Reviews by SJMJ91

This is a film that I was told that this is the only good one of all four Rambo films that there have been. Rambo: First Blood is the start of a franchise that is full of fun and complete fast thrill rides that will keep you on the edge of your seat. What I really loved about this film was that real kick ass style that some people really hate but some people love aswell. This film made me feel really nervous at first because I know that is was going to be a very graphic film but I didnt know it wasnt going to be really gut wretching gore. But for me it wasnt as violent as I thought it would be even though it still was violent. I have to say that I dont think Sylvester Stallone earned very much credit for the Rambo series as he did in the Rocky series because it might seem like a rip-off of awesome action films. This film is just a complete action packed thrill ride that sounds a tiny bit like Deliverance because they are in the wild with arrows, guns, knives and stuff like that.


Sylvester Stallone delivers a decent performance as John Rambo. Sylvester Stallone did have the looks for Rambo: the personality, the muscles and the voice for Rambo but in my opinion he doesnt quite have the acting abilities for Rambo. At first, before I saw Rambo: First Blood I couldnt stand him not only because he was a crap actor but also because of the way he portrays his characters. It is his deep booming voice and the way he moves around that really irritated me. It wasnt so much in his earlier acting career but it was mostly in the sixth Rocky film Rocky Balboa.


The direction was good from Ted Kotcheff. His direction is probably the best from all of the Rambo films. He shows his real epic style of what sort of character John Rambo really is and how deadly he can really be. The writing wasnt that bad really but it was still really well done though. The first and probably the best of all of the Rambo's didnt receive any common nominations at all where I think it should have for Best Sound Mixing and Editing and also Best Visual Effects and Make-Up. The only thing that disappointed me about it was the slightly lame script and the not many good supporting characters involved with Rambo. Apart from that, Rambo truly is one of the best aciton films of all time. Rambo: First Blood is an absolutely amazing start of real hardcore action that hasnt really been seen on the big screen before.

Rambo: First Blood Part II is a fairly descent sequel to Rambo: First Blood. This film had absolutely amazing action once again like the first film with all of the awesome visual effects, make-up etc but the thing that sort of ruined it for me was that the story wasnt aswell adapted as the first film was. Also, I didnt think the acting was very good. It was a good return for Rambo with not an easy mission but a mission that wasnt in my opinion as adventurous as the first one was.


I personally think that Sylvester Stallone delivered a rather poor performance in this film as Rambo because for me Stallone didnt really show that this film meant anything to him whatsoever apart from earning money. I sort of knew he was going to be bad even before I saw this film because he won a Razzie Award for Worst Actor which is basically a spoof or rip-off of the Oscars. He should have made a better effort so for me it would have been as good as first one was. I thought that Richard Creenas performance was pretty damn lame aswell as Colonel Samuel Trautman. I was hoping he would be a really good supporting character but he wasnt at all. I have to say that Julia Nickson-Soul was pretty shit too because she didnt show any emotion or any stress with the situation she is in with Rambo. Her performance sort of reminds me a lot of Denise Richards in The World Is Not Enough. I mean, she is supposed to be supporting a hero but she didnt do it with the acting but she certainly did with the extremely attractive looks.


I found that the action direction was slightly better in this one than the direction in the first one. It wasnt that bad with the writing but there were a lot of flaws but there were some moments that werent really revelant in my opinion. This one was more of a graphic one than the first flick but I have to say that it isnt as action packed though. I am unsure whether Rambo III is a sequel of it. If it is like a few months or few years afterwards and follows same story then will be sequel. This disappointed me mostly because of the bad acting and the slightly bad writing. Apart from that I do think that this film was a good action packed thrill ride that will not let you breath until the ending credits roll. Not as good as first one but still a good descent film. Must watch Rambo III and Rambo IV first.

I have to say that this film was a real disappointment to the Rambo series because it didn't focus on the outline of the story. It was more focused on the action. I know Rambo is like that but it should at least have a decent story. It is very similar to a plot form a film that is like a kidnap-hostage sort of story. In my opinion that is what was so bad about this one. To me, Rambo III tries to interpret the first Predator film because they are both very similar within the jungle scenes and that. I know that Predator was released afterwards but Predator made a better impression of an action film with a good story than Rambo III did. It felt like Rambo III didn't even try at all.


I thought Sylvester Stallone's performance was even worst than Rambo: First Blood Part II because I thought he made Rambo a really weak character to watch and also he barely made him feel like the Rambo we know at all. I thought he was more like MAJ Alan "Dutch" Schaefer in Predator. He did deserve his Razzie win. He was simply awful! One thing that I find so irritating about Stallone portraying Rambo is that, yes, he does have the body (using steroids) and voice for the character but not quite the acting talent to portray that sort of character. The director seemed absolutely clueless as far as the action was concerned. He didn't show how it was adapting into the story. To me, it was just really poor. It should have been director who did either Rambo: First Blood or Rambo: First Blood Part II.


This film is the worst of the Rambo's. It is the worst of Sylvester Stallone but it certainly isn't the worst of all time. If you are just looking for so-called "decent" action then you could like it. Otherwise, avoid it because you may regret watching it!!

This is another amazing Indy film! I love all four Indiana Jones films. The Temple Of Doom is the darkest of the films in the series. This is a prequel to Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I find The Temple Of Doom is quite graphic in some ways such as ripping out a beating heart of an alive person and then burning it, burning the whole body like a sacrifice and eating body parts of animals as a dinner. Just like with all the others, The Temple Of Doom is great for adults and is great for kids too. Just as you'd expect, The Temple Of Doom was filled with very exciting action and humourous quotes and just pure adventure because adventure IS Indy. I find the themes of Indiana Jones and Star Wars very similar because they were both created by the same man and also by the same music composer.


Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones will become legend in years to come! He hasn't flawed in one single bit in any of the four films. What I love about Indy in all four films was he was alongside all different kinds of people in each film (apart from Marion Ravenwood because she was in Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull). He shows again how charming he can be. After Ford was Han Solo and seeing how charming he is, he became Indiana Jones.


Spielberg directs the darkest of the series. There is a lot of visual effects used in this one but despite that, this film wasn't greatly effected and that wasn't a flaw. After the release of Return Of The Jedi, George Lucas has crafted another brilliant film in his career.


The Temple Of Doom is another reason why I love Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom is an awesome action packed rollercoaster that I loved from the beginning to the end. Despite how much I loved this one, it is the worst Indiana Jones film behind Raiders Of The Lost Ark, The Last Crusade and Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. The Temple Of Doom is one of the best prequels of all time. I couldn't really tell that this was a prequel but it was an awesome film nevertheless.

I was actually very surprised at this film. It is a very dark story but has some beauty within it. It is a dark story that involves a young woman called who has been in and out of rehab for the past decade and has now returned home for her sister's wedding. I can only predict that her presence will affect the wedding and the people involved in it too. That is something that we do find out in this film of what Kym has gone through in her life and what she would like to change. It is beautiful as well because we see the beauty of weddings as always and also seeing the romance and love the couple have for each other. Kym's sister Rachel is the woman getting married to a black man called Sidney. It is a beautiful mix between two races of human. They are both so well adapted together and it shows how peaceful people can be when like that when some of the time, there are racist attacks and insults towards each other.


It is really well filmed with absolutely fantastic performances from all actors. Anne Hathaway's performance as Kym was absolutely amazing! She very much deserved her Oscar nomination which probably surprised many people but it didn't surprise me at all. Anne proves that she is the only actress who would have been good enough to portray Kym. Anne is a woman who isn't really appreciated for her films as much as she deserves to be just like Heath Ledger didn't have really until he died. After seeing her in Rachel Getting Married, I am starting to really like her as a really talented actress. Her performance in Brokeback Mountain wasn't really a breakthrough but Rachel Getting Married certainly was and in a huge way. Rosemarie DeWitt's performance as Rachel was absolutely fantastic as well. She really did bring powerful feelings towards her characters and she really showed all of the anger, heartbreak and also love for her sister Kym despite of how much damage Kym has done to the family and to herself. Rosemarie DeWitt was robbed of a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination.


Jonathan Demme hasn't directed that many films in his career. He is most famous for his Oscar winning film The Silence Of The Lambs which he earned a Best Director Oscar for. Demme always directs films that is filled with pure drama but are all in different ways. Rachel Getting Married is an underrated 2008 film just as I think Jonathan Demme's work on the film is as well.


Overall, Rachel Getting Married is a really good film that is underrated and is a film that has proved Anne Hathaway is an actress who is a force to be reckoned with. It is her best performance and probably will be for a long time. Jonathan Demme's best film is obviously The Silence Of The Lambs and I am predicting that it always will be. Rachel Getting Married is a beautifully filmed, well directed, written and produced film that I would definitely watch again at some point in the future.

Psycho II is a fairly good sequel to the classic thriller Psycho. It is a sequel that is basically the first film all over again because Norman plays the innocent and "mother" kills. The only difference is that we know that Norman is the killer whereas we didn't in the first film. Psycho II is the sequel of a classic that not many people seem to fully appreciate. No, it isn't good and it isn't bad neither but this was made like it was more for scares and entertainment not to relive the reputation of the classic that was Psycho. I found it almost as tense as the first film was especially when we see Norman holding a kitchen knife, when people enter his house or live with him whether it's in the Bates house or inside the motel. It is weird seeing the actual Bates house in a colour effect whereas it was black and white in the original and first adaptation. I don't think Psycho is a franchise really. Yes, it does have more than one film with it but maybe it is a bit like a spoof to the first film and spoofs don't make good trilogies at all.


Anthony Perkins shows once again that he is the only actor who can portray Norman Bates properly. Maybe Christian Bale would have been a good Norman Bates in modern days after seeing him in American Psycho. Perkins is 23 years older in the sequel. He was 26 in the first film but he is 49 in the sequel. Norman is back to no good again especially having Mary living with him who is the daughter of Lila Loomis previously known as Lila Crane who was the sister of Norman's shower victim Marion Crane. Vera Miles brings a really good return after 23 years portraying Lila. She seems to want revenge on Norman for her sister's murder. She tries to warn her daughter from Mary from getting too close to Norman and to not live with him because of what he did in the past and how crazy he really is. The directing wasn't very good and I am ever so glad that Hitchcock wasn't here to see it. I feel the same thing about the remake that neither Anthony Perkins nor Alfred Hitchcock were able to see that and how awful it was and both would have been angry and embarrassed because of the film they made together.


The director makes this film like the first one all over again but in a bad way with bad filmmaking. It would have been better to have just left the first one but I am still glad I got the opportunity to see this film. I am now curious about Psycho IV: The Beginning because I want to know the truth of why Norman is the way he is regarding his psychotic ways and his split personality between himself and his mother. This is a film that sort of rips off Hitchcock's classic and memorable work of Psycho and also Anthony Perkins' previous performance as Norman even though he was still involved in this film. Psycho II is a mediocre sequel to its classic previous film that is neither good nor bad. The story is fairly interesting but has too much about the first film in it. So to me, I will now feel that there is only one film about Norman Bates. To be fair this one was far more predictable than the first one was because the first one had two twists which is very rare of a film to do so.


Psycho II is a sequel that I would prefer to not watch again but one that I wouldn't call bad nor good. It is a flawed sequel that wasn't greatly filmed and didn't have as many interesting characters apart from Norman of course. The first film is one of my 10 favourite films of all time and Psycho II is an average sequel to such a classic film!

First of all, this is a romantic comedy and this is a good film to choose on a Saturday night with a pizza and a beer. I admit that this film is extremely underrated which does actually surprise me because it stars two very well-known actresses: possibly the greatest actress ever Meryl Streep and Kill Bill's Uma Thurman. It was a film that I actually really enjoyed all the way through but personally I think the ending ruined it because I got confused and, quite frankly, it didn't really make sense. If it didn't have a bad ending, I would have rated Prime 4-stars but because it was bad, I have to give it 3.5-stars now. What this film did have was a lot of humorous sexual jokes which made me laugh and it did have a story that became very personal which is what I like a lot in romantic comedies.


Uma Thurman's performance as Rafi was absolutely brilliant! She has been in some romantic comedies over the years and has delivered bad performances but she was absolutely terrific in Prime because she made her character so powerful and so serious. Uma is one of those actresses who play characters with such power in almost every single genre. Meryl Streep's performance as Lisa Metzger was awesome too which is absolutely typical because she is always awesome! After seeing her in this film, I cannot believe she is in her 60s. She looks about late 40s in this film. Her character was a bit messed up because she was controlling her son's life by wanting him to get a Jewish girlfriend. She is a nice woman but you need to crack her outer shell first so to speak so you can see what kind of person she really is. Her acting was awesome regarding when she was in scenes with Uma Thurman when they're having their private sessions together. Bryan Greenberg was absolutely brilliant as well as Dave. I really felt sorry for him because he wants to actually have a life like a normal 23-year-old does. When Dave got himself into awkward situations, he is so easy to laugh at.


This film was brilliantly directed! The director creates, in my mind, one of the rare romantic comedies that could end in tears for some people. That is the main reason why it is a very emotional story. I think it is more of a dramedy (comedy-drama) than a romantic comedy because I find it to have more drama in it than romance. The script was good regarding the sexual jokes but as far as the drama is concerned, it sort of failed at it which disappointed me slightly with it.


Prime is a film that can make lots of people laugh and cry but can make people cringe as well. Prime is one of the most underrated films ever. Overall, Prime is a good film that was ruined at the end which makes it average.

This is an absolutely brilliant sci fi classic! Planet Of The Apes was released in the same year as 2001: A Space Odyssey and together they have become two of the greatest films of it's genre. Personally, I prefer Planet Of The Apes but I still really like 2001: A Space Odyssey. I find most science fiction films have very effective and shocking endings and twists. Planet Of The Apes has one of those things. I loved it first time and still love it after a rewatch. There is one thing that I do have a problem with in this film and that is that it takes far too long to get into what's going on within the film. It took 33 minutes until Taylor ended up in the apes' hands. Planet Of The Apes has absolutely outstanding make-up especially on the apes. It is a very extraordinary film that does make sense and does feel very realistic when you watch it. I thought that there is one way where Planet Of The Apes might not a science fiction film and that is because the Earth was once ruled by apes millions of years ago. However, where it is science fiction is obviously where apes had their own costumes and cages whereas in the old history of the Earth, they had none of that.


Charlton Heston is most famous for his Oscar winning performance in Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments but I remember him better for Planet Of The Apes. His performance as George Taylor was far better than his performance in both of those other films because I believe he showed real power, force and reality towards the character. Taylor is an astronaut who is in deep hibernation with fellow astronauts Landon, Stewart and Dodge while their spaceship lands on an unknown planet. This unknown planet is ruled by apes and is set in the year 3978. Kim Hunter was awesome as Zira. Just like all of the actors behind the ape costumes and make-up, you can't tell that it's that person but the voice you can. I could tell it was Kim Hunter as Zira because I have watched A Streetcar Named Desire numerous times and can recognize her voice.


Franklin J. Schaffner is a really good director who has done some amazing classics! This is his most famous one in my opinion. He directed Papillon and Patton. This feels like a sci fi epic when watching this film. Planet Of The Apes is a film that took a lot of work because of the date of when it was made. Nowadays, it is quite easy for filmmakers to make science fiction films but back then it was really hard. It had three months of filming which I would have predicted at least 1 year of filming just like I was predicting with 2001: A Space Odyssey. I have never read the novel but I have heard from some people I've met that it is a good book but the film is better.


Planet Of The Apes is a classic science fiction film that is absolutely brilliant yet quite slow. It is the best sci fi film of the 1960s ahead of 2001: A Space Odyssey. This film has one of the most shocking and most powerful film twists ever! Planet Of The Apes is Charlton Heston's best film in my opinion even ahead of Ben-Hur. Planet Of The Apes is quite a dark film is some ways but is quite good for anybody because it is hardly a violent film. Love this film and is just too good to despise.

This is a fantastic war film which is very underrated. This is a film about World War I which is the first film that I have seen about that. People seem to make more films about World War II because it was probably darker. This film showed both the similarity and difference between World Wars I and II. This film had often mixed ways with both films. The story is rather dark with very hard hitting characters. It showed how enemies were treated by the other in the 1910s.


Kirk Douglas was awesome as Colonel Dax because he was on a very important job to take the Ant Hill at any cost. Dax is both a lawyer and a soldier. He tries to defend three innocent soldiers but he has to try and prove that the Generals were to blame that the attack didn't go to plan. I have no idea how Kirk Douglas is still alive at 92 years old. He must a really blessed guy. He was 41 when he filmed Paths Of Glory. Kirk is a legendary actor and he will probably be best remembered for Paths Of Glory and another Kubrick film Spartacus.


This is a very underrated war film from Kubrick. All of his films up to Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb were underrated. Kubrick's other war film Full Metal Jacket got the credit where Paths Of Glory should have instead. Paths Of Glory is the Kubrick war film. Full Metal Jacket is good but not as good as Paths Of Glory. Kubrick showed the start of his epic filmmaking in which he always had a talent for. This is one of the few weird Kubrick films. The way this film was written seemed very original to me just like All Quiet On The Western Front was.


This is one of those early war films. The older ones are probably the best but new ones like Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down and Letters From Iwo Jima are still really good. I liked Paths Of Glory more than Full Metal Jacket. Out of the 10 Kubrick films I've seen, my order is: The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lolita, Paths Of Glory, Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket and Barry Lyndon. I wouldn't call Paths Of Glory a masterpiece but an awesome film that shouldn't be missed or avoided.

Panic Room is a film that I just thought was absolutely fantastic because of its pure entertainment and how well it was filmed. Panic Room seems like a horror film when you first see the poster and/or trailer but it isn't a horror film in any way whatsoever. It is an extremely tense suspenseful thrill ride that feels like the original adaptation of Flightplan. They are different stories but are very similar regarding what the suspense was like and how entertaining it was. Panic Room was full of thrilling scenes that would not stop. I just loved the suspense within the film and how thrilled I was by it. To be honest, I have always loved thrillers like this because it is quite a silly story but it is tense and fun. I feel it to be pretty much the same thing with Flightplan apart from Flightplan is better.


Jodie Foster's performance is in my case the first of playing silly yet really thrilling characters. She does this in her most recent films. Other similarities to her character in Panic Room are Flightplan and The Brave One. That is why I love Meg's character. Meg is a recently divorced mother of daughter Sarah who has diabetes and are staying in a four-story townhouse that was previously owned by a disabled, repulsive millionaire. Meg and Sarah end up in an awkward situation obviously when three burglars enter her house but they end up in a room where there isn't really any air to breath through. Kristen Stewart was only 12 years old when Panic Room was released and she didn't earn very much credit like she deserves. I like Kristen Stewart in films now. Her performances in Panic Room, Zathura, Into The Wild and possibly Twilight are her most memorable ones. She is a talented actress for only being at such a young age. I think she's only 18 years old. Forest Whitaker was good as leader of the thugs who broke into the mansion. He was a real bad-ass character but he was a character that did reveal a light side to him as the film carried on and when he was losing his cool with Meg and Sarah. He was quite funny as well. It was quite funny with a very dark Home Alone-like feeling towards that.


Fincher's directing on Panic Room was a lot like Nolan's directing on Insomnia. Fincher has been a director of psychological thrillers and crime thrillers but this one is just a normal entertaining thriller. Fincher has directed a film with brilliant characters and with a very simple story. The script was good but in some scenes it was a little all over the place and in a bit of a muddle but it adapted well in the end. Overall, Panic Room is a very thrilling piece of entertainment that will keep you off the edge of your seat right until the end. This is another awesome Jodie Foster piece of entertainment. This is the only Fincher film that is just for entertainment in my opinion.


I enjoyed Panic Room more than Zodiac and Alien3 but not as much as The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, Fight Club or Seven. I still need to see The Game. Panic Room is a film that I just think is amazing for its entertainment. Reminds me a lot of Flightplan apart from that one is better. Panic Room is a really good film!