Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
LazyTown (2002–2014)
Voice mixing in speaking parts
27 October 2005
I know the show is filmed overseas but is filmed in English, but why do the voices still not match the human actors, especially Stephanie? Is Stephanie's real voice being dubbed in during the whole show or is it the singer who sings the songs also saying the speaking parts?

Clearly the set is very noisy with all the activity going on and other things and dubbing is necessary but how come the dubbing is so sloppy?

My kids love the show but it's really different and kinda creepy compared to other shows.

Thanks,

Kriston
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rapa Nui (1994)
1/10
Pointless reason to employ body doubles
7 March 2000
This movie is well worth the viewing if you're into period films with full frontal nudity, even if it means that Roxine Holt's breasts change their shape whenever there's a close-up. The historical fiction used by this movie try to explain the statues on Easter Island but relies too heavily on the tired theme of the incompetent leader being manipulated by overly ambitious advisors. Surely, if the people were as technologically advanced as the movie suggests, they may have transcended racism and their bizarre class structure.

And yet again we see Jason Scott Lee playing the naive, young aboriginal, a part for which he has been typecast in movies like "Map of the Human Heart."

If you enjoy Polynesian scenery, and have a mute button to squelch the pathetic English/Hispanic/American/Canadian accents that vary from character to character, and you can stomach the pointless love story in between graphic scenes of gratuitous frontal nudity through the efforts of beautiful body-doubles, you still won't enjoy this movie.
3 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Postman (1997)
Good for apocalyptic genre, bad for acting and characterization
28 February 1999
This movie just came by on the dish and I had to see it. Like others I'm a big fan of the post-apocalyptic genre and this movie treated that concept both with ineptitude and with some competence. Some of this is due to the weak story and others are due to the horrible acting and characterization.

We meet "Shakespeare" who is travelling from rebuilt town to rebuilt town after nuclear war has apparently destroyed the country and the government. From seeing this movie for about 1.5 hours and listening to Costner drawl such idiotic lines as "You're really weird!" and "Things are getting better... they're getting better every day" we are apparently supposed to understand that Costner's character is a slow and unintelligent character, yet he is somehow able to cajole the towns' citizens into believing in his story. I have yet to read the novel but I suppose the author was trying to get across that his character is a stupid dullard who inadvertently saves the new world, but Costner's inconsistent acting and the unbelievable way in which the citizens take his story as gospel (President Starky?) just falls right on the floor.

As for the story, how are we to believe that a man, through self-help books and affected speech, is able to lead a marauding bunch of kidnapped men into looting, raping, and killing their own people? I had thought beforehand that this story would have been a legitimate post-apocalyptic epic, since you'd think that when a country was destroyed you'd have enough problems rebuilding the nation and re-establishing communications. Instead, we are faced with a pathetic story about an unjust paramilitary leader who needs to get his clock cleaned and can't perform in the bedroom (which is also apparently another source of his anger). I thought for a moment I was watching Conan the Barbarian the way the army attacks and destroys rebuilt communities, with Bethlehem sitting like a king getting offered treasures in return for his clemency. How pathetic!

I was hoping for a good post-apocalyptic epic, but it turned into another Dances With Wolves with a cheapened plot based on a recycled insane-bad-guy-tries-to-get-rich story we've seen countless times before. "The Road Warrior" gave good reason for the insanity. "The Postman" just couldn't.

On the bright side, the ideas and mechanisms of a rebuilt nation are very interesting and could have carried the movie without any need for marauding hun-like armies. The Hoover dam, the complete lack of working automobiles, the talk of illnesses caused by the nuclear holocaust, more talk about promised lands on the other side of the mountains, perhaps even finally communicating with the rest of the rebuilt nation, would have made this a fine movie. Instead we are left with an expensive remake of Mad Max, complete with cheap bad guys whom the author and director think unwashed movie-going masses need in every movie. Apparently, this is because the hardship of the new world isn't enough of an antagonist, and movie-goers wouldn't be able to accept that as enough of a challenge.

If you enjoy post-apocalyptic epic films, you will be sorely disappointed in this film's shallowness, lack of characterization, and unbelievable antagonist. If it comes by on the dish, be sure to watch it. But don't even think of paying real money for this.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daylight (1996)
Spectacular special effects, pathetic acting and story
28 February 1999
When it came to watching this movie I was another victim of opportunity. It was raining out and it just came by on the dish. I enjoy apocalyptic and engineering disaster movies but this one, save for the set and the great effects, was incredibly bad.

We start with villains who, for reasons I must have missed in the first 10 minutes, are driving crazily into the Holland tunnel and crash into a truck carrying lots of brightly-colored drums of hazmat. That is to say nothing of the fact that hazmat, especially on an open flatbed truck, would never have been allowed in the tunnel to begin with. The explosion, fire, collapse, and total carnage that follows has to be seen to be enjoyed, if not believed. Apparently this flatbed truck of flammables is able to create an explosion that not only runs to both lengths of the tunnel (and collapses the entrances and not the middle of the tunnel) it also destroys the main ventilator building, the service tunnel, and most of the other tube (how did that happen?) The sheer volume of fire and destruction is mightily fun to watch, but it's completely unbelievable and impossible. Even though the tunnel is filled with heavy traffic, somehow most of the vehicles aren't in the section of the tunnel most of the movie is set in. Even stranger, the crispy corpses are nowhere to be found in the vehicles you can see.

If you're a fan of computer-generated effects that will keep you guessing "how'd they do that?" you'll love this movie for that reason alone. For example, the explosions that occur above water while Stallone and the fair maiden are below water are very impressive. But, if you are the kind of viewer who questions even 1/10th of the questionable events in the movie, you will need to take your Valium. I am still trying to understand how the walls of the tunnel were continuously on fire and shot regular fireballs into the tunnel for no apparent reason. This movie is a strange cross between The Poseidon Adventure, The Towering Inferno, and Independence Day -- any of which you'd probably enjoy a lot more.

Of course no NYC disaster movie can be complete without characterizing the city engineers as buffoons who care more about traffic than human lives, but I guess this movie needed more of an antagonist than the situation had presented in order to improve the bizarrely thought-out plot.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed