Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Chase (2010–2011)
1/10
Why Chase Failed
31 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A few months ago, I decided to give this show a chance. I lost interest almost immediately and actually stopped watching after only five episodes, so my response may not be the most accurate description, for all I know, the show kicked up after those five episodes, but for me, it already was doomed to fail, and I was not in the least bit surprised when it was canceled. Now, I like procedurals, so my opinion isn't based on the idea that it should have been a more serialized drama. However, there are ways that procedurals can be good, but Chase had too many flaws for that to ever happen.

Flaw #1: The plot structure

The structure itself was nice in that the show wasn't a 'whodunit' kind of show, rather it let you know exactly who was being hunted and even showed scenes with the villain throughout the entire show, which, I'll admit is a nice change from the norm. However, where this failed was the way the supposed villains were written. With the exception of two episodes, the villains were actually written in a good light. They were three dimensional characters that—while they did horrible things—they had a good heart in different ways. The episode that really brought this to light was the fifth episode, "Above the Law." By the end of the episode, I was actually annoyed with the Marshalls for arresting the bad guy. Actually, on more than one occasion, I felt like I was rooting for the bad guy to win, which is not really a tactic a crime procedural should take. Unless, of course the point of the show was to make the bad guys the real heroes of the show, in which case it did a pretty decent job at that.

Flaw #2: Annie Frost

Annie was probably the least likable character on the show, and given the fact that she was actually the main character, that's not a good thing. But probably the biggest problems with Annie was that A.) she was unrealistically good and always seemed to manage to take down the bad guy single-handedly, but B.) She was too reckless. In one episode, for example, her team is in the middle of a shootout with an incredibly dangerous killer. She sees him stop to reload his weapon. Common sense tells me that what she should have done was tell her team to move in, guns drawn and ready to shoot, before he has the chance to finish. If he doesn't, shoot him. Nobody would miss him. But instead, she puts her gun away and charges him to duke it out. It was incredibly reckless and could have gotten herself killed, and in the long run, could very well get her team killed. That is not a character trait you want your lead character to have. And what makes the whole situation is that her partner calls her out on it. But instead of actually listening to him, she accuses him of planning to tell the team about her father, or some other bull crap, I honestly lost interest in that storyline relatively quickly (which is actually the third flaw). Despite the fact that he told her on numerous occasions that his problems weren't about her father and, in fact, about her death wish, she kept going back to her same argument, which just makes her even more unlikeable. It also brings us to;

Flaw #3: Annie's father storyline

The difference between procedurals—and even character driven procedurals—and character dramas is that the fundamental plot of the procedural is to solve the case, whether it be finding a murderer or finding out what's wrong with a medical patient, while a character drama pretty much tells the story of the characters. As such, the dramas can shove a lot of back-story into the characters from the get go and get away with it, they are, after all, the main purpose to the story. With a crime procedural, the audience doesn't have to know everything about the character from the start, but it can be gradually included over time. We know who the characters are, what they do and how they act and as the story goes on, we get better acquainted with the whys: Why they do what they do and why they act the way they act, etc. But with Chase, Annie's back-story with her father is used as a subplot throughout just about every episode (at least the ones I saw) to the point that I didn't care anymore. I didn't know the character enough to be that invested in her back-story, and I didn't even like her enough to care about how bad it was. Quite honestly, the fact that the argument with her partner, Jimmy (played by Cole Hauser who was actually pretty likable in this show), somehow managed to revolve around her father just enforced my problems. It was like the show-runners wanted people to be aware of Annie's daddy issues and wanted us to sympathize with her, but in reality, it just made her look dumb. The whole plot line was so contrived and forced upon us. I actually tried to watch the sixth episode and ended up turning it off after five minutes and never turned it back on, strictly because of this plot point.

Chase, I imagine could have worked, but these major flaws pretty much guaranteed that it wouldn't last.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I wanted to like this film, but it was just too hard to do.
9 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I am a huge fan of the cartoon series, so when I heard that a live action version was going to be made, I was so excited. Even when I heard critics saying how terrible this movie was, I still wanted to see it, I mean, I like a lot of terrible movies, especially when I can mock them for how horrible they are. But this, when I finally rented it from Netflix, I was so happy. And then I watched it.

I honestly cannot think of a single nice thing to say about this movie. The scenery, which should have been the highlight of the film, was awful, the storyline, which should have been good considering the source material, only made sense through half the film, and even that is pushing it. The acting... there are not enough words in the English language to describe how awful the acting was. Most of the actors honestly looked like they could be replaced with a cardboard cutout and nobody would know the difference.

I really tried very hard not to compare this story with the original cartoon, so I can look past the pronunciation changes, but looking at this movie as just a movie, I saw nothing even remotely good about it. I mean, the characterization of Aang, and why he chose to run away was done poorly, and killed any chance I had of ever liking the character. Sokka, who was comedic relief throughout the entire series, had no personality to speak of. I've seen what Jackson Rathbone can do when he's flexing his acting muscles, and I don't know if it's because of the script, or because he's not meant to be a comedy actor, or a mixture of both, but his character was quite possibly the most useless out of all of them. Even the villains were terrible. It honestly looked like the villains were supposed to be the comedic relief in this movie. I mean, why else cast a comedy actor as one of the main antagonists?

All in all, I would highly suggest watching the original cartoon over this piece of garbage. The cartoon, despite being an animation on Nickelodeon, is actually more terrifying and suspenseful than this "darker" live action movie could ever hope to be. It also gave you characters you liked and rooted for. Villains that you wanted to see beaten. With the movie, I didn't know if I was supposed to hate them, or laugh at their crazy antics.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The book is better, and the book is pretty bad
30 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I recently had to read Gottfried Von Strassburg's version of Tristan for one of my classes, which was quite possibly one of the most aggravating stories that I ever read in college. The first 190 pages were nothing more than describing how amazing Tristan was, and the relationship itself was so beyond stupid that I was surprised the book is so famous. So, when the semester ended, my friends and I decided to celebrate by watching Tristan + Isolde, knowing full well that this movie was just going to suck. And sure enough, it was horrible. It was almost as if the movie didn't know what time frame it wanted to take place in, so it just shoved several into a single movie. Tristan was a story from the Middle Ages, yet it was like this movie preferred the Anglo-Saxon period.

James Franco was completely miscast as Tristan. He looked like he was stoned throughout most of the movie, and he was quite possibly the only American in the film, which made the fact that he was faking his accent all the more noticeable. His acting itself was bland. Tristan was supposed to be completely obsessed with Isolde, yet always trying to maintain his own honor (he was also a bit arrogant, he never once acted like somebody deserved something more than him), yet here, it's more like he has to be pushed into the affair by Isolde, because of his feelings for Mark (though you couldn't really tell from Franco's acting here. I think he was more focused on getting the accent right then actually acting).

This movie hit so many bad movie clichés (I swear, my friend called the Tristan age scene seconds before it happened), the storyline was boring. To be honest, I think the only saving grace in this movie was the scenery. And let's face it, if the pretty scenery is the only reason to watch a movie, then the movie is probably not wort watching.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
1/10
Why does this movie get such a high rating?
21 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
For the longest time, I have been saying that cinema is seriously going down hill, that they will produce any pathetic crap because they know people will pay for it. And I would like to thank the creators of Avatar for proving my point.

Sure the CGI effects were pretty good. They were shiny and the trees glowed when the big blue people walked on them. And a group of people who do not even breathe oxygen have remarkably human characteristics, save for the fact that they are blue. I have seen really good special effects in movies, this wasn't one of them. What made these special effects great was how many they used.

I was falling asleep throughout this entire film, begging it to finally come to an end so my mother would turn it off. The plot was boring, the character development was non-existent. The only thing that made the movie worth watching was the effects and half way through the story I found myself craving the real characters.

Probably the worst part of the film, in my opinion, was the final battle. Now I am fully aware of the idea of suspension of belief but this was just completely ridiculous. You know why indigenous people were always wiped out? Because the invaders had more advanced weaponry. The People are using bows and arrows and spears, and flying around on pretty birds, why the humans have big planes and bombs and guns, and you expect me to believe they could really possibly lose? Seriously? I saw nothing in this movie that earned it the praise that it got. In the moments that I should have been on the edge of my seat, I found myself rolling my eyes. When characters were killed and I should have been sad, or surprised, I shrugged.

I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you liked this film, good for you. In my opinion, this movie was one big liberal environmentalist add that was shoved down your throat until you choked. And a completely amateurish add at that.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hamlet (2000)
1/10
Worst Hamlet Adaptation EVER!!!!
29 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
So far, I've seen a few Shakespeare adaptations, but this one was by far the worst I've ever seen in my life. Hamlet is a four hour play. They cut this movie to less than two hours. Right there should tell people that there's no way this can be a good film.

Ethan Hawke was TERRIBLE in the role of Hamlet. He had no drive, no passion. He didn't make me feel for him, he didn't even make me believe him. He didn't even try and act insane, he just sounded guilty, like he was just being a moody teenager. And then the fact that they had him repeatedly call Ophelia to tell her to a nunnery, just makes him a jerk. Or near the end when they bury Ophelia, and he's talking to Laertes, he's trying to say "I loved Ophelia" but he sounds like a petulant child who just keeps talking, hoping somebody will believe it, not necessarily because it's true.

Normally I like Julia Stiles, but I didn't believe her Ophelia. I didn't see her actually being crazy, just stoned. I didn't feel like she had reached her breaking point, and they cut a lot out that was what led to said point.

The whole movie was just so... bland. By far the worst Shakespeare adaptation ever. If you're going to see a Hamlet movie, see the Kenneth Brannagh one. That was how Shakespeare should be done. This was like watching Amuteur Night or something.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
No Words Can Describe This Movie
14 August 2007
No words can describe this movie and still give it justice. While it does cut a lot from the novel, I never read it so it doesn't bother me.

I watched the 1995 mini-series and thought it was a complete bore. It almost turned me off to seeing this movie. Almost.

When I did see this movie I was treated to laughs, characters I could watch and believe and a story that was not only easy to follow, but pulled me in. I could see that Darcy and Elizabeth really liked each other, and I was left screaming at my television while watching how they interacted. It was like "What is wrong with you, you like him, so tell him!" Keira Knightely did an amazing job as the softer yet still tough Lizze. Most of the rolls Keira takes seem to be showing a more rougher and bad ass version of women, but she pulled this off amazingly well. Matthew Macfayden was exactly what Darcy should be, he was stoic and proud and rigid, yet he still was able to show how he felt for Lizzie with real emotions. Rosamund Pike (Jane) is a timeless beauty. Nobody in today's era could possibly pull off Jane the way Rosamund did.

I can find nothing bad to say about this movie. I loved the chemistry between Keira and Matthew as well as Rosamund and Simon. I hated Mr. Whickham, but at the beginning when he was first mentioned I found him charming and likable. And he was actually attractive, which is more than can be said about the '95 Wickham.

If I continue this review it will take up two pages, I loved this movie. If you wish to see a version of Pride and Prejudice with emotion and likable characters, I strongly suggest you see this movie. It is a beautiful and amazing adaptation.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I Couldn't Stay Awake
14 August 2007
I never read the book, so I don't know how close this actually is to Jane Austen's novel, but this series did nothing to gain my attention. Right from the start I couldn't understand why everybody kept saying that Jane was so beautiful when there was nothing appealing about her. Elizabeth was so...proper she drove me crazy. Mrs. Bennett was actually probably the only good thing about the story, she was so ridiculous and annoying that she made me really hate her character (which i consider a good thing, since i had no feelings for anybody else) Darcy was just so stiff and rude, nothing likable there.

The whole thing was so long I could barely stand to watch it after the first thirty minutes. Nothing jumped off the screen, even Elizabeth rejecting both Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy was boring. Then Elizabeth was talking about things I don't even remember them mentioning previously in the story. Granted I spaced out a bit but not that much to miss such important scenes.

I honestly felt no chemistry for the two main characters. If anyone was indifferent, it wasn't Jane, it was Elizabeth. Throughout the entire series she showed hardly any emotion even after her sister, Lydia, ran off with Wickham and nearly ruined her entire family, she just smiled and ignored it.

The story was completely boring, too long (especially for one sitting) and unbelievable in many ways. I don't know if Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy were so indifferent towards each other, but watching them act indifferent and then decide they love each other just seemed cheesy and completely ridiculous.
14 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Movie of the Summer, so far!
1 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Simpsons Movie was without a doubt the best movie all summer. I laughed so hard, my side still hurts. Homer, as typical, does something really stupid for an even stupider reason. He dumps a silo full of pig crap into lake Springfield and causes a huge gross mutation to occur. So the entire town gets trapped underneath a giant dome. The Simpsons have to flee away from Springfield, meanwhile, people in Springfield go completely nuts and destroy the entire town.

This movie was worth every penny. Every five seconds there was something else to laugh about. Like when Homer was literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. Or when Bart flashed the entire town.

Basically, if you plan on seeing any movie out, screw the sequels, watch the Simpson's Movie.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eragon (2006)
9/10
I actually enjoyed this movie
12 May 2007
A lot of people have said they had problems with this movie, but I don't see it. I loved this movie. I thought everyone was good, Eragon was an idiot, but what teenage boy isn't? I never read the book, Honestly, I never wanted to. But after watching this movie, I did want to pick it up at Borders.

I thought the dragon was good, I thought Eragon was good, I thought they were all good. And I didn't see any mistakes, but I wasn't really looking for any, I was trying to enjoy the movie.

Now, I know this may sound crazy, but I liked this movie better than the Harry Potter movies. But most of those just suck.

If you haven't seen this movie, then you have a choice, while a lot of people don't like this movie, there are people who do. Don't just judge what other people say, be the judge for yourself. You might find you actually like it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Totally Worth Every Penny
1 April 2007
I saw Meet the Robinsons the day it came out. I was expecting a pretty cheesy (but cute) family film. What i saw was an hysterical amazing film that a 17 year old girl, like myself, could watch with her friends and not just her family. The bad guy, Bowler Hat Guy, was so pathetic and incompetent. The hero, Lewis, you've just got to feel bad for him. His sidekick, Wilbur, was probably one of the coolest characters, because of how weird he was. Hell, his entire family was weird. But that was what made it better. And Goob. I cannot write this review without bringing up Goob. He was just so cute! He was Lewis' roommate, and he was like, I don't know how to describe him and still give him justice.

I strongly recommend going to go see this movie, I don't care if you don't have small children with you, or if your a teenager with an attitude problem. You have got to see this movie. I guarantee that you will absolutely love it!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Elizabethtown (2005)
5/10
It's not great, but it's not bad
18 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie for one reason. Orlando Bloom. Sadly I was disappointed by the result. The previews made it seem like it was going to be a funny look at a pathetic guy. The movie however was nothing like it. Scenes that could have been hysterical were, just boring. And the ending was probably the worst part. Fifteen minutes of just listening to Kirsten Dunst talk in her lousy southern accent. Sorry I'll pass.

However, the movie did have its good moments. Every time Orlando spased out was fun to watch. Susan Sarandon was amazing in every scene she was in.

All in all, Orlando and Susan = good. The plot, genre, and Kirsten's accent = bad.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Happy Feet (2006)
2/10
Lame does not begin to describe this movie
28 November 2006
After seeing the amount of previews for this movie that did nothing but say how great this movie was, I have to say I was a bit disappointed. OK, a bit doesn't even begin to describe it, I wanted that damn movie to end three minutes in. The first thing I noticed was that this movie had some rather odd sexual undertones. I mean, I don't know about you, but I thought this was a children's movie. Sadly, the more I watched, the more I realized that no parent should ever take their children to see this movie.

The movie was a lot longer than was actually necessary, so they could get their environmental crap into the film. I've only ever walked out on one movie in my life, and now looking back, I regret not walking out of this film.

Keep in mind, I like Robin Williams, he (and the other little penguins) are the only reason I'm giving this movie a rating as high as I am. I'm also a fan of Elijah Wood. But this movie was not worth the eight bucks I paid to see it. It wasn't even worth the gum stuck to the bottom of the seats in the theater. Now if you liked this movie, good for you, it's a hard movie to like. But if you go to the movies to feel good. Then this in not the movie for you. This is for when you feel like wasting hours of your life on lousy propaganda hidden behind good special effects and fuzzy animals.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed