tzehoong
Joined Feb 2002
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
tzehoong's rating
This one of those movies where it ends after what seems like an eternity (even though it only lasted 90 minutes), you walk out of the cinema and contemplate going up to the cashier and asking for a refund.
I haven't read the book, but boy if it's anything like this movie, how in the world did Doc (y'know, Back to the Future 3) impress that cute schoolteacher by talking about this book?
For the first half of the movie I thought "The Time Machine" was going to be a good watch. The depiction of England in the 1880s was charming and quaint, Guy Pearce well cast as the absent-minded Alexander; the love interest, Emma, lovable, and her death very tragic. These assumptions were further enforced by the impressive time-travelling effects. The portrayal of fashion changes was particularly witty.
But things went downhill from the moment Alex got knocked unconscious and travelled 8,000,000 years into the future. For starters, the Eloi village was suspiciously similar to LoTR's Rivendell, and the resemblance of the Morlocks to the Uruk-hais was all too clear.
Mara's acceptance of Alexander is too convenient and illogical. He drops out of a time vortex, 800K years from the past, talks funny, wears weird clothes, is frowned upon by all her friends - and she lets him sleep in her house without a second thought. Alexander, on the other hand, undergoes an amazing transition from a nerdy, forgetful professor to a heroic hunk who risks his life to save someone he just met the day before. Wasn't he supposed to have been hopelessly in love with Emma for the past 5 or more years?
The movie doesn't manage to give any satisfactory answer to the question "why can't one change time?". Character development is almost nil for the supporting cast, and the story moves waaay too fast. Hollywood should learn to spend less on special effects and more on developing good scripts and storylines.
I haven't read the book, but boy if it's anything like this movie, how in the world did Doc (y'know, Back to the Future 3) impress that cute schoolteacher by talking about this book?
For the first half of the movie I thought "The Time Machine" was going to be a good watch. The depiction of England in the 1880s was charming and quaint, Guy Pearce well cast as the absent-minded Alexander; the love interest, Emma, lovable, and her death very tragic. These assumptions were further enforced by the impressive time-travelling effects. The portrayal of fashion changes was particularly witty.
But things went downhill from the moment Alex got knocked unconscious and travelled 8,000,000 years into the future. For starters, the Eloi village was suspiciously similar to LoTR's Rivendell, and the resemblance of the Morlocks to the Uruk-hais was all too clear.
Mara's acceptance of Alexander is too convenient and illogical. He drops out of a time vortex, 800K years from the past, talks funny, wears weird clothes, is frowned upon by all her friends - and she lets him sleep in her house without a second thought. Alexander, on the other hand, undergoes an amazing transition from a nerdy, forgetful professor to a heroic hunk who risks his life to save someone he just met the day before. Wasn't he supposed to have been hopelessly in love with Emma for the past 5 or more years?
The movie doesn't manage to give any satisfactory answer to the question "why can't one change time?". Character development is almost nil for the supporting cast, and the story moves waaay too fast. Hollywood should learn to spend less on special effects and more on developing good scripts and storylines.
One glance at "Thir13en Ghosts" trailers and posters is enough to warn you that this movie relies on effects and sensationalism to thrill.
Sitting through this movie was painful, especially after having seen "The Others" in the cinema two months before. It is not a thriller, it is a special effects-makeup-and-outlandish-props movie. The "ghosts" are so heavily made-up they end up looking hilarious rather than scary, the cinematography (read : loads and loads of split-second clips) reeks of MTV, and the characters transparent and stereotyped.
Naturally, a weird guy is out to control the world. Naturally, an innocent family is unwittingly caught in the middle. Naturally, someone strays away and everyone starts looking for him. Naturally, all hell breaks loose and there's lots of running, screaming, and gore. Naturally, the big bad guy overlooks one minor thing, he gets defeated, and the world is saved.
The only innovation are special glasses needed to actually see the ghosts. But question is, why would you want to look at them? They have lame names, all go to the same beauty parlor and all do the same thing. The only thing that is good about them is that they want to kill the cast, who are all so uninteresting, unendearing characters that you wouldn't mind seeing them dead anyway.
Effects, effects and more effects. Thirteen Ghosts relies solely on effects to scare its audience, and fails miserably. I walked out of the cinema insulted that the producers would actually think that this show could get me scared. It's an insult to my intelligence. Some ten-year-old, maybe. Not me.
Sitting through this movie was painful, especially after having seen "The Others" in the cinema two months before. It is not a thriller, it is a special effects-makeup-and-outlandish-props movie. The "ghosts" are so heavily made-up they end up looking hilarious rather than scary, the cinematography (read : loads and loads of split-second clips) reeks of MTV, and the characters transparent and stereotyped.
Naturally, a weird guy is out to control the world. Naturally, an innocent family is unwittingly caught in the middle. Naturally, someone strays away and everyone starts looking for him. Naturally, all hell breaks loose and there's lots of running, screaming, and gore. Naturally, the big bad guy overlooks one minor thing, he gets defeated, and the world is saved.
The only innovation are special glasses needed to actually see the ghosts. But question is, why would you want to look at them? They have lame names, all go to the same beauty parlor and all do the same thing. The only thing that is good about them is that they want to kill the cast, who are all so uninteresting, unendearing characters that you wouldn't mind seeing them dead anyway.
Effects, effects and more effects. Thirteen Ghosts relies solely on effects to scare its audience, and fails miserably. I walked out of the cinema insulted that the producers would actually think that this show could get me scared. It's an insult to my intelligence. Some ten-year-old, maybe. Not me.
This is what a good thriller/horror movie should be like. The setting is classic thriller material. A house where doors have to be closed before opening another, mysterious servants, and excellent development of the main characters. Throw in a good cast and an excellent storyline, and you have "The Others", a must-see for all cinemagoers.
Once again, Nicole Kidman proves why she is one of the most admired actresses in Hollywood by giving a stellar performance. A mother forced to keep her two light-sensitive children out of the light, her character is conveys strictness and frailty at the same time. Her presence on the screen is powerful even when she is not speaking.
The supporting cast complements each other. The three servants have a silent yet tangible devotion to one another, and the big sister-little brother relationship between 909879 is convincing.
This movie is does not rely on fancy effects and heavy makeup to keep the audience scared yet begging for more. Rather, a combination of good lighting, good acting, and good timing scares the audience out of their wits. The plot moves along at just the right pace, keeping the audience in continual suspense without straining their patience.
Though critics claim that its ending is carried over from "Sixth Sense", this movie was written before "Sixth Sense" was produced. However, comparisons between the two movies is inevitable. Without going so far as to say that "The Others" is the better movie, it is no doubt one of the best thrillers to have graced the screens in 2001.
Once again, Nicole Kidman proves why she is one of the most admired actresses in Hollywood by giving a stellar performance. A mother forced to keep her two light-sensitive children out of the light, her character is conveys strictness and frailty at the same time. Her presence on the screen is powerful even when she is not speaking.
The supporting cast complements each other. The three servants have a silent yet tangible devotion to one another, and the big sister-little brother relationship between 909879 is convincing.
This movie is does not rely on fancy effects and heavy makeup to keep the audience scared yet begging for more. Rather, a combination of good lighting, good acting, and good timing scares the audience out of their wits. The plot moves along at just the right pace, keeping the audience in continual suspense without straining their patience.
Though critics claim that its ending is carried over from "Sixth Sense", this movie was written before "Sixth Sense" was produced. However, comparisons between the two movies is inevitable. Without going so far as to say that "The Others" is the better movie, it is no doubt one of the best thrillers to have graced the screens in 2001.