Miscellaneous Movies

Oscars predictions, the greatest movies of all time, the worst sequels, and the top grossing movies of every year, beginning with 1986: these are just some of the lists you can rate under Miscellaneous Movies.

Recent Happenings

89 days ago

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie! I LOVED "The Avengers", so all the callbacks to that were very fun and entertaining for me. RDJ did an amazing job and I am sad to see the franchise end, but I think they did a spectacular job wrapping everything up in a fun and satisfying way!

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

168 days ago

Actually, I kinda liked the finished product. Seeing the wizard become the wizard was interesting, as was the back story of the witches. I really liked the China Girl, though:

Anyone that can jerk around the wizard has talent.

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 1 Disagree

171 days ago

Movie was pretty good and the 3d was amazing. So if you see this movie, you have to see it in Imax 3d (its worth the up charge).

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

183 days ago

The Hobbit is a great film. Unfortunately, when I went to the cinema to watch it I did not realise that the movie had been split into 3 parts so I was disappointed with the ending. I had to find out from the internet why the film had ended abruptly. I then found out The Hobbit movie has been split into 3 parts and I think part 2 will be released in winter 2013 and part 3 in 2014. Therefore, I believe that this is the only negative aspect of the film because I will have to wait nearly 2 years for the ending of the movie. The movie of course is not exactly the same as the book so that is why I said I will have to wait nearly 2 years for the ending. The positive aspects of the film are that the acting was really good. More specifically, the actors Richard Armitage, Martin Freeman and Sir Ian McKellen gave a terrific and captivating performance and enhanced the entire movie. Great actors had been cast and the whole action, drama and storyline was enthralling.

I rate The Hobbit 10 out of 10.

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

247 days ago

  I thought I just rated this film... Oh well, here I goes again...

Its similarity to an old newsreel is what gives this amazing film the realism that makes it the very best of its genre. 

Why anyone bothered to make any more zombie flicks after this classic is known only to the producers' accountants.

"They're coming to get you, Barbara."


Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 5 Helpful / 0 Funny / 2 Agree / 2 Disagree

248 days ago

It has to be considered a masterpiece simply because of the enormous influence its had down through the decades. The very definition of a "groundbreaking" film. I loved it as a kid, grew tired of it as a teenager seeing it constantly at "midnight movie" showings (do they still have those things?), and didn't see it for a number of years before watching it again and seeing it with "new eyes." Yeah, the acting ranges from strictly average to abysmal, but you really do come to believe that these are real people experiencing real events. And it's still capable of being supremely creepy and disturbing.

Some people think Romero improved upon the "zombie" formula with "Dawn of the Dead" nearly a decade later. That's open to debate, and I wouldn't commit myself to one viewpoint of the other. I enjoy both films for different reasons. I do know that, with the exception of "Martin," which was a vampire film rather than one that dealt with zombies, Romero really never did anything as consistently good again. His films of the last few decades have interesting moments, but that's about it.

Side note: Catch lead actor Duane Jones in an early 1970s obscurity called "Ganja and Hess," which is sort of an "art-house" vampire film. It's not necessarily a great film, but it's interesting and different. The final scene of that film was done in a black church in Nyack, NY, almost across the street from where author Carson McCullers lived. The church is still standing, although it's a "community center" now, and I think of Duane Jones every time I'm in Nyack, and walk past that building.

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

249 days ago

Whooooaaa. I saw this last night. Merry Christmas and a Happy Fuckin' New Year to all of you.

This film has been reviewed twice here on RIA. I can only imagine that this is so because, either, few have seen it, few have dared to see it, or it was just too much of an effort to put this film-as-art, this IMDB's-Top-25-Most-Gruesome-Films-ever-made, this hallucinogenic journey into the darkest side of human nature into words. It is, along with Roman Polanski's "The Tenant", one of the two most haunting films I've ever seen. Let me put it this way: if your date claims to like "horror" movies, do NOT even think about curling up on the sofa with this one. This is not a horror movie; it is a nightmare.

From an artistic point-of-view, "Irreversible" gets at least a *5*. It is presented in reverse, with the first 3rd of it filmed in shades of gray and red. This portion...the finalé...is filmed without a single stop or cut with an all hand-held delivery. The language is all French, but when you're being pulled and warped through a worm hole and are experiencing something as intense as this, the language is hardly a barrier. I'd call it a sensory overload. Just when you've become hypnotized by the sounds and the visuals and you're thinking that this is an important cinematic effort, you come to realize that the lines of coke you just snorted were actually Drano and it's too late. The crystals have dissolved into your sinuses and are working their way into your brain like a scorching pyroclastic lahar.

As the film progresses to its beginning, events leading up to "the end" (which you have already seen) are revealed. The music becomes less frenetic and colors are added, but director Gaspar Noé somehow manages to find a way to plunge the knife...just one more time...into the viewers' psyches. The film-as-art perspective is astonishing and I give credit to Noé for having the chops to bring this vision to life.

The dilemma, here, is that the theme, the subject, the topic and the motivation that drives this film is incomprehensible to the viewer....so sick and depraved...that it brings my rating down. (5 + 1= 6 / 2 = 3). We're not talking about "Saw"-like depravity. We're talking about things we read or hear about everyday, things that we have become desensitized to...until Noé decides that we need to see them, first hand. Oh, yah...the dilemma. The film wouldn't have worked without its chosen theme. All of the cinematic wizardry that he poured in to "Irreversible" would have been for naught.

I couldn't possibly write this review without mentioning that it stars Vincent Cassel and his real life wife of 13 years...Monica Bellucci. She, once again shows that, not only can she take direction, but is Città di Castello, Umbria, Italy's gift to the world and is damn proud of that. She's magnigorgeouslyunfuckinamazinglybeautiful. Cassel delivers an epic performance.

Pass the mind bleach, please.

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 4 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

254 days ago

A very dumb movie and poor acting by Halle Berry.

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

255 days ago

Most the people I've talked to that have seen this agree that it was worth the wait. I truly enjoyed the movie. It is not exactly the way I pictured from reading the book but although there are some changes it still sores as an epic adventure across middle earth and it still inspires much exhilaration!

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

320 days ago

I already mentioned how amazing the original movie is and how sucessful it was, but unfortunately this means that it also spawned a remake that came out last year. Now the original wasn't by all means an Oscar winner by any means, but it did quite well.
This remake on the other hand was a flop, and while there were some merrits, it still doesn't compare to the original.

First of all i'd like to bring up the new character changes that were made to two of the characters, mainly Jerry Dandridge and Peter Vincent.

Jerry is played by Collin Farrell in this and while he does pretty good in the part, he tends to be a lot more gruesome than the charismatic Jerry from the original and while this may be a good thing, he might as well just say: "By the way, I'm the villain!".

Not to mention the CGI doesn't look good, the problem with most modern horror flicks these days is that they use CGI in place of makeup or practical effects such as puppetry and it kinda gets in the way.

I have been and always will be a fan of good ol fashioned makeup and practical effects and will gladly before those over cgi any day of the week.

Then there's what they did to Peter Vincent in this. The original Peter Vincent was very likable.

But with this one...this may upset a few Dr Who fanatics but I don't think that David Tennenant did justice to the part at all.

I know he's supposed to be a younger Peter Vincent but for some reason...he just comes across as being very weird and not in a good way, in this he is a Las Vegas styled stage magician along the lines of Criss Angel.

And unfortunately...like many critics have mentioned, his mannerisms come across as being very familar to those Brits out there.

A lot of critics have said that he seems to be channeling Russell Brand, and I have to agree - especially when he has that wig and facial hair on him.

Not that I hate Russell or anything, it's just that the whole "crazy-haired Russell lookalike" thing doesn't exactly scream "Great fearless, vampire hunter" to me.

It's like he's the bastard offspring of Russell Brand, Jack Sparrow, Rob Zombie, Shang Tsung and the Undertaker of WWE fame.

It just doesn't work. I didn't believe for one second that this man was supposed to be the Great vampire hunter from the original.

I heard that Russell himself was considered for this part and that's probably true. I mean back when I wrote my own idea for a Fright Night remake I said that I would have loved to see someone like Ian Mckellen as Peter.

And I also said there that I would loved to see Bruce Campbell as Jerry Dandridge.
Because not only could I see Bruce being in a movie like that especially considering that he's a horror icon and all, but it would have been interesting seeing him play the role of a monster (okay he was a Deadite briefly in Evil Dead 2) but he would have made a fantastic vampire.

I'm sorry but I just couldn't buy David Tennenant as Peter Vincent, it didn't work for me.

While the original Peter was a coward at the beginning but still likable, this one like I mentioned....is just well......a little too much like Russell Brand.

I'm sure he did well in the part but I just didn't buy it. Hell....even Otho Fenlock would have made a better vampire hunter than this guy.

It's sad when even Otho of all people could probably do a better job of doing it than this Russell Brand lookalike.

I recommend seeing the original and it's sequel but not this remake, I'd suggest avoiding the remake but if you're a true die-hard horror fan, then i'm not going to stop you there.

Add your Vote:

Votes on this review: 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

View Next Subject: Movie Characters

Top Miscellaneous Movies Reviewers