Share couchcritic's profile
couchcritic
couchcritic's stats
- Review count6
- Helpfulness votes2
- First reviewMarch 10, 2008
- Last reviewMarch 10, 2008
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating2.8
couchcritic's Reviews
Overall rating
5
/
5
Awsome
PostedMarch 10, 2008
couchcritic
from USA
Finally a film that has earned it's place in the movie library of families around the country. This movie was fresh, funny, witty and held together by a fantastic cast. Page does a fantastic job, with a fantastic supporting cast. The script is witty and sharp. Comedy mixed with drama that was worthy of the Oscar. Go and see this movie. It's touching, heartwarming and very relevant to todays teenage pop culture. See it, buy it, give it 5 stars!
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
1
/
5
Not so Gold
PostedMarch 10, 2008
couchcritic
from USA
Ok while I would usually be thrilled with any performance of Nicole Kidman's I feel that this was perhaps a poor choice of a movie to make. This movie while having some wonderful performances by the child actors has nothing much else to offer. The special effects were overly done. The world was not very plausible. I realize this movie was adapted from a book. But any movie that's pitching itself as a family movie should perhaps rethink that approach if it is going to be calling cute fury animals Demons. The movie itself felt unfinished, and was a rip off that was a set up for a sequel, sadly in this day and age everyone is looking at the profit to be made in chronicles and sequels but this is a movie that I'd be happy not to see a sequel of. Frankly the only reason I saw this movie was because I got a free ticket. Otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my money to watch this money machine of a movie that has no moral value and has basically attempted to flip the compass of moral right and wrong. That's the only compass worth mentioning in this movie. The disgusting lack of moral judgment that has been the compass for this offering. Parent's I advise you to skip this not so gold movie.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
fool for fun
PostedMarch 10, 2008
couchcritic
from USA
This movie was cute, it wasn't as good as their last join movie venture "How to lose a guy in 10 days" (2003) but it was still worth watching. Hudson and McConaughey make a good comedic team, I can see them being a power house if they pick the right projects to do together. This movie wasn't all that well written, but they did do their best to throw themselves into the roles and really bring them to life. The pace was a little slow, though it did have it's funny moments. Dziena was awful the acting was almost painful to watch, even if she was trying to act like a bimbo. The bad guys were a joke, and basically the only thing that saved them from being totally pathetic was McConaughey's interaction with them. A great date flick, enough of a fluff movie to be entertained. I'd like to see them work together again on something with a little more depth though.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
2
/
5
Jump to DVD
PostedMarch 10, 2008
couchcritic
from USA
This movie was so bad I was left wondering why I thought it was going to be any good... oh yeah, they put all the best parts in the trailer. Pretty much the concept was interesting, it had potential to be good, but it fell woefully short of it's mark. The only thing done well in this movie was the special effects. The acting was pretty appalling but then I have to say I don't expect much from Hayden Christensen though I was holding out hope before I saw the movie. Samuel L Jackson must have been going through Star Wars withdrawal to take this roll because the only good thing about it was the butt kicking aspect. The bad hair do, the angry bad guy didn't really provide any real motivation for his character nor did it endear his character to me at all during the supposed nail biting action sequences. I just wanted to see him dumped in water to see his white hair do get washed off. Overall this movie felt like a set up movie. I smell a sequel... weather it'll be worth watching or not is another matter.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Why oh Why
PostedMarch 10, 2008
couchcritic
from USA
Why oh why, I came out of this movie so disappointed. This movie had the potential to be brilliant. Sadly it barely made Good on my radar, frankly it got one of those stars because of Natalie Portman who made a valiant effort to inject some life into the character of Anne Boleyn. Historically this movie butchered the truth, not to mention it had about as much resemblance to the book it was based on as a big mac has to a rib eye steak. Eric Banner was pretty much just eye candy in this flick, his character while one of histories most notorious Kings came off as nothing more then a selfish male wench. Scarlett's character while mainly filled in fictionally wasn't very accurate nor very compelling. This really should have either been a longer movie or a mini series, because the depth and breadth of the material covered deserved more then this. While disappointing plot wise, this was a beautiful movie to look at, wonderful costume designer and the ladies wore those dresses well. I'll be curious to see if they release a directors cut of this movie when it hits DVD because it could quite possibly save this movie and make it worth seeing again. Bottom line, if your looking for a historical movie, this is not it, if your looking for something akin to Elizabeth (1998) you'll be sorely disappointed. If you like period films and aren't interested in the historical content then watch this flick, it's somewhat satisfying but it feels like it's been over edited or it's missing something. I would recommend it though just to watch Natalie Portman, she was the highlight of this movie.... well ok I'll be honest she pretty much carried this movie.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
2
/
5
Warning spoiler
PostedMarch 10, 2008
couchcritic
from USA
High points in this movie ... Well there wasn't really much. It was pretty to look at, painfully green screen in the beginning, I suppose if you squint you won't notice, or have a few beers before watching, that should help. The dinosaurs are not very prevalent the only ones you do see seem to be pretty small and puny in comparison to the big bad ones I expected to see. The overall plot ... well lets be honest there really wasn't a very deep plot. It's an excuse to get some eye candy Strait doesn't look half bad in next to nothing. Perhaps that was what the director was hoping for. To be honest I'd have to say it was too similar to 1 million years BC ( 1967) with less hot babe though Belle is wonderful in this movie but yet again no depth to the characters. The tiger is painfully animated, not very realistic, if someone tells you it was ask how many drinks they had. The walking in the desert stuff is all cute and all but logistically doesn't tie together any of the plot. For example, where did they get their water from if they spend so long sitting in the desert hiding. Who and what are these monk looking folks supposed to be? Egyptian monks that look like they belong in Tibet? And a whole slew of Mammoth's that look like they ought to have been in Lord of the Rings. Basically it wasn't worth getting out of bed for. If your not looking for a movie with plot or depth then this is the one for you. If you like fru fru action movies this is the movie for you. If you want to see some nice fella who's easy on the eyes walking about in a loincloth then this is the movie for you. Otherwise ... stay home and wait for it to hit DVD
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
-1point
0of 1voted this as helpful.