Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Knight Rider (2008–2009)
1/10
Garbage.
8 December 2009
This remake is a sacrilegious bastardization of a true TV classic. I understand that it wouldn't be feasible to have a 1982 Firebird fighting crime in 2008, but at least keep it within reason.

One of the great things about the original is that all the technologies could exist, as futuristic as they seemed back then. Not once did KITT ever turn into a Transformer. Even today, that's so far-fetched it's ridiculous.

The producers should have kept in mind the original audience of KR and catered to them. What's the point of using the KR name to develop a show that has nothing to do with the original premise? They could just as easily have called it "Fast and Furious Transforming Rider" and it wouldn't have made a difference. There's more to Knight Rider than a name and a red light on the front of a car.
21 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The most incredible...
20 April 2008
This film was bar-none the most incredible waste of time since King King (Peter Jackson). Those of you folks calling it art - I would argue that, if so, it has a capital "F" in front of it.

Admittedly, some of the photography was OK, but the CG was absolute garbage. I've seen better fantasy graphic sequences on The Simpsons. The 'storyline' was convoluted and moronic.

This picture was clearly a write-off for the studio, but i fail to understand why such a stellar cast would get involved with a project such as this. With such a great lineup of SNL cast, maybe the writers should have done a bit more consulting - or even turned the writing over to them.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Dreadful
1 June 2006
If you're on the fence about whether you should see this film or not, here's a shove in the right direction - don't bother. I'll sum it up as neatly as possible: the dialogue was absolute garbage. Dick & Jane books would have made for better script. The CG was so ridiculously ridiculous that the whole picture might as well have been cartoon. Why waste budget on actors if they are only playing such a minor role? The major battle sequence was fought in part by characters that had virtually no development whatsoever. And talk about acting... there was none. Hairy Belly - i mean Halle Berry, wasn't even trying. Or was she? Who can tell? Right from the opening credits - which were an exact replica of the Spiderman sequence - i knew this would be a bumpy ride. Hollywood is going too far with the comic book/sequel/re-make trip that it's on. What's next - He-Man, starring Owen Wilson? Surely they can stuff him into a muscle suit. Long story short - crap.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Kong (2005)
2/10
Crap.
15 April 2006
I will never get that 3 hours of my life back. This film was bar none the worst film i have seen in many years. I feel sad for the cast that were part of this project. There were some big names and i can only hope this was some sort of sordid contractual obligation that compelled these fine actors to tarnish their profiles with this tripe. These film-makers took 3 hours to accomplish what could have been done in 2 at the most. Virtually every second scene was drawn out and it seemed the whole picture was in slow motion. The over-use of CG was a fine example of the lack of creativity and ingenuity that has stricken Hollywood film-makers of the last 10 years. What ever happened to sets and props? If you haven't seen this film yet, consider yourself lucky. If you're considering renting this film, surely there's an infomercial on TV that might be a bit more worthwhile.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed