Recent Topics

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 09:09:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Members
  • Total Members: 54
  • Latest: zappman
Stats
  • Total Posts: 111911
  • Total Topics: 4497
  • Online Today: 149
  • Online Ever: 323
  • (January 11, 2020, 10:23:09 PM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 38
Total: 38

Member's Reviews

American Graffiti, a review by addicted2dvd


     American Graffiti: Special Edition (1973/United States)

Universal Studios Home Entertainment (United States)
Director:George Lucas
Writing:George Lucas (Writer), Gloria Katz (Writer), Willard Huyck (Writer)
Length:113 min.
Video:Widescreen 2.35:1
Audio:English: DTS-HD Master Audio: 2-Channel Stereo, French: DTS: Mono
Subtitles:English, French, Spanish

Stars:
Richard Dreyfuss as Curt
Ron Howard [Ronny Howard] as Steve
Paul Le Mat as John
Charles Martin Smith [Charlie Martin Smith] as Terry
Cindy Williams (1947) as Laurie

Plot:Extras:
  • Scene Access
  • Audio Commentary
  • Feature Trailers
  • Featurettes
  • BD-Live
  • U-Control, Pocket Blu


My Thoughts:

My first time seeing this film. And I must say I enjoyed it. There is no denying how closely this film resembles the TV series Happy Days. Right down to Mel's Drive In, Even has Ron Howard who plays a very similar character as he does in Happy Days. Ron Howard isn't the only familiar face from sitcoms. This movie also has Cindy Williams (Laverne & Shirley) and a very young Mackenzie Phillips (One Day at a Time). I almost didn't recognize her. As I said... enjoyed the film. Had fun watching it, though I do wonder how much re-watch-ability it has. Guess I will find out the next time I decide to watch it.

Rating:


(From 2018 Challenge: Box Office TOP 100 FILMS OF ALL-TIME (Domestic Gross) on January 29th, 2018)

Member's Reviews

Faster, a review by Dragonfire


Faster

Since I have liked most of the movies I've seen Dwayne Johnson in, I decided that I wanted to see Faster.  It is a decent enough revenge movie, but it could have been better.  Johnson does return to action, but he can do better. 

The plot is very simple and straightforward.  As things progress, a bit more does come about the motivation for why Johnson's character - only identified as Driver in the credits - is doing what he is doing.  There is an attempt to add some complications to what is going on that don't really go anywhere.  The movie isn't that long, so things are happening at a very fast pace.  There isn't time for more story or character development.  The movie would have been better with a stronger plot.

Violence is in a lot of the scenes.  The killing starts really early in the movie.  Driver is very focused on what he is doing, and he shows no mercy to the people he is after.  He is only after certain people though, and he will go out of his way to avoid hurting innocent people.  The violence is rather graphic in some scenes.

All the characters, even Driver, are very flat.  It would have been nice if he had been a more rounded character.  He barely speaks.  Johnson does well with conveying emotions with his expressions, but this isn't one of his more entertaining performances.  The rest of the cast is fine in their roles and no one really stands out.

Faster works as a revenge action movie, though it could have been better. 

I did get a review posted on Epinions after seeing the movie in the theater.

Faster

(From Faster on January 2nd, 2011)

Member's TV Reviews

Tom's Buffy and Angel Marathon, a review by Tom


01. City of Angels (1999-10-05)
Writer: Joss Whedon (Created By), David Greenwalt (Created By), Joss Whedon (Writer), David Greenwalt (Writer)
Director: Joss Whedon
Cast: David Boreanaz (Angel), Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia Chase), Glenn Quinn (Doyle), Tracy Middendorf (Tina), Vyto Ruginis (Russel Winters), Christian Kane (Lindsey McDonald), Jon Ingrassia (Stacy), Renee Ridgeley (Margo), Sam Pancake (Manager), Josh Holloway (Good Looking Guy), Gina McClain (Janice), Michael Mantell (Oliver Simon (uncredited))

A good start to the series. Back then I was a little skeptical that a Angel series could work, but this episode had shown, that this series has potential.
Maybe a little too much exposition forced into it, to get new viewers up-to-date.
But what is with the ugly and strange vampire make-up in this episode? I don't remember if this new make-up was just an experiment in the beginning of the series, or if it was actually used throughout the Angel series like that.
I have just read on Wikipedia, that they tried a new vampire look in this episode, but were unhappy with it and returned to the vampire look known from Buffy.

Rating:

(From Tom's Buffy and Angel Marathon on March 6th, 2009)