamous "Captain Howdy" are also an addition to this ghoulish nightmare. You don't need loud and abrupt music or hardcore gore, all you need here is a creepy environment, a slow pace, and some fiendish dialogue from Regan/the demon. Mind you, there are some great modern horror films (such as Rec, The Evil Dead series, and the original Thai version of Shutter), but The Exorcist, The Shining, and Psycho are in top form when it comes to scaring the s*** out of you. The Exorcist, especially, is one that is truly scary because of its controversial subject matter. The finest, no doubt. Grade: A+ | ||
 | Evil Dead II (Special Edition) | |
| ""That's right. Who's laughing now?!"" | 2009-10-26 |
| Whether it's a sequel or a remake, it doesn't matter once the film starts. This is the second installment in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series, and it's one of the few sequels (or "remake" if you want to call that) that is equal to the original. It's just as diabolical, with some twisted moments that will no doubt be implanted in the brains of those who watch them. I think the only difference here is that the black humor is more constant than in the original. There is one scene in which Ash (Bruce Campbell) discovers that his hand is possessed by an evil spirit, and from then on, some diabolical hilarity ensues. The entire film is basically a perfect mix of horror, blood, slapstick, gore, and over-the-top edginess. It's actually one of the better horror films in recent decades. Sure, it may not be like The Exorcist, The Shining, or George A. Romero's zombie films, but the entire Evil Dead series stands on its own as a scary & darkly hilarious bloodfest. Kudos to Raimi and Campbell. | ||
 | The Evil Dead (Book Of The Dead Limited Edition) | |
| "The woods are alive . . . with the sound of horror!" | 2009-10-24 |
| Believe it, ladies and gentlemen. The Evil Dead is a bloody, gory, explicit, and sometimes darkly humorous low-budget horror movie. There's no doubt about it. If you have a weak stomach, you'll probably find yourself puking in the toilet halfway through the film. Good thing I don't have one (no offense). This is a gore-filled masterpiece. It really is. If you think Saw and House of 1000 Corpses (both of which are great horror films, by the way) are bloody and gory, wait until you see this one. Like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead is a prime example of how hands should be bitten off, and how bodies should be dismembered with an axe. And it's all done in such a low budget; it's unbelievable. I have to say that this is an excellent movie to watch on Halloween, and an excellent movie to watch any day or night. It's scary, funny, bloody, gory, intense . . . . and that's basically how it is.
P.S. Bruce Campbell is ****ing awesome. At least in the second half of the movie, anyway. | ||
 | Rhapsody : Child of Blood | |
 | "Flawed, but still had me satisfied" | 2009-10-17 |
| As the first book in the series (more like a trio of trilogies) called The Symphony of Ages, Rhapsody: Child of Blood tell the story of a woman named Rhapsody, a courtesan who has a special gift with music. Just as she tries to escape her seemingly cold-hearted lover, she finds herself a captive among two males of a mixed race, Achmed and Grunthor. The kidnapping, however, eventually turns into a quest as the three of them form a bond, and this leads to a destiny that cannot be stopped.
I was really hoping I would love Rhapsody: Child of Blood. But when I finished the novel just last night, I ended up only liking parts of it. Not to say that the entire book was incredibly bad; it was really good. There were some great moments, but there were some bad moments as well. I'll start with the bad. First, the chemistry between our four protagonists (Rhapsody, Achmed, Grunthor, and later, Jo) seemed very simple. When I say 'simple,' I mean the conflicts that they have with each other (whether big or small) aren't very intimidating, and they sometimes end very quickly. That really kills some of the suspense in the story. A larger grudge against each other would have been more intriguing. That way we would have a slightly better reason for reading the next chapter. Second, located in the middle of the book, there are historical information about the world in which these characters live in. This would have been fascinating if it was actually handled correctly. What you get here are a couple of supporting characters who give our heroes extended narrations about what happened centuries ago, and they go on for about fifty pages. This really slows the story down. I found myself wanting to skip a few pages because of it. The history is interesting enough, but maybe some appendices would have helped, or maybe some brief discussions about history that are scattered throughout the story instead of it crammed together in the middle of the second act. Third, the religious overtones in this novel are blatantly obvious: the All-God, priests, etc. I don't condemn religion or anything, but this is horribly uninteresting, and adds nothing to the actual plot. Speaking of uninteresting, the character Grunthor has become the fourth reason why I didn't like this book very much. Here is a protagonist that is tall, round, has a kind heart, has a dwarfish dialect, and has a fairly wicked sense of humor. So why is he so dull? It's because we've seen this sort of character before. Whether its his personality or his appearance, we've seen fragments and complete bodies of him in other books in fantasy fiction. There is nothing about him that makes him unique; a failed opportunity indeed. The fifth reason is another protagonist named Jo. She is annoying! She's a teenager, but she's like one of those modern teenagers from High School. She complains, whines, gets pissed off, makes silly jokes, gets excited whenever there's action, and that's pretty much it about her. She hardly ever develops here, and I'd be a bit surprised if she changed in the next two novels in this series. There are some miscellaneous things about Rhapsody: Child of Blood that I also didn't find enjoyable, such as the Firbolg also being dull and cliched. But one that should be mentioned is something that starts on the bottom half of Page 449, where a character named Ashe is awed by the appearance of Rhapsody and forms some dirty thoughts in his mind. And these descriptions last for four-and-a-half pages! Why is it so long?! It could have been done in just a few paragraphs. I mean, I know that Rhapsody would look very attractive, but four-and-a-half pages would have been more useful than this like, say, an action sequence. With all of these flaws, does that necessarily mean this is Grade C material? By all means, no. I would give this a B-, mainly because there are still some wonderful things about Child of Blood. For instance, the storyline is pretty unique. Even though there are a few elements in the story that have obviously been borrowed from other sources, this is Elizabeth Haydon's own work. It's fascinating, and it grabs the attention once it starts. Same goes for the writing. I can see why Haydon is being compared to Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind. She has developed a compelling writing style to which can be equal to Jordan's own writing style. The way she handles the dialogue, and the way she describes the different environments is pretty much at the top of the highest level. Then, we have the characters Rhapsody and Achmed. Rhapsody is not your typical damsel in distress: she's tough in spirit and kind in heart. She's smarter than most female characters in fantasy fiction, and she has a personality of her own. Achmed is more of an anti-hero rather than a typical hero. His appearance is fairly ghastly, but that doesn't make him a villain. He is one of the more realistic protagonists that I have seen since The Wheel of Time and The Farseer Trilogy. One thing I should note: Rhapsody and Achmed form a complex relationship, and there was one point in which I thought this would somehow turn into a romance. I guess it was the writing that made me believe that this would happen. And finally, to top it all off, you have some fascinating politics throughout the story and a mesmerizing sequence in which Rhapsody, Achmed, and Grunthor find themselves in the center of the earth (it's really worth reading). In the end, I still enjoyed Rhapsody: Child of Blood despite its flaws, and it left me wanting to know what's going to happen next in the second installment. I hope it's even better than the original. Grade: B- | ||
 | Executive Decision | |
| "Terrifyingly intense!" | 2009-10-16 |
| This is one of those action thrillers that goes perfect with popcorn or chips or whatever. It's really intense. As a growing fan of political thrillers, this gets even better after repeated viewings. With action, drama, humor, and of course, thrills, this should be watched by those who are into these sorts of movies. And for those who want to see Steven Segal killed off in the film, then this is your first, and probably only, chance. | ||
 | Executive Decision | |
| "Terrifyingly intense!" | 2009-10-16 |
| This is one of those action thrillers that goes perfect with popcorn or chips or whatever. It's really intense. As a growing fan of political thrillers, this gets even better after repeated viewings. With action, drama, humor, and of course, thrills, this should be watched by those who are into these sorts of movies. And for those who want to see Steven Segal killed off in the film, then this is your first, and probably only, chance. | ||
 | The Prince of Egypt | |
| ""Let my people go!"" | 2009-10-15 |
| I simply can't stand the CGI-animated films that have become a mainstream phenomenon for this new millennium. Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Shrek, Monsters Inc., and Ice Age were done extraordinarily well, but now CGI is everywhere and I think I'm going insane for even staring at one of their DVD covers! Much of them are just plain horrible (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Barnyard, Hoodwinked, Over the Hedge, Cars, Surf's Up, etc.), but most traditionally-animated films haven't fared well either (Home on the Range, Curious George, etc.). Are we going to have to sit through more of these in the future? I have a feeling that we most certainly will.
Fortunately, we still have tons of 2D-animated classics that we can enjoy watching (in both DVD and Blu-Ray). The Lion King, Peter Pan, Fantasia, The Secret of NIMH, Treasure Planet, and many others still look beautiful and modern. These were made with great care, and most of them had solid scripts and memorable characters. One classic that really stands out is The Prince of Egypt. Created by Dreamworks, it tells the well-known story of Moses and his quest from God to free the Hebrews. Almost everything that you have read from the Bible are here: the burning bush, the ten plagues, the parting of the sea, and so forth. What really makes The Prince of Egypt so distinctive is that it's one of the few animated movies that actually takes its audience seriously. It has a slightly darker and much more serious tone, with images that would no doubt frighten little kids. There are still two comedic sidekicks that will certainly entertain the kids, but as a whole, the entire movie is just as mature as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. There hasn't been anything like this since it's been released back in 1998. What I love most about this movie is the animation. The 2D graphics are so beautiful and so detailed, that I literally couldn't help but sit there and stare at the awe-inspiring visuals. The water, the sand, the fires, the Ancient Egyptian architecture, everything is seen as top quality. There is one particular dream scene that's done in hieroglyphic form that looks pretty silly, but everything else is first-rate animation. The songs are very average (some of the weak links to this film). With the exception of the masterful "When You Believe," they aren't very unforgettable. But the orchestral music by Hans Zimmer is quite spectacular. It amazes me every time I hear those North African motifs, and those echoing solos that are done by a soprano. I can't help but admire The Prince of Egypt. It's just as epic as The Lion King. It's a shame that we never get to see animated films like these today; all we get now are 3D-animated films that have flat characters, weak plots, and endless pop culture references. I can only hope that either Disney or Dreamworks (or whoever) can make a film that's provocative as this one. | ||
 | Bedazzled | |
| "Desperation that leads to hilarity" | 2009-10-14 |
| This remake was made back in 2000, and I should have watched it in the theaters because it's very VERY hilarious! Brendan Fraser plays Elliot Richards, a man who doesn't have the nerve to ask a woman out but is desperate in doing so. That's when the Devil comes in. Played by Elizabeth Hurley, the Devil gives him seven wishes, but only if Elliot trades his soul in return. And as Elliot makes his wishes, hilarity ensues. There are tons of sight gags and some wordplay going around, and they made me laugh numerous times. Hurley was a surprise as Satan himself: she acts with charisma and wit, and her English accent adds to the much sophisticated appearance. Fraser always does well in comedies, and here he gives his usual great performance. I haven't seen the original 1967 version yet, but when I get the chance, I hope it's as funny and heartwarming as the remake. | ||
 | James and the Giant Peach (Special Edition) | |
| "Now THAT"S a giant peach!" | 2009-10-13 |
| This is one of the darker clay-mated films that can be enjoyed by those who relish (or don't) in this sort of genre. Adapted by the famous children's novel by Roald Dahl, the story tells of James, whose parents were killed by a mysterious rhinoceros. He lives with two cruel aunts named Spiker and Sponge, who do nothing but verbally abuse him ever since he has moved in with them. On a typical summer day, James comes a cross a stranger who gives him a bag of "crocodile tongues." These tongues are important, as the stranger tells James that these will help him find happiness. Unexpectedly, James trips and falls, sending these tongues into the roots of a peach tree. Within moments, a particular peach grows until it becomes the size of a two-story house. With the aunts making money off of this strange phenomenon, James finds himself inside the core of the peach, where insects living inside have also evolved. A centipede, grasshopper, spider, ladybug, and earthworm become his friends. What comes next is a fantastic adventure, as James and friends are on their way (through sky and water) to New York City to find happiness.
The clay-mation here is wonderful. It's almost as astounding as the animation in The Nightmare Before Christmas. There's both beauty and ugliness (when required) all around. I've read the original Dahl novel, and it was nice to see these characters brought to life (though I expected the grasshopper to be a bit different than he was in the actual film). The songs here are quite forgettable; practically none of them are very enjoyable to listen to. But there are few songs here, so they're not too distracting. And finally, keep in mind, as little kids may be frightened at some creepy images such as the rhinoceros. This is still a lovely family film to boot. I can easily recommend it to anyone. | ||
 | Space Jam - Enhanced Edition | |
| "Basketball, according to the Looney Tunes" | 2009-10-12 |
| Who would have thought that Looney Tunes and Basketball would be a pretty good mix? Bugs and Daffy and friends are about to be taken as slaves for Mister Swackhammer, the proprietor for Moron Mountain. They must defeat Swackhammer's tiny minions with a game of basketball. This would be easier than expected (seeing that it was Bugs and his friends' idea in the first place), but the minions have stolen the talents of Basketball all-stars (including Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley) and have become the "Monstars"! They are now stronger and bigger than they were before. So now, the Looney Tunes have only one hope: Michael Jordan. And what you get is 88 minutes of good ol' hilarity, with slapstick humor that's almost equal to the original animated Looney shorts.
This is a very entertaining movie. It has Bugs, Sylvester, and Daffy playing basketball with M.J., which is a pretty memorable concept. The reason why I've given this film four stars instead of five is because of Lola Bunny. She was a very unnecessary addition to the Looney Tunes. She's not funny, she's irritating, and she tries too hard to look attractive. Another reason is Michael Jordan's acting. It's very wooden at times, but he's not as bad as Shaq (I think you know which movie I'm talking about). But everything else is just fine. Wayne Knight and Bill Murray are pretty funny in their supporting roles. But the real stars here are, of course, the Looney Tunes. I'm pretty sure that fans of Bugs, Yosemite Sam, Tweety, and Marvin the Martian will get a kick out of this movie. It's fun for both families and Looney Tunes fans. | ||
 | Big Momma's House | |
 | "Mediocre at best" | 2009-10-12 |
| This isn't really Martin Lawrence's best work, but it's not his worst, either. It's very average, with both funny and unfunny jokes here and there. The premise is unoriginal, yes, but it's taken with some good hilarity. Everyone gives great performances, but some of their dialogue could have been improved. What I liked the most about Big Momma's House is the soundtrack (Lil Jon at his best!), and that's the only greater thing about this movie. So if you're into Martin Lawrence's work, then you'll probably love this 2000 comedy. If you want an excellent comedy, then you'll probably find this very adequate. | ||
 | Big Momma's House | |
| "Mediocre at best" | 2009-10-12 |
| This isn't really Martin Lawrence's best work, but it's not his worst, either. It's very average, with both funny and unfunny jokes here and there. The premise is unoriginal, yes, but it's taken with some good hilarity. Everyone gives great performances, but some of their dialogue could have been improved. What I liked the most about Big Momma's House is the soundtrack (Lil Jon at his best!), and that's the only greater thing about this movie. So if you're into Martin Lawrence's work, then you'll probably love this 2000 comedy. If you want an excellent comedy, then you'll probably find this very adequate. | ||
 | Space Jam | |
| "Basketball, according to the Looney Tunes" | 2009-10-12 |
| Who would have thought that Looney Tunes and Basketball would be a pretty good mix? Bugs and Daffy and friends are about to be taken as slaves for Mister Swackhammer, the proprietor for Moron Mountain. They must defeat Swackhammer's tiny minions with a game of basketball. This would be easier than expected (seeing that it was Bugs and his friends' idea in the first place), but the minions have stolen the talents of Basketball all-stars (including Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley) and have become the "Monstars"! They are now stronger and bigger than they were before. So now, the Looney Tunes have only one hope: Michael Jordan. And what you get is 88 minutes of good ol' hilarity, with slapstick humor that's almost equal to the original animated Looney shorts.
This is a very entertaining movie. It has Bugs, Sylvester, and Daffy playing basketball with M.J., which is a pretty memorable concept. The reason why I've given this film four stars instead of five is because of Lola Bunny. She was a very unnecessary addition to the Looney Tunes. She's not funny, she's irritating, and she tries too hard to look attractive. Another reason is Michael Jordan's acting. It's very wooden at times, but he's not as bad as Shaq (I think you know which movie I'm talking about). But everything else is just fine. Wayne Knight and Bill Murray are pretty funny in their supporting roles. But the real stars here are, of course, the Looney Tunes. I'm pretty sure that fans of Bugs, Yosemite Sam, Tweety, and Marvin the Martian will get a kick out of this movie. It's fun for both families and Looney Tunes fans. | ||
 | Space Jam (Two-Disc Special Edition) | |
| "Basketball, according to the Looney Tunes" | 2009-10-12 |
| Who would have thought that Looney Tunes and Basketball would be a pretty good mix? Bugs and Daffy and friends are about to be taken as slaves for Mister Swackhammer, the proprietor for Moron Mountain. They must defeat Swackhammer's tiny minions with a game of basketball. This would be easier than expected (seeing that it was Bugs and his friends' idea in the first place), but the minions have stolen the talents of Basketball all-stars (including Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley) and have become the "Monstars"! They are now stronger and bigger than they were before. So now, the Looney Tunes have only one hope: Michael Jordan. And what you get is 88 minutes of good ol' hilarity, with slapstick humor that's almost equal to the original animated Looney shorts.
This is a very entertaining movie. It has Bugs, Sylvester, and Daffy playing basketball with M.J., which is a pretty memorable concept. The reason why I've given this film four stars instead of five is because of Lola Bunny. She was a very unnecessary addition to the Looney Tunes. She's not funny, she's irritating, and she tries too hard to look attractive. Another reason is Michael Jordan's acting. It's very wooden at times, but he's not as bad as Shaq (I think you know which movie I'm talking about). But everything else is just fine. Wayne Knight and Bill Murray are pretty funny in their supporting roles. But the real stars here are, of course, the Looney Tunes. I'm pretty sure that fans of Bugs, Yosemite Sam, Tweety, and Marvin the Martian will get a kick out of this movie. It's fun for both families and Looney Tunes fans. | ||
 | Space Jam | |
| "Basketball, according to the Looney Tunes" | 2009-10-12 |
| Who would have thought that Looney Tunes and Basketball would be a pretty good mix? Bugs and Daffy and friends are about to be taken as slaves for Mister Swackhammer, the proprietor for Moron Mountain. They must defeat Swackhammer's tiny minions with a game of basketball. This would be easier than expected (seeing that it was Bugs and his friends' idea in the first place), but the minions have stolen the talents of Basketball all-stars (including Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley) and have become the "Monstars"! They are now stronger and bigger than they were before. So now, the Looney Tunes have only one hope: Michael Jordan. And what you get is 88 minutes of good ol' hilarity, with slapstick humor that's almost equal to the original animated Looney shorts.
This is a very entertaining movie. It has Bugs, Sylvester, and Daffy playing basketball with M.J., which is a pretty memorable concept. The reason why I've given this film four stars instead of five is because of Lola Bunny. She was a very unnecessary addition to the Looney Tunes. She's not funny, she's irritating, and she tries too hard to look attractive. Another reason is Michael Jordan's acting. It's very wooden at times, but he's not as bad as Shaq (I think you know which movie I'm talking about). But everything else is just fine. Wayne Knight and Bill Murray are pretty funny in their supporting roles. But the real stars here are, of course, the Looney Tunes. I'm pretty sure that fans of Bugs, Yosemite Sam, Tweety, and Marvin the Martian will get a kick out of this movie. It's fun for both families and Looney Tunes fans. | ||
 | Space Jam: Music From And Inspired By The Motion Picture | |
| "ANYone can enjoy this one" | 2009-10-12 |
| This is one heck of a soundtrack! Hip hop and pop rock are the primary genres for Space Jam. You have R. Kelly, Seal, Monica, and D'Angelo singing extraordinary songs that anyone can enjoy listening to. My personal favorite song is "Hit 'Em High" by B Real, Busta Rhymes, Coolio, LL Cool J, and Method Man. It's pretty family-friendly, but it's still got an amazing beat and some creative lyrics. Monica's "For You I Will" is a classic, while R. Kelly's "I Believe I Can Fly" is an excellent cover. "Space Jam" by Quad City DJ's is also very catchy, and "Basketball Jones" by Barry White and Chris Rock is pretty funny. The last track called "Buggin'" is . . . weird. It's strange to hear Bugs rap; actually, it's strange to hear the Looney Tunes rap at all. But the rest of the soundtrack is solid. Even if you don't like hip hop, you'll probably like it here. | ||
 | The Addams Family | |
| "Welcome to the world of the Addams Family" | 2009-10-10 |
| When first seeing this movie, you will tell that it's not very close to the 60's TV series. It's darker and far more wicked. I think it's because the creators of this movie wanted to be more faithful to the original cartoons created by Charles Addams. But whatever the reason, this film is dark, gothic, and very wicked. And I love every minute of it. The entire film reminds me of Tim Burton's works because of the creepy and gloomy atmosphere, and for its very dark humor. It's a very gothic presentation of one of the most wicked families that people know and love. I'm sure that fans of the original TV series will not be disappointed in this [original Charles Addams] take on the Addams Family. | ||
 | Princess Mononoke | |
| "This is TRUE anime" | 2009-10-10 |
| First off, I have to say that I am not a big fan of anime, both movies and TV series. Most of them are incredibly over-the-top, some are just plain strange, a lot of them are style-over-substance, and many of them have characters that are WAY too sexual in terms of appearance. The plots themselves are odd to begin with; most of which are as bad as those that we find in more recent cartoons here in the United States. The craze that surrounds these anime films and shows are just wild; it's almost unbelievable. I do respect that other people love these forms of entertainment, but to me, anime is not, and has not been, my thing.
...Why are you rechecking my last name?... Well anyway, there are some few animes that I really admire, and Princess Mononoke is one of them. This is one of the fewest animated films in which it's targeted at an older audience. It's not a family film: it has blood and no childish humor. It has a strong message: it focuses on humanity and how it's destroying the natural and spiritual side of the world. It is never over-the-top: no quick, colorful shots or strange techno music whatsoever. It's a classic in its genre, and it's Miyazaki's greatest creation, in my opinion. If you're tired of the Akira-like flashy lights, or lack of logic a la Bleach, or maybe even the Pokemon-like cuteness that you find in many children's anime, then Princess Mononoke can be the perfect alternative. Mind you, though, that even though I see this as one of the greatest anime films ever created, it's not one of my top favorites. I did find the film a bit slow in some parts, and there were some moments about environmentalism that felt too preachy. And San was very annoying in some scenes. I just wished she could be quiet when the film goes on. But those are all the flaws that I can find, and they really are few. Princess Mononoke is, without any doubt whatsoever, one of the greatest animated films to ever come from Japan, and is one of the greatest in general. Kudos to Miyazaki for creating this gem. | ||
 | Shark Tale (Widescreen Edition) | |
 | "WHA???!!!" | 2009-10-10 |
| Well, Shark Tale isn't as horrible as Barnyard, but it's still REALLY bad. The jokes never succeeded in making me laugh, the celebrity voices were distracting and very unnecessary, and the movie itself is tedious. And I mean TEDIOUS! I almost couldn't take it anymore. A Troll in Central Park had something more interesting than this, and that's really saying something. And oh boy, you'll be begging for all these characters to go away. They're as annoying and uninteresting as the ones you find in the ever-dreadful Disney Channel. I give credit for the film's decent 3D animation, though; that was the one that avoided me from completely hating this movie. But yeah, I'm sure the kids will love this. But when it comes to teenagers and adults, this will be a devastating disappointment. Just rent it if you're in the mood for some good 3D animation. | ||
 | Predator 2 | |
| "He's back . . . and he's in the City of Angels!" | 2009-10-10 |
| Los Angeles. The City of Angels. The Entertainment Capital of the World. The Gang Capital of the World. The place where the Predator resides . . . and is willing to find a few more people to add in his trophy collection. To be quite honest, I slightly prefer this to the original Predator film. The mains reasons are that the main antagonist is given a more thorough background. We get to see how he hunts and how he chooses his victims. We also get to see more weapons (such as the awe-inspiring circular blade). Also, I think that Danny Glover as Harrigan is a far more convincing character than Arnold as Dutch. He's not as muscular as Dutch, but he's equal when it comes to intelligence. His ongoing confrontations with the Predator are, in some ways, more epic (who can forget the final battle near the end of the film?). There is as much blood and gore as in the original, but it seems far more disturbing when taken a look at. The music is pretty much the same, but it's still able to blend in the entire movie despite the different environments. So if I had to choose which Predator film I would prefer, it would have to be this one. It's darker and crazier, and it really gives us more of the true star: the Predator himself. | ||
 | King Kong (Three-Disc Deluxe Extended Edition) | |
| ""And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty . . . and beauty stayed his hand."" | 2009-10-08 |
| Every Kong film has their ups and downs, but some of them can be a bit obvious. This new 2005 remake is probably slightly better than the original. Kong is given a more ferocious and more human appearance, while the CGI effects are top-notch. Naomi Watts, Jack Black, and Adrien Brody are absolutely amazing here (but they still can't top Wray, Armstrong, and Cabot). And the action is what you would expect from a Kong film, only that it's probably the most exciting we'll ever see when it comes to this version. But there are, as always, flaws. The sub-plot that involves Jimmy and Hayes was not needed at all: it slows the film down and it sometimes feels like it turns into a completely different movie. The references to the original 1933 film are clever, but there are too much of them in this film. They become irritating once we get into the third act. The music theme wasn't eerie and powerful enough; it could have been improved. And finally, having it all set in 1933 again makes it all a bit tedious. It could have been set in the late 30's or early 40's to make it look a bit unique.
But still, this is an ultimate Kong remake. It's got great effects, wonderful jungle settings, and a new and improved look for the ape himself. All three films (1933, 1976, and 2005) do have their own ups and downs, but I still like all three of them. | ||
 | Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story | |
| "Who would have thought a sport could be played with such hilarity?" | 2009-10-08 |
| The fact is, this movie is hilarious. I never expected this to be very funny when I started watching it. The sight gags really work, and the same is said for the humor itself (even though some of it involves people repeatedly getting hit by something). Vaughan, Stiller, Torn, and the rest of the cast really give hysterical performances. But why the four stars? Well, the only flaw here is that certain scenes do seem to slow the film down. But that's about it. The rest of the film is very good. It's a comedy that people with a real sense of humor will enjoy. | ||
 | Dodgeball - A True Underdog Story (UMD Mini For PSP) | |
| "Who would have thought a sport could be played with such hilarity?" | 2009-10-08 |
| The fact is, this movie is hilarious. I never expected this to be very funny when I started watching it. The sight gags really work, and the same is said for the humor itself (even though some of it involves people repeatedly getting hit by something). Vaughan, Stiller, Torn, and the rest of the cast really give hysterical performances. But why the four stars? Well, the only flaw here is that certain scenes do seem to slow the film down. But that's about it. The rest of the film is very good. It's a comedy that people with a real sense of humor will enjoy. | ||
 | Predator (Widescreen Collector's Edition) | |
| "This is the real king of the jungle!" | 2009-10-08 |
| Even though I slightly prefer the sequel, the original is still creepy and entertaining. Here we are introduced to the "Predator," an alien hunter who has crash-landed in the jungles of Central America. Little is known about this strange species; only that it'll kick your @** if you get in his way. Add in Arnold Schwarzenegger and his team of soldiers and you've got a bitter conflict between human and alien. I got to say that this is one of the few movies in which Arnold gives a very good performance. You get to see him in some well-done action sequences. The supporting cast is good as well: who would have thought that Jesse Ventura could act? The action is solid; the blood and gore aren't very excessive, but they're still tons to see. And of course, the "Predator" is the real star in this film; that, and the special effects (which still looks realistic today). | ||
 | Predator | |
| "This is the real king of the jungle!" | 2009-10-08 |
| Even though I slightly prefer the sequel, the original is still creepy and entertaining. Here we are introduced to the "Predator," an alien hunter who has crash-landed in the jungles of Central America. Little is known about this strange species; only that it'll kick your @** if you get in his way. Add in Arnold Schwarzenegger and his team of soldiers and you've got a bitter conflict between human and alien. I got to say that this is one of the few movies in which Arnold gives a very good performance. You get to see him in some well-done action sequences. The supporting cast is good as well: who would have thought that Jesse Ventura could act? The action is solid; the blood and gore aren't very excessive, but they're still tons to see. And of course, the "Predator" is the real star in this film; that, and the special effects (which still looks realistic today). | ||
![Predator [Blu-ray]](product_images/4939000/4939155-predator-blu-ray_thumb.jpg) | Predator [Blu-ray] | |
| "This is the real king of the jungle!" | 2009-10-08 |
| Even though I slightly prefer the sequel, the original is still creepy and entertaining. Here we are introduced to the "Predator," an alien hunter who has crash-landed in the jungles of Central America. Little is known about this strange species; only that it'll kick your @** if you get in his way. Add in Arnold Schwarzenegger and his team of soldiers and you've got a bitter conflict between human and alien. I got to say that this is one of the few movies in which Arnold gives a very good performance. You get to see him in some well-done action sequences. The supporting cast is good as well: who would have thought that Jesse Ventura could act? The action is solid; the blood and gore aren't very excessive, but they're still tons to see. And of course, the "Predator" is the real star in this film; that, and the special effects (which still looks realistic today). | ||
![King Kong [Blu-ray]](product_images/4953000/king-kong-blu-ray_t-4953452.jpg) | King Kong [Blu-ray] | |
| ""And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty . . . and beauty stayed his hand."" | 2009-10-08 |
| Every Kong film has their ups and downs, but some of them can be a bit obvious. This new 2005 remake is probably slightly better than the original. Kong is given a more ferocious and more human appearance, while the CGI effects are top-notch. Naomi Watts, Jack Black, and Adrien Brody are absolutely amazing here (but they still can't top Wray, Armstrong, and Cabot). And the action is what you would expect from a Kong film, only that it's probably the most exciting we'll ever see when it comes to this version. But there are, as always, flaws. The sub-plot that involves Jimmy and Hayes was not needed at all: it slows the film down and it sometimes feels like it turns into a completely different movie. The references to the original 1933 film are clever, but there are too much of them in this film. They become irritating once we get into the third act. The music theme wasn't eerie and powerful enough; it could have been improved. And finally, having it all set in 1933 again makes it all a bit tedious. It could have been set in the late 30's or early 40's to make it look a bit unique.
But still, this is an ultimate Kong remake. It's got great effects, wonderful jungle settings, and a new and improved look for the ape himself. All three films (1933, 1976, and 2005) do have their own ups and downs, but I still like all three of them. | ||
 | King Kong (HD-DVD) | |
| ""And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty . . . and beauty stayed his hand."" | 2009-10-08 |
| Every Kong film has their ups and downs, but some of them can be a bit obvious. This new 2005 remake is probably slightly better than the original. Kong is given a more ferocious and more human appearance, while the CGI effects are top-notch. Naomi Watts, Jack Black, and Adrien Brody are absolutely amazing here (but they still can't top Wray, Armstrong, and Cabot). And the action is what you would expect from a Kong film, only that it's probably the most exciting we'll ever see when it comes to this version. But there are, as always, flaws. The sub-plot that involves Jimmy and Hayes was not needed at all: it slows the film down and it sometimes feels like it turns into a completely different movie. The references to the original 1933 film are clever, but there are too much of them in this film. They become irritating once we get into the third act. The music theme wasn't eerie and powerful enough; it could have been improved. And finally, having it all set in 1933 again makes it all a bit tedious. It could have been set in the late 30's or early 40's to make it look a bit unique.
But still, this is an ultimate Kong remake. It's got great effects, wonderful jungle settings, and a new and improved look for the ape himself. All three films (1933, 1976, and 2005) do have their own ups and downs, but I still like all three of them. | ||
 | Predator (Full Screen Collector's Edition) | |
| "This is the real king of the jungle!" | 2009-10-08 |
| Even though I slightly prefer the sequel, the original is still creepy and entertaining. Here we are introduced to the "Predator," an alien hunter who has crash-landed in the jungles of Central America. Little is known about this strange species; only that it'll kick your @** if you get in his way. Add in Arnold Schwarzenegger and his team of soldiers and you've got a bitter conflict between human and alien. I got to say that this is one of the few movies in which Arnold gives a very good performance. You get to see him in some well-done action sequences. The supporting cast is good as well: who would have thought that Jesse Ventura could act? The action is solid; the blood and gore aren't very excessive, but they're still tons to see. And of course, the "Predator" is the real star in this film; that, and the special effects (which still looks realistic today). | ||
 | Predator | |
| "This is the real king of the jungle!" | 2009-10-08 |
| Even though I slightly prefer the sequel, the original is still creepy and entertaining. Here we are introduced to the "Predator," an alien hunter who has crash-landed in the jungles of Central America. Little is known about this strange species; only that it'll kick your @** if you get in his way. Add in Arnold Schwarzenegger and his team of soldiers and you've got a bitter conflict between human and alien. I got to say that this is one of the few movies in which Arnold gives a very good performance. You get to see him in some well-done action sequences. The supporting cast is good as well: who would have thought that Jesse Ventura could act? The action is solid; the blood and gore aren't very excessive, but they're still tons to see. And of course, the "Predator" is the real star in this film; that, and the special effects (which still looks realistic today). | ||
| © 2009 GoSale.com (S2) |