Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
300 (2006)
8/10
Great movie, if you like violence and style, don't watch it for the story.
22 November 2007
This movie was pretty much what I expected. The story is rather thin, but the main attractions of the movie are the fighting scenes and the style. For most of the movie the pieces fall together pretty well, although I'm not too fond of David Wenham, who did his part in LotR pretty well, but just doesn't seem to be a good "Spartan". His voice lacks the power you'd wish in a storyteller. Gerard Butler fits his role and really seems to have a good time playing Leonidas. There are a little too many slow-motion shots if you ask me, but in general the fighting scenes are awesome. It's not much of an epic movie, you can't compare it to Troy, people who expect epic and huge battles will be disappointed.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jensen! (2002– )
1/10
This show shouldn't even be on IMDb, it's that bad.
22 November 2007
I can't believe there are people that rate this show higher than a 4.

It's the worst thing on Dutch television ever. Mr. Jensen has to be the most obnoxious person in the Netherlands, an he's the host. So the program isn't watchable. There are a lot of mediocre shows on TV here, I can live with that, but "Jensen!" has to be the lowest in what is already a pretty low standard. It's a lame attempt to copy the late night shows that are so popular in other countries. However they failed to put in humor and forgot about the fact that people don't like throwing up after watching two minutes of horrible television like this.

Unfortunately Dutch television has a history of selecting awful hosts for shows like this, but Mr. Jensen sets another low, and that's why this show deserves the lowest of ratings.
12 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
2,5 hours of good entertainment.
21 May 2006
I've read the book, and the movie's not so bad. Obviously there are many things I'd do different, but in the end it's 2,5 hours of good entertainment, and isn't that what the ratings are all about? Personally I think Tom Hanks wasn't passionate enough for Robert Langdon. That's why it's not a 9 for me.

A lot of people are too harsh on this one. Mostly because they know the book and have very high expectations. I have to see my first book-to-film where the film is better.

Also, you're not going to hell for watching this movie or reading the book. It's based on a novel, which is based on a few loose theories, but in the end all it wants to do is to entertain. And that is exactly what both the book and the movie did for me.
113 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Using English instead of German was a big mistake.
1 March 2005
I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.

After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.

And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.

The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.

Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Way overrated
5 January 2005
What is it with people and saying this movie is great? I have the feeling people are scared to criticize Mr. Kubrick. They're obviously not scared of Kubrick, but scared of others that might say they're not intelligent or laugh at them because they don't "understand" the movie. Get a grip.

This is my review. A review of a film fan who watches at least 2 movies a week. Someone who likes to watch some action but can also enjoy a drama or a movie that's supposed to make you think. All different genres have a few movies in them that I find awesome, although genres like drama aren't actually my thing.

My rating for this movie was 3/10. Now why on earth would I give such a low rating? I'll start with the good things about the movie. The visuals are stunning. For the time the special effects are brilliant and Kubrick pulled some very nice tricks. Bravo. The plot is pretty good too. There it is, the base for a good movie. Then it went wrong...

The movie is boring beyond bearable levels. I'm sorry, but staring a a spaceship docking for 5 minutes while classic music plays isn't exactly what I'd call brilliant. Every single scene is long, slow and boring. The first 30 minutes of the movie are the worst of all. 30 minutes of monkey's dancing around a large black brick. Awful.

I really really don't understand the people that praise this movie. It's not art, it's not entertainment, it's pure agony. I would consider it art if the movie lasted half an hour. Movies were made for entertainment or in some cases, art. This movie seemed to be created to make people fall asleep. I'm not ignorant and I am not scared to say: This Kubrick movie sucks beyond your imagination. There's no deeper meaning to it, there no artistic value but the genius of the special effects, which is simply not enough to save this piece of junk. Don't watch it.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Didn't read the book, loved the movie.
3 June 2004
I've seen it yesterday, and I thought the movie was damn good. I can understand some of the fans are disappointed. Then again, you can't expect the movie to be just like the book. Yes some parts are missing but if you want to literally translate the book into a movie it would take 6 hours. I think a lot of fans don't understand you have to make changes to the book to make a good movie.

The fact that the setting is different than the previous two movies is a little disorienting, but I think it looks better. The special effects rule and the scenery is beautiful. Our little kids are growing up and you can see they're becoming better actors.

In my opinion this one is the best out of three! I decided to join in the mass hysteria and bought the first 4 books.

Loved it!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I guess you have to be a Woody Allen fan...
10 March 2004
This has to be one of the worst movies ever. You probably have to be a Woody fan to at least like this one.

I went to a Sneak-preview with a few friends and we were this close to walking out of there. But I wanted to see if the end of the movie made up for the rest. It didn't.

I only laughed once, when Woody fell down a few meters. The rest of the movie is extremely boring and extremely not funny.

Woody Allen is a not funny dirty old man. It looks to me he needs to make crappy movies like this just to get his hands/eyes on some pretty half naked women.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A big disappointment.
10 March 2004
I don't think I'm really original by saying this, but the last part of this trilogy was really disappointing.

The love for Manga by the Wachowski brothers became so big they actually made a live action Manga movie... Because that's what Revolutions really is. A Manga movie.

Personally I would like to see a 2 hour version of Reloaded and Revolution together, with all the unnecessary subplots cut out. Maybe that version would actually make some sense.

The first Matrix left the people with some stuff to think about. The last to parts the Matrix became a total hype, the story went completely ridiculous and all that mattered were special effects, as much as possible, as big as possible, as often as possible.

It might be good as an action movie, but as the final part of the Matrix it's nothing but a big disapointment.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
One of the worst movies ever, but funny.
10 March 2004
Don't get me wrong, the movie sucked all the way. But still I had a lot of fun watching it, because it was so bad it became funny.

The effects are simply hilarious, the fading effects even more. I had some good laughs with this movie.

However, from a technical viewpoint really nothing about the movie is even coming close to acceptable. The make-up is ridiculous, the special effects are really fake and the acting is not exactly Oscar material. And the complete lack of humor in this film makes it almost unbearable to watch.

Get together with friends, watch this "how not to make a movie"-example and laugh. Only then it is worth watching.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This movie had everything I wanted.
6 February 2004
Beautiful. Give that man an Oscar!

Peter Jackson has proven himself with completing this incredible trilogy in one of the best ways possible.

The only thing that bothered me a little were the extremely fake lighting of the beakens. The rest of the movie was just breathtaking.

I can't wait to get my hands on the directors cut.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Most boring movie ever.
3 November 2002
I've seen a lot of movies.

And this one I saw in a sneak preview.

I can't believe people can enjoy garbage like this.

Maybe it's because Americans have a different sense of humour, but I don't know anyone who actually enjoyed watching this failure in my neighbourhood.

Woody Allen is nothing else than a dirty old man, without humour!
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed