dmbjam29
Joined Aug 2001
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.
Reviews23
dmbjam29's rating
I have not read the books, but after watching this movie I was rather unimpressed. The story is blatantly similar to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, let's examine the basic plot, a young boy living with his aunt and uncle who is destined to save the kingdom (uhm, Luke Skywalker anybody.) There is a scene where Eragon's back is facing the screen and watching the sunset. It was so obviously the same scene in "Star Wars: A New Hope," that I couldn't help but cringe. Also Brom (Jeremy Irons) is clearly the equivalence of Ben Kenobi from Star Wars that it distracted from the movie.
In addition the fantasy and Medieval theme just screams Lord of the Rings. Durza (Robert Carlyle) is too similar to Sarumon and shares physical attributes with Grima Wormtongue. That right there is the major downfall of the movie, it never differs from these two films and by the end it just looks like a dumbed down version of those movies.
The movie was not horrible but I could never personally get into it, I always felt there were barriers, whether it was the blatant influence from other movies, the mind-talking dragon, or watching John Malkovich thinking he was in a Shakespearean play.
All in all this is an average movie that is not unwatchable, but surely will only grip the young children who immensely love the books.
5 out of 10.
In addition the fantasy and Medieval theme just screams Lord of the Rings. Durza (Robert Carlyle) is too similar to Sarumon and shares physical attributes with Grima Wormtongue. That right there is the major downfall of the movie, it never differs from these two films and by the end it just looks like a dumbed down version of those movies.
The movie was not horrible but I could never personally get into it, I always felt there were barriers, whether it was the blatant influence from other movies, the mind-talking dragon, or watching John Malkovich thinking he was in a Shakespearean play.
All in all this is an average movie that is not unwatchable, but surely will only grip the young children who immensely love the books.
5 out of 10.
I felt the original Pirates of the Caribbean was the best in the series and after being mildly unimpressed with the second installment, I was actual impressed by the surprising consistency of the third Pirates movie.
The movie is Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Without Johnny this franchise wouldn't have any legs to stand on and in this movie, similar to the previous two, Depp carries the torch across the finish line. The movie is bigger and larger. It has a longer running time, there's more action, more plot and more battles.
The gang travels to Asia and then to the End of the World to rescue Jack Sparrow from the afterlife. There were some avant-garde and experimental scenes in the afterlife which was unlike a summer blockbuster to contain (Think of the scene in "Being John Malkovich" where every character is John Malkovich.)
I felt the screen writing was more witty and flowed more effortlessly than in the second installment. And even though the ending was not what I was expecting, I was certainly surprised with it, and with that it gained my respect.
the only thing I didn't enjoy was how it opened it up for a fourth movie. However despite its length and the superfluous monologues from Keira Knightley...did we really need to give her that many speeches, this is a good movie. Not as good as the original but the second best in the series.
7 out of 10, good summer blockbuster fun.
The movie is Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Without Johnny this franchise wouldn't have any legs to stand on and in this movie, similar to the previous two, Depp carries the torch across the finish line. The movie is bigger and larger. It has a longer running time, there's more action, more plot and more battles.
The gang travels to Asia and then to the End of the World to rescue Jack Sparrow from the afterlife. There were some avant-garde and experimental scenes in the afterlife which was unlike a summer blockbuster to contain (Think of the scene in "Being John Malkovich" where every character is John Malkovich.)
I felt the screen writing was more witty and flowed more effortlessly than in the second installment. And even though the ending was not what I was expecting, I was certainly surprised with it, and with that it gained my respect.
the only thing I didn't enjoy was how it opened it up for a fourth movie. However despite its length and the superfluous monologues from Keira Knightley...did we really need to give her that many speeches, this is a good movie. Not as good as the original but the second best in the series.
7 out of 10, good summer blockbuster fun.
The lightheartedness of the first Spiderman movie was entertaining. The seriousness of the second Spiderman was enthralling, and the third Spiderman movie was just disappointing. Let's hope that Batman continues its momentum and doesn't end the way of Spiderman.
The main complaint is the movie is too long and jumps around way too much. The relationship between Peter Parker/Spiderman (Tobey MacGuire) and Harry Osborn/Young Goblin (James Franco) is so erratic it's like watching a tennis match. They are trying to kill each other, they are friends, they are trying to kill each other, they are friends etc. It was exhausting keeping up with it.
Also, the scene where Peter Parker becomes the 'black Spiderman' is very distracting. I know it's vital to the story but how the director composed it was bad. There's 1970s pimp music as Peter walks down the street and watching Tobey MacGuire trying to act like a pimp and cool cat was so hilarious and awkward it took me out of the movie.
I just felt the movie tried to accomplish too much. I am not a fan of the comic books and I could tell the writers had a hard time concluding this series. There are hundreds of stories of Spiderman how do you condense it down to three films? I certainly understand the dilemma but the screenwriters and producers came empty with this film.
The special effects were certainly visually appealing but the story was a major let down to the previous two. Sorry Spidey, let's hope the franchise ends with this film.
6 out of 10.
The main complaint is the movie is too long and jumps around way too much. The relationship between Peter Parker/Spiderman (Tobey MacGuire) and Harry Osborn/Young Goblin (James Franco) is so erratic it's like watching a tennis match. They are trying to kill each other, they are friends, they are trying to kill each other, they are friends etc. It was exhausting keeping up with it.
Also, the scene where Peter Parker becomes the 'black Spiderman' is very distracting. I know it's vital to the story but how the director composed it was bad. There's 1970s pimp music as Peter walks down the street and watching Tobey MacGuire trying to act like a pimp and cool cat was so hilarious and awkward it took me out of the movie.
I just felt the movie tried to accomplish too much. I am not a fan of the comic books and I could tell the writers had a hard time concluding this series. There are hundreds of stories of Spiderman how do you condense it down to three films? I certainly understand the dilemma but the screenwriters and producers came empty with this film.
The special effects were certainly visually appealing but the story was a major let down to the previous two. Sorry Spidey, let's hope the franchise ends with this film.
6 out of 10.