The movie was just a high tech pissing contest of what they can do. The violence and very disturbing imagery (especially during the savage scenes) should have earned this movie an R rating. Reality was bent out of proportion that it became laughable and the acting was dreadful all around. Some parts of the movie felt racist. They went to lengths to show the killing of a black and Chinese man. The savages were also stereotypical and were very disturbing. Kong was nothing but a pissy baby who when he did not get his way he got angry, trashed things and killed people. The girl Ann needs to get a clue when this ape is killing humans around her and she thinks Kong needs her. It is almost approaching beastality. Kong earns no sympathy from me.
Reviews
9 Reviews
My Date with Drew
(2004)
Will laugh, cry & hold your breath in anticipation.
6 August 2005
My Date With Drew is one of the most sincere, charming, and exciting movies I have seen in a long time. It is about the pursuit of a dream and taking a risk. This movie has more edge-of-your-seat excitement than most summer blockbusters as you follow a roller-coaster of a journey that will make you laugh, cry, and hold your breath in anticipation. I saw this movie with my sister and she was so charmed by this movie, she had the biggest smile lasting well after the movie ended.
I have to admit, I am a little partial to the movie because I have had a have a similar harmless crush on Drew Barrymore since I saw her in ET when I was 5. But Brian took action, and with only $1,100 he followed his dream with the help of his friends and documented his journey for the world to see. Yes the video quality is low because a consumer grade camera was used, but the production values, editing and true human emotions are top notch. The world needs more dreamers and people who will take risks. As Drew Barrymore herself said, "If you don't take risks, you'll have a wasted soul." I highly recommend this movie!
I have to admit, I am a little partial to the movie because I have had a have a similar harmless crush on Drew Barrymore since I saw her in ET when I was 5. But Brian took action, and with only $1,100 he followed his dream with the help of his friends and documented his journey for the world to see. Yes the video quality is low because a consumer grade camera was used, but the production values, editing and true human emotions are top notch. The world needs more dreamers and people who will take risks. As Drew Barrymore herself said, "If you don't take risks, you'll have a wasted soul." I highly recommend this movie!
New Director Invigorates the Potter Series.
6 June 2004
(No spoilers review)
First off, I have read all of the books and seen all of the movies. I followed development of this movie closely, as there was a new director, and this being one of my favorite Potter books. I was both excited and worried with the new director, his new vision, and some of the Internet news and first pictures to be released had me scared.
I had nothing to worry about.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is an amazing book, and has been turned into an excellent movie! The new director is exactly what the series needed. Christopher Columbus (director of the first two movies) did an amazing job bringing Potter to the screen with the first two movies, and is to be praised for his work. Yet the second movie was lacking. It didn't have the same energy, and if it continued down this path, the movies could become very stale. Christopher knew this as he admitted he was exhausted, and I don't blame him. So Alfonso Cuarón was hired as the new director, but Chris still stood on as producer.
With Harry and his friends now teenagers, they are experiencing new emotions and feelings, and Alfonzo captures them in just the right amount. In the first major scene, you truly saw Harry angry, you knew he would not back down, as well as the motives behind it, and it was done oh so well. The movie was freed by using more hand-held steadicam shots, and one nice long tracking shot I wished was even longer. Film is a visual medium, and this movie does not disappoint visually. The way the camera moved in and out of objects, up and down, and the use of more perspective angles brought so much more life and feeling to the movie, and it was never overused. Special effects are used all throughout the movie to further the story and draw you into the world even more. Buckbeak the Hippogriff was astounding, blending in so seamlessly with the actors and environment, realistic movements, and truly felt like a real creature and not a special effect. When you have an excellent cast, and great direction, you only get great performances. Each character was played with realism and true human emotion. The Harry Potter series is not a kid's book, as it is a book for all ages to enjoy, many times with mature and complex subjects. Alfonzo invigorated the Harry Potter movie series with new life, allowed it to grow and mature like the characters are, and brought it back to the level it should be, and then some.
I loved the new ideas for their clothes. When in classes, they wore their uniforms. But they are teenagers wanting to be unique, original, and stand out, so it is only natural they would have their shirts untucked and ties loose. Some conformed with their attire and wore it properly, others did not. When not in classes they wore normal street clothes. What a brilliant move! This alone made the characters real teenagers, each one with a voice that wanted to be heard.
Is it exactly like the book? No, and that's a good thing when it comes to a movie. Most people do not understand that books and movies are two different mediums. If you translate a book literally, word for word, scene by scene into a movie, it may be very accurate, but it will be a long and boring movie. Peter Jackson knew this, and Lord of the Rings trilogy was chopped up and rearranged a lot, but it made such a great movie. The first Potter movie followed the book very faithfully, but also remember, it was the shortest of the books and the future books don't get any smaller. It is the screenwriter's job to translate a book into a good movie by making a 'screenplay' by changing dialogue, moving scenes around, even taking out scenes and characters that do not further the story. Steven Kloves (the screenwriter on all three Potter movies) has done an excellent job, and I am glad he is working on the fourth & fifth movies. The movie pacing does go quick, but remember, this is a book that took many hours to read condensed into a 2 hour 19 minute movie. I feel that the pace was good and the editing was smooth.
J.K. Rowling (the writer of the Potter series) even told Alfonzo to not literally follow the book, but follow the spirit of the book. By doing this, he is accurate to the Potter's universe, but not dragged down by having to do everything literally. She even encouraged him to create and throw around ideas. Sure some things were added and changed. Some scenes and characters were taken out or moved around. But did this hurt the movie?
Not at all. In fact, it freed it. The screenwriter has to take out scenes or characters that do not move the story forward, alter scenes, add things, and condense for pacing, all to make a better movie.
After seeing the movie twice, I only have a few minor complaints. One complaint makes a plot line of the story way to obvious to the audience, but with a second viewing, it serves as a misdirection. My other complaint was that something was not explained in this movie that maybe should have been, but can be easily explained in the 4th movie. My third, and maybe biggest complaint was right when the movie started out, he was practicing magic outside of school, something he is forbidden to do, and didn't do in the book. But did I let these complaints of mine destroy the entire movie? Not at all!
I have read many negative (as well as positive) reviews of this movie. Not once has anyone who criticizes this movie and writes it off completely with one of their 'reviews' been logical or made sense. If you are going to put down this movie, at least make some valid points. Some of them were so wrong with their reviews, I wonder if they had their eyes open when they watched the movie, or even watched the movie at all!
If you want a rehash of the first two movies, which apparently the negative reviewers want, then go watch them again. If you want a literal translation of the book, have someone stand in front of you for many many hours reading the book while you sit and eat popcorn. If you want a great movie based off of a great book, filled with emotion, fear, tension, friendship, and wonder, go see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
First off, I have read all of the books and seen all of the movies. I followed development of this movie closely, as there was a new director, and this being one of my favorite Potter books. I was both excited and worried with the new director, his new vision, and some of the Internet news and first pictures to be released had me scared.
I had nothing to worry about.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is an amazing book, and has been turned into an excellent movie! The new director is exactly what the series needed. Christopher Columbus (director of the first two movies) did an amazing job bringing Potter to the screen with the first two movies, and is to be praised for his work. Yet the second movie was lacking. It didn't have the same energy, and if it continued down this path, the movies could become very stale. Christopher knew this as he admitted he was exhausted, and I don't blame him. So Alfonso Cuarón was hired as the new director, but Chris still stood on as producer.
With Harry and his friends now teenagers, they are experiencing new emotions and feelings, and Alfonzo captures them in just the right amount. In the first major scene, you truly saw Harry angry, you knew he would not back down, as well as the motives behind it, and it was done oh so well. The movie was freed by using more hand-held steadicam shots, and one nice long tracking shot I wished was even longer. Film is a visual medium, and this movie does not disappoint visually. The way the camera moved in and out of objects, up and down, and the use of more perspective angles brought so much more life and feeling to the movie, and it was never overused. Special effects are used all throughout the movie to further the story and draw you into the world even more. Buckbeak the Hippogriff was astounding, blending in so seamlessly with the actors and environment, realistic movements, and truly felt like a real creature and not a special effect. When you have an excellent cast, and great direction, you only get great performances. Each character was played with realism and true human emotion. The Harry Potter series is not a kid's book, as it is a book for all ages to enjoy, many times with mature and complex subjects. Alfonzo invigorated the Harry Potter movie series with new life, allowed it to grow and mature like the characters are, and brought it back to the level it should be, and then some.
I loved the new ideas for their clothes. When in classes, they wore their uniforms. But they are teenagers wanting to be unique, original, and stand out, so it is only natural they would have their shirts untucked and ties loose. Some conformed with their attire and wore it properly, others did not. When not in classes they wore normal street clothes. What a brilliant move! This alone made the characters real teenagers, each one with a voice that wanted to be heard.
Is it exactly like the book? No, and that's a good thing when it comes to a movie. Most people do not understand that books and movies are two different mediums. If you translate a book literally, word for word, scene by scene into a movie, it may be very accurate, but it will be a long and boring movie. Peter Jackson knew this, and Lord of the Rings trilogy was chopped up and rearranged a lot, but it made such a great movie. The first Potter movie followed the book very faithfully, but also remember, it was the shortest of the books and the future books don't get any smaller. It is the screenwriter's job to translate a book into a good movie by making a 'screenplay' by changing dialogue, moving scenes around, even taking out scenes and characters that do not further the story. Steven Kloves (the screenwriter on all three Potter movies) has done an excellent job, and I am glad he is working on the fourth & fifth movies. The movie pacing does go quick, but remember, this is a book that took many hours to read condensed into a 2 hour 19 minute movie. I feel that the pace was good and the editing was smooth.
J.K. Rowling (the writer of the Potter series) even told Alfonzo to not literally follow the book, but follow the spirit of the book. By doing this, he is accurate to the Potter's universe, but not dragged down by having to do everything literally. She even encouraged him to create and throw around ideas. Sure some things were added and changed. Some scenes and characters were taken out or moved around. But did this hurt the movie?
Not at all. In fact, it freed it. The screenwriter has to take out scenes or characters that do not move the story forward, alter scenes, add things, and condense for pacing, all to make a better movie.
After seeing the movie twice, I only have a few minor complaints. One complaint makes a plot line of the story way to obvious to the audience, but with a second viewing, it serves as a misdirection. My other complaint was that something was not explained in this movie that maybe should have been, but can be easily explained in the 4th movie. My third, and maybe biggest complaint was right when the movie started out, he was practicing magic outside of school, something he is forbidden to do, and didn't do in the book. But did I let these complaints of mine destroy the entire movie? Not at all!
I have read many negative (as well as positive) reviews of this movie. Not once has anyone who criticizes this movie and writes it off completely with one of their 'reviews' been logical or made sense. If you are going to put down this movie, at least make some valid points. Some of them were so wrong with their reviews, I wonder if they had their eyes open when they watched the movie, or even watched the movie at all!
If you want a rehash of the first two movies, which apparently the negative reviewers want, then go watch them again. If you want a literal translation of the book, have someone stand in front of you for many many hours reading the book while you sit and eat popcorn. If you want a great movie based off of a great book, filled with emotion, fear, tension, friendship, and wonder, go see Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
The Way of the Gun
(2000)
Certain things should just not be mixed...
27 May 2004
And this came from the writer of "The Usual Suspects"? Just because it has never been done does not mean you should mix extreme violence, gore, language, shallow characters, kidnapping, and bad lines, all while dragging around a pregnant woman. All this happens around her while she moans, groans and is about to give birth. Giving a C-section while a gunfight ensues around her, and having the doctor kill people too, and then go back to operating (delivering his own kid no less) is just disturbing, tacky and downright tasteless. I expected so much more from this writer because "The Usual Suspects" was such a brilliant movie. It seems he tried to be too hip by forcing plot twists, weak voice overs, characters that are just done wrong and a horribly beginning scene laden with very tacky vulgar dialog, all which adds up to make a horrible movie.
The Master of Disguise
(2002)
Not all SNL graduates get a degree in film.
3 August 2002
As much as I may have liked Dana Carvey on SNL, this movie is a very poor display of his talent. Dana has been dealt some bad hands lately with his smart comedy show being prematurely cancelled, his heart surgery mishap, and being out of the public spotlight for so long. His other SNL friends are making money, so why not him too?
The movie was just an excuse to dress up and act silly, and the characters are not some of his better ones. Much of the jokes were references to pop culture, a cheap trick that will date the movie very soon. The only laughs from the audience were the cheaply low reoccurring fart jokes. The plot was incoherent and it jumped around too much the editor must have been drunk. The outtakes and gags while the credits were rolling would make even Jackie Chan woozy.
On a positive note, this movie was very clean. There were a few minor PG jokes, but this movie could be shown unedited on TV. In an age where crude jokes are the norm to get a laugh, this movie, for the most part, avoided it. Kids might find it amusing, but that's about it. I so wanted him to be funny, but too bad the movie is just...well...bad.
The movie was just an excuse to dress up and act silly, and the characters are not some of his better ones. Much of the jokes were references to pop culture, a cheap trick that will date the movie very soon. The only laughs from the audience were the cheaply low reoccurring fart jokes. The plot was incoherent and it jumped around too much the editor must have been drunk. The outtakes and gags while the credits were rolling would make even Jackie Chan woozy.
On a positive note, this movie was very clean. There were a few minor PG jokes, but this movie could be shown unedited on TV. In an age where crude jokes are the norm to get a laugh, this movie, for the most part, avoided it. Kids might find it amusing, but that's about it. I so wanted him to be funny, but too bad the movie is just...well...bad.
Fun movie
31 March 2002
It's a fun movie that works for all age groups. The plot line is thin, but this is a comedy movie and it does deliver on that line. The jokes are good and the movie is fairly clean. Don't expect any big theological issues to be discussed, but do be prepared to laugh.
Panic Room
(2002)
Ok, but I was expecting a LOT more from David Fincher.
29 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
<mild spoilers> If you want a good rental, PPV flick, or a movie to see for a night at the movies, this is it. If you are expecting more depth out of a film, look at David Fincher's other work.
PROS: +Very original opening title scene. +The movie gets started right away. Very few movies do this. +Cool tracking shot of the burglers breaking in. +Tight order and flow of the story. +Situations leave little room on options. +What happens to the villians.
CONS: -That child was a girl? Spend half the movie convincing myself she was a girl. -How the two get out of the propane would have killed them. -Too many hunched over boob shots. -Too many F words. -Pretty graphic violence. -Not dark (as in light intensity) enough. David Fincher had a special camera made just for this? It doesn't show. -Meg & Mr. Altman's relationship was not delved into as much as it should have and there was no resolution between the two. -Not much depth to the movie. Left you wanting more.
Not a bad movie, but a no brainer. Go watch David Fincher's other works such as Seven, or for a real treat, Fight Club which works in every way and has so much depth to it. 7/10
PROS: +Very original opening title scene. +The movie gets started right away. Very few movies do this. +Cool tracking shot of the burglers breaking in. +Tight order and flow of the story. +Situations leave little room on options. +What happens to the villians.
CONS: -That child was a girl? Spend half the movie convincing myself she was a girl. -How the two get out of the propane would have killed them. -Too many hunched over boob shots. -Too many F words. -Pretty graphic violence. -Not dark (as in light intensity) enough. David Fincher had a special camera made just for this? It doesn't show. -Meg & Mr. Altman's relationship was not delved into as much as it should have and there was no resolution between the two. -Not much depth to the movie. Left you wanting more.
Not a bad movie, but a no brainer. Go watch David Fincher's other works such as Seven, or for a real treat, Fight Club which works in every way and has so much depth to it. 7/10
Metal Gear Solid
(1998 Video Game)
An epic masterpiece that plays exactly like a movie.
25 July 2000
I have been a fan of the Metal Gear series since the first one on the NES. The third installment which shows up on the PlayStation is the best so far. The game plays exactly like a movie in every single way. The voice acting is superb, and the music is movie quality.
The story line does not disappoint. It is hard hitting and nothing is watered down. This is not a kid's game (about PG-13), yet stays away from unnecessary junk. Unlike most games, this game has moral points and touches on human tragedy. The cut scenes are amazing using the PSX's engine and very rarely using FMV.
My only complaint with the game is it is too easy to guess who the bad guy is. Other than that, this game will have you on the edge of your seat.
I have never done this, but I stood up and applauded for the game after I passed it. Hideo Kojima is brilliant and I would love to see him write/direct some movies.
The story line does not disappoint. It is hard hitting and nothing is watered down. This is not a kid's game (about PG-13), yet stays away from unnecessary junk. Unlike most games, this game has moral points and touches on human tragedy. The cut scenes are amazing using the PSX's engine and very rarely using FMV.
My only complaint with the game is it is too easy to guess who the bad guy is. Other than that, this game will have you on the edge of your seat.
I have never done this, but I stood up and applauded for the game after I passed it. Hideo Kojima is brilliant and I would love to see him write/direct some movies.
Boy Meets World
(1993–2000)
One of the best shows ever made!
18 September 1999
Clean, funny, witty, good points, an all around excellent show. It's hard to find shows like this now days. The characters are excellent, plots are great, and the shows have points and lessons from them. I have gone to many, many tapings of the show, and the only thing better than watching the show is going to a taping of the show! This show is highly reccomended to all. Michael Jacobs has once again created a winning sitcom. If only other producers would wise up and create such great, clean, award winning shows.
Tell Your Friends