O.k.....Kill Bill has been one of the strangest movies I have EVER seen. To tell you the truth, I hated it, and I loved it. I hated it because I didn't think it was necissary to cut so many people up. There was so much blood, It must have costed a lot just to buy all of it. I had to close my eyes! The toughest person couldn't go into that movie and not shut there eyes, I swear! I would have given it a 9 out of 10, but didn't, for 3 reasons: too gory, and the director showed off too much. At the beginning he said: " *directors name*'s fourth movie. You don't need to state that moron. And 3, if it wasn't a joke, it would have been good. It seemed serious, but they were really just making fun of other movies.
Mark's Rating: 8.5/10
9.5/10. Great movie!!!!!!!! One of my 2 top favorite movies! Cause for 9.5 instead of 10: Not a dramatic enough climax scene.
Mark's Rating: 9.5/10
Now tell me this: would you like to watch Jesus dying? Would you love to see Jesus being whipped and hit for 20 minutes straight? Would you enjoy seeing Jesus carry the cross up a mountain with his skin stained with his own blood? Well then do I have an offer for you! Watch the Passion of the Christ! Oh, and one more thing: you can go to hell while your at it. THIS movie was a mistake on Mel’s part. Mel Gibson: tsk tsk. You don’t put up Jesus’ death for people to gain entertainment out of. And DON’T say that it is for learning purposes. This movie scarred me. Not to the point where it is dangerous, but it did somewhat permanently scar me. 2/3 of the movie is spent watching Jesus being tortured to the fullest extent that any human being could ever go through and still be alive. By the time they nailed the steaks through his hands, I had my arms over my eyes shaking my head. This isn’t just watching Jesus being crucified, oh no. If anyone tells you that it is a “graphic movie”: it is an under statement. Mel, you can show the death of Jesus and teach a lesson, without gutting out drama with torture. Is that the only technique you can think of? There were dramatic parts that touched me, and I liked the character protrayal of the Devil, but on behalf of the selfishness and unkind gestures that Mel made, and the unnecessary graphic nature of the film:
Mark’s Rating: 4/10
As you may know, the director of the first two films decided it was necessary to quit the Harry Potter series. Chickened out I suppose. Anyway, this new director has some pretty strange stuuf up his dark little sleeve. The movie was darker (not necessaryily a problem), it was shorter (not necessarily a problem), and it was...different. It is amazing how the director can make such a huge impact on the outlook of the folm. Well, I have to say that after many weeks of thinking of this movie and asking myself the same question, I finally decided that although the other director put more of a childish theme on the earlier Harry Potter films, I liked his style of organization and clarity. I would have to say that after leaving the theater, the movie didn't lay much of an impression on me. Plus, it was cut down so short, that all I remember in my head whenever thinking of this film was a few tidbits and pieces of the film. This is above average, however, if this weren't connected to the other two, I would have to say that this wouldn't be the best movie to see (sorry Harry Potter fans).
Mark's Rating: 6/10
This movie wasn't the best, but not the worst. Definitely worth seeing, however. It was somewhat funny, and it had Nicole Kidman which is a good enough excuse to go see it anyway. I don't like stereotypes, and this movie had taken the enjoyment of constantly making annoying jokes about gays, which distracted me from the realy plot. But hey, it was still good.
Mark's Rating: 7/10
(Starring Sandra Bullock)
Very good movie. Very effective suspense. Very effective plot. Only one problem: The ending sucked. Just the climax stood in the way of giving this movie a high rating. When one of the characters falls, it shows them in slow motion. Falling...then it cuts to another character, and then BAM: cuts to the character who was falling, lying there dead. It didn't show the hit. Director, that is the easy way out. Think twice, because that can cost you a lot, even if it is a small part. Sandra Bullocks acting was very good. I didn't catch anything that took my attention away and made me think. She looked convincing, and she didn't have the hidden smile that I hate. And she didn't blink at dramatic and focused shots. I felt what she felt in the middle of the movie. But, sorry director, you just cost it some points.
Mark's Rating: 6.5/10
Hey, a sequel that's good! Very nice movie. I little more...adult oriented than the first shrek (thongs etc.), but it was good. Humor was pure, even though it was not my style. Ending was believable, and so were the characters (except the "sexy" version of shrek wasn't really that sexy). Anyway, I recommend this movie.
Mark's Rating: 8/10
(A Disney channel original movie)
Woah. Not ok. You can always expect Disney channel movies to be somewhat shaky. Very impressive effects, not so good script. This is one of those movies where you need to trade the effects in for the script. The ending was so cheesy, I could use it to put on my tortilla chips. CLICHE POWER: Many cliches. Especially the end. Acting wise: it was alright. For Disney channel: a 5/10 but:
Mark's Rating: 3.5/10
I still don't quite now why this movie wasn't that great. I was looking a my brother next to me, and like him, we were both shifting a bit at scenes that were meant to touch us to the heart. Its too bad that the theaters will be waisting another screen with more of these movies that will come out for the rest of the books. Jim Carrey did a pretty good job and I really enjoyed watching his performance. If anyone says this was a good movie, its because they are thinking: Jim Carrey did a great job! I think it should have been kept a book. Besides the increadibly terrible acting (exluding Jim, of course), it was lacking something. Maybe you can figure it out. You may want to watch the introduction, though, and then you can figure out when to stop according to your patience level.
Mark's Rating: 5/10
Wow. It's amazing how dull an original movie can look to its sequel...for those of your that have to read that over a couple times to understand, its a good thing. By far the best sequel I have ever seen, I will tell you that much. Every aspect of the production stood out, almost destracting me from the movie itself, which being a student filmmaker is a good thing. For example: the lighting was absolutely amazing. If you have seen or are about to see this film, pay close attention to how the lighting really brings out the mood, especially in the last scene and with the scenes with Peter's aunt. Sound was great. Acting was great (even the actors in the background were great). Action was great. The two things that stood out the most, however, were the script and the directing. I applaud the director in his efforts to make this as creative as humanly possible. And with the script, everything was strung together so conveniently. And there were so many surprises and so much of a great story. The only reason why I wouldn't give this a 10 out of 10, is just because there are so many movies that will come out in the future, that I might go too high and have to raise the maximum rating number.
Mark's Rating: 9/10
DIE already! DIE! I was waiting for that white guy to die! Man he was getting annoying. It was basically a writer’s way of trying to make the movie interesting. In this blade, there is a team of vampire hunters that want to help Blade himself. Of course we go through this whole thing of him saying, “Oh, I don’t need help.” CLICHÉ POWER! Although the entrance to the girl being a vampire hunter on the team was very interesting: disguising herself as a helpless woman, then very uniquely tricking the vampire boys that chase after her, and then kicking their butt. It has its creative points: like the girl has a bow and arrow with silver ended arrows, but back to the white vampire hunter on the team, his jokes did not amuse me. When the writer tricked you into thinking he was dead, I was actually rejoicing, but it was interrupted when I saw that he was alive. While being tortured by vampires on a chain, he constantly cracked jokes, even while he was on the verge of dying. There were a couple jokes that I found very offensive (of course with the amount of jokes he said, your bound to find at least one offensive). And I did not like his attitude. I saw the cheese coming during some of the fighting, but it was alright. Overall, depending on your persona, it is worth seeing. I guess since I really did not like the writer of this film, its only fair to not include that in my rating for this movie, so I wont.
Mark’s Rating: 7/10
This movie was very hard to right a review on because it was the first movie that made me realize that I really don’t like action films. So its hard to critique a film when you don’t even like the genre. This movie…is an action film. And I really like the idea of bringing in the old Dracula story and modernizing it. However, this is where the problems begin. I actually found this film very interesting until the middle of the movie. First of all, if you want to pull emotions from the audience, you do not bring the main evil demonic twisted monster out in the beginning for all to see. No. You just don’t do it. I wanted to feel the fear and the horror of what Dracula might look like. I wanted clues and hints to why he was so evil and twisted. I wanted to be able to mold my fear into my own version of what I thought Dracula might look like before actually showing it. But it wasn’t followed. Therefore, since Dracula was already shown, I already lost about half my interest in the film. The other half was lost when I just didn’t care what happened to the main characters. I hate it when that happens, don’t you? You just lose interest in the characters and you don’t really care if they die or not. I don’t entirely blame the filmmakers because it was hard to see just why I lost interest. But I did. The graphics were great, and the acting was alright. Even the story was great. But the outlook wasn’t. And Dracula wasn’t really all that scary. It was just a handsome guy wearing a little white make-up. Mark’s Rating: 6/10
Eeeeeerrrrrrwwww-CRRRRRAAAASSSSHHH! *Sizzle* *Sizzle*. I gave Disney channel another chance. Didn't go too well. I would rather not repeat their mistakes. Maybe next time.
Mark's Rating: 4/10
I heard someone snore in the theatre in the middle of this movie. How sad. Actually, it was really interesting, but it was like watching a brick. Nice story and characters, but I think there could have been more drama and emotion. And they really needed to emphasize the imagination portion of this film because it is where the focus was. For the child’s imagination of the old western town, I wanted tumbleweeds and dust blown wind and old building all over the place with tattered doors. I just saw some barrels cow boy hats and some good actors. One actor was actually so gruesomely terrible that I almost laughed out loud in the theatre. Just because you’re working with a bad child actor (speaking to director) doesn’t mean you have to go easy on them or feel sorry for them and let their acted scene go off easy. Luckily it wasn’t one of the main characters. The climax was excellent, I almost cried. But once again it went back to being a little stale. By the time “The End” faded in, I was like, “…what?” And I actually said that out loud. I think the director just needed to soften up a few…a lot of rough edges, that’s all.
Mark’s Rating: 6/10
Sometimes movies are better the second time around. I saw this the second time through on my regular tv (as opposed to the theatre the first time), and then looked at the six score above and thought, "what in the heck was I thinking?!" This movie really touched me in the end even more the second time, especially since I new what I was expecting. The first time I was expecting a fantasy, razzle-dazzle movie. I learned that it doesn't have to be.
Mark's Second Rating: 9/10
Very well done, very well done. This movie was so fun to watch. Even in the beginning, it cought my attention with its creative jump into music, alligned with the noises of the background. I can't say this enough, the main thing that made this movie, was just that it was fun to watch. There wasn't a whole lot of drama, or suspense, or anything of that kind, (although there was some), it was just fun to watch. I have to mention that the lighting was very well done, it stuck out like a sore thumb...in a good way. It REALLY brought out the mood. On top of that, there was good acting from Kristin Chenoweth. It was not a perfect movie, but I very much enjoyed it. It was different, entertaining, and had a good solid theme and lesson.
Mark's Rating: 8.5/10
It's really interesting because I heard some strong complaints about this movie on yahoo reveiws. And for some reason, I feel the same way about this film, even though it was pretty good. The only things that broke the movie, were two things:
-The ending
-There was the itiotic girl sitting in front of me that would gasp really huge, take in a big breath, slam her arms across her eyes, and fly back in her seat like she was about to be sucked into outerspace during the scary parts. It ruined everything. And her little friends would scream at the jumpy parts and then laugh like rabid hyenas. I wanted to sneak up behind that girl, grasp my arms around her and scream, "ITS COMING!" But I know what its like to be scared. But its like: if you are so afraid, why watch scary movies? Be considerate. Anyway, the writer sure had a good time bursting my bubble in the end. I don't want to give anything away, but the writer is slightly evil. On the other hand, I think he was also desperate to keep it from being cliche. See for yourself. Yes, it was scary. But, for some reason, it wasn't as scary as something like Jeepers Creepers. And it went REALLY slow in the beginning. It could have either been more creative, or cut right to the chase. And there was a cell-phone scene where he gets a call from a dead family member coming from her cell-phone, which was full of cheese because he was holding the two cell-phones, his family members, and the one he got the call from, and there was all kind of suspensefull music, and all that stuff. They weren't too creative on the whole ending and everything. Could be changed. Nothing "came together" as much as the usual movie. Or atleast the good ones. Overall, worth seeing, but see it on a day that isn't going to well so you wont make it worse.
Mark's Rating: 5.5/10
I checked yahoo's ratings on this movie before seeing it, many users rate movies on yahoo and many critics rate movies on yahoo, I find it very usefull. There was a lot of people who didn't like this movie, and a lot who liked it. There was one case where two people saw it, and one person "hated it with a passion" and the other one loved it. I guess you could say I was inbetween. There were things I did and didn't like, for example, I didn't like how short it was. It was 76 minutes long. I know that it isn't always the case that the shorter the movie, the worse it is, in fact, sometimes it goes the oposite direction, but I really think that his movie could have captured more emotion and drama if it had more time to do both. It is also the first picture of Disneys that I first came to realize why Disney is so famous. Its obvious: the characters. Each individual character in Disney has their own distinct characteristics and personalities that stand out. I mean: what other characters are more catchy than Disney characters? So I liked the characters. I didn't like the villian: he was too cheesy (as you know, I don't like cheese). Dispite the fact that it didn't totally catch my attention, I did feel the classic saddened emotions during particular parts, and also near the end. But thats just because I am a big cry baby. It is good for kids, definitely, but depending on your persona, you might not like it. Once again, some minor cleanups and this could have been great. I also heard that it was Disneys last cartoon animated motion picture. Can you believe that?
Mark's Rating: 5/10
The Polar Express. Another hard movie to critique. Know why? Because I saw it at the Imax Theatre on a screen as big as a basketball court, in 3D. I couldn’t tell if the tears built up in my eyes in the end were because of the amazing realism of almost being able to grab the snow-flakes or the train ticket or Santa’s red coat, or because it was a genuinely good movie. To tell you the truth, looking back on the feelings I had for this movie, it was an amazing film. A true piece of art. My brother walked into the theatre with strong doubt, and walked out was a smile on his face. It touched me to the core. Creative to the max. Since it was in 3D, there was one part when the train goes on a roller-coaster ride, I had to grab my seat because I felt myself moving with the train. The whole thing was generally a roller-coaster ride, and I recommend this movie to anyone. I would in fact pay someone I knew who really had doubts for this movie to see it in the Imax in 3D. You felt like you were inside the movie. And at first, I didn’t really think much of “3D” because I used to get those 3D glasses in cereal boxes and look at the back of the cereal box, and it wasn’t really 3D. Well when Imax says 3D, they mean 3D. When you see this in 3D, it will triple your experience. Which is why, since not every movie is in 3D, I am basing my rating on if I saw it in regular theater. It would have gotten a straight on 10 in 3D. See this movie. I have nothing more to say about what’s in the movie. If you aren’t touched by this film, there is something wrong with you, and I advise that you direct yourself to the nearest hospital immediately.
Mark’s Rating: 9/10
This is a western by Ron Howard. Very long movie. However, it was the first time that I contemplated who would be my favorite director. I took Ron into consideration. After all, every dedicated filmmaker has to have a favorite director. This movie was awesome, very touching and very well acted. The main character, played by Cate Blanchett, couldn't have been better acted. At parts where I said, ok, this is going to be corny because she won't know how to act scared or shocked in a way that will affect me, I was wrong. Well, I found out later that while I was taking Ron into consideration, I realized that even thought this had great direction on his part, I think the script and acting was more of what attracted me. And although Spirited Away is currently my favorite movie, there are always things that I want to criticize and change. I have yet to find my favorite director. Anyway, this film is underated by Yahoo Movies and it angers me. It is a must-see and ranks far higher than a C+ or even B- (as far as "Yahoo!-Movies"goes)
Mark's Rating: 8.5/10
I have to say that this movie displayed quite an impressive performance as far as creativity goes. I also have to say that this movie represents most of me, so watch it, and you will find out why. The climax battle was a little shaky and it was a tad predictable, but that shouldn't keep a movie from being good right? Characters were very well thought out and played, especially Robin Williams character which couldn't get any funnier. This movie is an example of a situation where the director and writer worked very well together, because both the script and direction stood out to me. This is a great movie and a lot of fun.
Mark's Rating: 7/10
Sometimes it's impossible to make a bad movie off of a gold script. This one is no exception. Lost in my stupidity, I soon realized that all the dialogue and everything in the movie was actually opera, which very much surprised me. I found myself begging to God that they speak in normal tongue. However, the movie never ceased to amaze me. The creativity was to be recognized, and the music was very "Daracula"-ish; very nice. The voice-overs were so terrible, making it look sloppy. My Mom made the comment that they were probably just rying to have fun. I say: you can have fun, but know that the audience won't have fun if you leave it into just a fun experience making it. The scenery and costuming was exceptional, and so was the acting. I like the director and his style. However, I still found myself to believe that even though this was created to be an opera, I still think that it could have been more of a regular movie with maybe a song here and there, especially the masterpieces, like "The Masquerade" (for those who saw the movie, know that it was a song to be remembered) to keep. To conflict with this belief of mine, I also remembered that "regular movies" stay "regular" to me, thus, I decided that it was probably best to keep the opera in all its glory among the musical folk, and to keep its uniqueness and style. I could see almost instantly why it was a popular movie, and I think you will too. It is a breakthrough in film. But like I said before, it was in huge thanks to the script. I never thought much of the storyline, although I had heard about it every day. I now regret that I hadn't gotten deeper into it before. It is touching and everyone should learn of, and from it. I gave it no less than a solid nine because of the script and amazing and raw creativity, but I gave it no more than a 9 for it's slight sloppiness and the fact that it is almost impossible to make this into a bad movie.
Mark's Rating: 9/10
