Hotmail
|
|
|
|
|
All reviews by user Date  Helpful Rating 0 out of 0 users found this helpful  Mixed feelingsPosted: 12/20/2005A review of Syriana by soulrebeljc1 A lot of people said see this movie because of the revelatory aspect that government is in collusion with big oil. OK, if youre smart enough to follow this movie all the way to its conclusion, you are probably smart enough to already know that govt and big oil work together. So no revelation. I was disappointed on that end.
There were about ten subplots that were all meaningful to the big picture of the movie, but they didnt come together until the last fifteen minutes, so it was little irritating to keep switching back and forth.
The subplots themselves were really good - An Arab royal family is divided over keeping their wealth vs. liberating their populace from poverty and third world status. The US Justice department seeks heads to indict, while knowingly allowing illegal business mergers and other corruptions, so they maintain a public position of integrity. Arab youths, seeking their place in a society rife with unemployment and civil unrest, join a religious zealots crusade to destroy the evils of Westernism. The intrigue of spy operations and double agents.
This movie really gives you a lot to think about afterwards, once you have absorbed and digested the actual watching, but I can definitely see how it is not a movie geared towards the general public - which is really too bad, because the ones who dont get it (the corruption and collusion in our government, foreign govts, and big business) are the ones who really need to get it.
I will rent it when it comes on video, so I can fill in the missing pieces and Im sure Ill use the rewind a lot.
So not a bad film. Not for everybody. Not good for theater. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful  MarginalPosted: 12/16/2005A review of King Kong by soulrebeljc1 Andrew,
I thought we were here to review movies, not to blast other reviewers.
Harry Potter and Narnia were both better than King Kong. I am 34 and I watch a LOT of movies. Im sure I know as much about movies and moviemaking as you do. Lord of the Rings was great, all the way through. i expected better out of Peter Jackson. The dinosaur animation was not as good as Jurassic Park. I thought he did a great job with Kong, but I alsolook for plot and dialog. I thought the scene with all the dinosaurs stampeding around the cliff edge was entirely unrealistic. I thought the bug scene was just stupid. I didnt think this was a particularly good role for Jack Black and I am a big Jack Black fan. I dont think Naomi Watts is a good actress, I think shes thoroughly overhyped. Give me Charlize Theron any day.
12? Perhaps it is you who are 12 if you feel you need to make that comment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and movies are highly subjective. Was this review helpful? Sign In 1 out of 1 users found this helpful  ($@&edPosted: 7/29/2004A review of The Whole Ten Yards by soulrebeljc1 boring. whodunnit? whocares? Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Stupid, stupid, stupidPosted: 7/29/2004A review of The Big Bounce by soulrebeljc1 Where was this movie going. Talk about a plot that is too complicated for anyone to understand, and nothing connects with anything else. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Overhyped, but not too terriblePosted: 7/11/2003A review of Gangs of New York by soulrebeljc1 I think Daniel Day-Lewis is fantastic. Without him this film would have rated a 2 at best. As it is, it's too long (3 hours was an hour longer than necessary to tell this particular story). 'Gangs' needed more setup as to who the gangs were and why they were battling. It took about half an hour just to sort that out. DiCaprio is not a bad actor in his own right, but he's a bit weedy for this role. Diaz could have been anyone and didn't lend a whole lot to the story (in fact, if the romantic interest had been axed, this would have been a much more tolerable film). The story, however, was interesting enough - that New York was born from such warring. Just too long. Was this review helpful? Sign In 0 out of 0 users found this helpful Basic Bad ActingPosted: 7/11/2003A review of Basic by soulrebeljc1 Start with a mediocre twist and turn plot with conflicting multiple accounts of an event, add a couple of big name actors (Travolta and Jackson) who were obviously unimpressed with their roles and their co-stars, a rookie foreign actress (Nielsen) doing a bad Southern accent (and is there anything worse than a badly faked Southern drawl?), a has-been TV hack (Daly), and a crooner wannabe actor (Connick Jr.) with little more than a cameo role. Shake these together so that for 2/3 of the movie the audience is thinking "huh?", for the last third the ending is shoring up to be completely predictable, and the last five minutes is "huh?" again. Whoever wrote this script should be flogged. The dialog is abominable and gratuitous (not profane, just..."God, that was the worst line ever" garbage). Jackson and Travolta should have their agents flogged. Connick did the only decent bit of acting in the whole movie and he was in it for all of five minutes. Connie Nielsen should never work in Hollywood again. Scripted garbage. I'm floored that this movie's current rating stands at a 3.6 . Was this review helpful? Sign In 1-6 of 6 Per Page |
||
