Daniel777C has written 3 reviews.
I haven't seen the first movie. A friend borrowed me the second movie, but I couldn't sit through the first ten minutes, so I didn't watch that one either. This one I had to sit through because I went to the cinema with friends. Three villains?...
[+] Read Full Review
I haven't seen the first movie. A friend borrowed me the second movie, but I couldn't sit through the first ten minutes, so I didn't watch that one either. This one I had to sit through because I went to the cinema with friends. Three villains? Fine. Three villains with supernatural powers? I find it remarkable that in a movie which takes place in a timeframe of about 6 days, 3 things fall from grace (or wherever) and turn three people into villains. I also find it remarkable that before the Sandman, the black goo and whatever it is that happened to the dude who lost his memory, the only supernatural phenomenon the "people" knew about was Spiderman. Another interesting thing is that the two main characters, who are supposed to be in love and getting engaged don't ever kiss, but they both kiss other people. The eyeliner Peter Pan (whatever his name is) had on when he was possesed by the black goo was just lame. The movie had some good comedy hidden between the overly edited visual effects scenes. Questions like: Didn't that taxi already fall, Didn't they already get rid of Harry, Didn't they already kill the Sandman; couldn't help but bother my troubled mind during the final scenes right after my butt became numb. So That 70s Show guy just had to jump in with the goo? I could hear people around me going: what a dumbass! So true. In other news, they had an English woman reporting on the news, the newscaster looked really old, Harry died for like hours, PP is a big wuss, the final scene sucked big time. I would've settled for MJ (Michael Jackson?) just turning away from him at the funeral and that being it.
Oh...and how the hell does he take photos of himself? Self-timer?
Posted may 5, 2007 4:36 am pt
Not that great really. Her characters are always boring, and her performance is not so great. Her acting is nothing compared to other actors. Her role of Phoebe Halliwell on WB's Charmed, was in later in the seasons being created by herself,...
[+] Read Full Review
Not that great really. Her characters are always boring, and her performance is not so great. Her acting is nothing compared to other actors. Her role of Phoebe Halliwell on WB's Charmed, was in later in the seasons being created by herself, proving that she isn't a great director either.
Posted oct 22, 2005 4:43 am pt
She's absolutely amazing. She was/is the best actress with the best performance on both Melrose Place and Desperate Housewives. She's attractive, funny, and most importantly an outstanding actress. Her scenes are the most famous on television and...
[+] Read Full Review
She's absolutely amazing. She was/is the best actress with the best performance on both Melrose Place and Desperate Housewives. She's attractive, funny, and most importantly an outstanding actress. Her scenes are the most famous on television and her performance never goes unnoticed. The characters the played will forever be remembered.
Posted oct 22, 2005 4:35 am pt