abknor
Joined Jun 2003
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.
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews19
abknor's rating
This is good, clean, family fun. Orgazmo and his trusty side-kick clean up Los Angeles for Jesus. Although the movie is strong on morals (it shows you countless ways to love your fellow man), it never gets high handed. Even a slightly cynical non-believer could enjoy the jokes, and, heck, the heavily cynical non-believer will probably enjoy the sterling performance of Michael Dean Jacobs as Orgazmo's evil opponent, Maxxx Orbisson.
Makers Trey Parker and Matt Stone also put in convincing acting performances, showing the world that yes, script writers can act. (Are you a director? I've got this great idea for a movie!) 6/10
Makers Trey Parker and Matt Stone also put in convincing acting performances, showing the world that yes, script writers can act. (Are you a director? I've got this great idea for a movie!) 6/10
Pietje Bell left me with the same impression as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone, which is: nice images, good adventure, so-so acting of the leads and sometimes irksome dialogue.
The Rotterdam of the 1920s was convincingly portrayed. There was a cartoonesque feel to the decor, which made it easier to focus on the story. The nose of aunt Cato was hard to believe in though, and drew attention to the fact that I was watching a film. Also the newspaper manager acted too 'modern' for my taste.
I did have a bit of a hard time believing the sister wanting to date the gruesome Joseph. Which, in a sense, is a compliment for the two actors, because they managed to convincingly portray good and bad.
The Rotterdam of the 1920s was convincingly portrayed. There was a cartoonesque feel to the decor, which made it easier to focus on the story. The nose of aunt Cato was hard to believe in though, and drew attention to the fact that I was watching a film. Also the newspaper manager acted too 'modern' for my taste.
I did have a bit of a hard time believing the sister wanting to date the gruesome Joseph. Which, in a sense, is a compliment for the two actors, because they managed to convincingly portray good and bad.
I happened to watch Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, as this film is called, on the same evening as Pietje Bell, another children's movie, and came way with approximately the same opinion on both films: nice images, good adventure, so-so acting by the leads, and sometimes grating dialogue.
The beginning, I felt, moved a bit slowly and eratically. It took Harry ages to go to the wizards' school, and the premonitions about his magical qualities could have been smeared less thickly. At times even Harry's actor seemed to look on in disbelief at Harry's powers, having quickly run out of facial expressions of disbelieve to display.
The beginning, I felt, moved a bit slowly and eratically. It took Harry ages to go to the wizards' school, and the premonitions about his magical qualities could have been smeared less thickly. At times even Harry's actor seemed to look on in disbelief at Harry's powers, having quickly run out of facial expressions of disbelieve to display.