Quake3World

The Tuxedo 7/10

They apparently thought this Jackie Chan movie suddenly needed a story while all his other stuff is great with no story whatsoever. Made for less action and more bad acting.

Pext wrote:

sliver wrote:Even ignoring all the classics, what about The Matrix, The Green Mile, The Shawshank Redemption, Jurassic Park, the Fellowship of the Ring, etc? I think it's perfectly possible to make an excellent 2-hour-plus movie, it just hasn't been happening lately because everyone thought the LOTR trilogy meant they could skip the editing process.

lol @ the green pos.

don't dishonour the other great movies by mentioning it in the same line.

the Matrix was great? it had a couple of good demo scenes - nothing more.

X-Men: The Last Stand - 9/10

Awesome popcorn flick. What else could you expect? Maybe they could have managed to get the burrial-scene done better? Maybe they should have gone for an Akira like ending?
I don't care. I was fully entertained for 2h. Actually much better than the first 2 movies. Mostly because X1's finale was unimpressive and X2 was to fragmented. This was the first part of the series where everything seemed to almost at the right spot.

Good Movie :icon14:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:the Matrix was great? it had a couple of good demo scenes - nothing more.

yes it was. not because of the SFX but because of the brilliant and powerfull storyline, setting and ending. i'm only talking about the original film, though ~ the sequels were mediocre.

It was good, but hardly brilliant.

X-Men 7/10

Okay for what it was. Nothing to write home about.

across the great divide

i nice movie with great scenery that i enjoyed

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:the Matrix was great? it had a couple of good demo scenes - nothing more.

Easily one of the greatest and most defining films of the 1990s.

I've been meaning to watch it again, but I left the damn DVD at my apartment in Ottawa, where I go to school.

it was quite a defining film, indeed, and revolutionary.
you dont have to like an artistic expression to see that is has quality yknow. i wish more people would realise that

Easily one of the most overrated movies of the 1990s.

x-men 3 -- grody to the max ..tubular

davinci code -- um .. liked it .. chick had nice hooters -- but to me it was a bad Hardy Boys book .

pink panther --with steve martin .. i giggled like a girl plenty of times watching it.
"i hawant a hemboigler "

steve martin draining his sliver of comedy through a french accent... terrible

Grudge wrote:Easily one of the most overrated movies of the 1990s.

yer. even "bullet time" was done well before that.

Grudge wrote:Easily one of the most overrated movies of the 1990s.

lol angry swede.

X-men 3

7/10

Tormentius wrote:Blood Rayne 2/10

Words cannot describe how shite this movie is...especially the ending. Its like he was "trying" to make one of the worst endings ever. Its only getting 2 because of the T&A.

Dude, it's a Uwe Boll movie. You don't rent Uwe Boll movies to enjoy them as films. You rent them to laugh at Uwe Boll.

White Sands...older flick. Saw it on TV yesterday. it was decent.

6/10

The Da Vinci Code

I haven't read the book, but the movie was fucking boring.
3/10

I was sitting there for over two hours wishing I had chosen to see X-Men instead.

Conan the Barbarian

Arnold / 10

Schwarzenegger movies do not require ratings. They exist only as testaments to his ownage (except for Collateral Damage, The 6th Day, and Junior).

"What is best in life is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!"

"lamentations of their women"

sliver wrote:
Schwarzenegger movies do not require ratings. They exist only as testaments to his ownage (except for Collateral Damage, The 6th Day, and Junior).

:icon14:

Just picked up the Conan collectors edition on DVD last month after not having seen it in years. I'd forgotten just how entertaining those movies were.


Mission Impossible 3 - 4/10

The story and acting were terrible and even the eye candy and gadgets were a lot less interesting than part 1 or 2. The non-linear time concept really didn't work in this one.

SplishSplash wrote:X-Men 7/10

Okay for what it was. Nothing to write home about.

agree'd

The Machinist. 7/10

it was okish. i dont like christian bale so it had that against itself. also, after about 15 minutes in I found a striking parallel to Silent Hill 4, and therefore entered that way of thinking. the movie became extremely predictable because of that.
i can see why people would think this is one of the best movies ever though; since you really need a certain state of mind to be able to see all the clues the first time (like i unfortunately did)

Mad Max - 7.5 / 10

Enjoyable but brainless.


Love Actually - 6.5 / 10

It has nine storylines. If five of them had been discarded, the remaining four could have been fleshed out and produced an Oscar winner. But the first-time director (surprise, surprise) decided to try and cram all of them into 130 minutes. It must be difficult to completely waste the talents of Keira Knightley, Laura Linney and Hugh Grant -- but he manages. Points for trying, I guess; but honestly, for every appreciable moment of humour or genuine emotion, there's a scene that is just so sentimental and trite it may trigger your gag reflex. There was tons of potential here, but most of it was unfortunately wasted.