Actuarial Science Movie Reviews

There's some fun super-techy-future mumbo jumbo, but if there is a larger statement here it's something involving pursuit of love and avoidance of hungry monsters, which seems a little too easy..

The result feels rather like watching a rube-goldberg contraption as it goes through the motions leading to a moment of .. no payoff. Just a fizzle towards the end.

The original book actually had a far-left-wing slant which is now far too radioactive for this kind of popcorn matinee. These people should have known what they were getting into and either made the real movie with that plot, or found another larger theme.

Saving the would-be girlfriend who only has 15 lines of dialogue and her tribe of clueless meat-puppets does not cut the mustard. This is a non-hunting dog. Don't waste your time.

Hokiest science around - radiation caused something to happen to Godzilla. There's baby zillas lurking around the edges. Anyway, skip all the "scientific explanation" (LOL) and let's get to the attack on New York City. A befuddled Matthew Broderick is paired with other actors who look as embarrassed as the rest of us who have paid $7.50 to get insulted. Needless to say, he did not break a leg hyping this particular little flick and it appears he is trying to hide.

It is just so bad - the CGI fight scenes are pure boredom, the dialogue so bad it's good (I contradict myself there) and the conclusion so lame you wish once again that Godzilla had won and destroyed Gotham. THis is a catastrophe that will somehow make a lot of people a lot of money - Go figure.

The biggest mistake, casting Matthew Broderick as the star. You have blockbuster material from the crew of Independence Day yet you get someone as boring and bland as Broderick? The last hit movie I remember him in was Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Since the early 90's he hasn't done anything worth mentioning, so why would someone get him to star in this film? Big name action figures like Wesley Snipes or Arnold S. would have helped this along but the film fizzled before it began. You have a blond woman no one knows and Hank Azaria ( a lame television actor ) to round out the cast. The movie needed more famous actors known for blockbusters. I would have preferred the older Harrison Ford to the sickening Broderick any day. Most of the characters were supporting and there were too many military shot scenes. Godzilla didn't even get a chance to roam around before the town was evacuated and we spend the next 90 minutes watching boring shooting scenes. Where's the fun in seeing Godzilla if he doesn't scare the hell out of people or stomp down buildings? The film turned from Godzilla to Attack of the Baby Godzillas. The second half of the movie was an insult to anyone with an IQ over two. Baby Godzillas chasing people around in an empty building? Oh yeah, that's interesting...YAWN.

The plot was something I couldn't explain even today...because I don't know it! The scenery was dark and drab simply to cover up the poor special effects. It rained throughout the entire film which seemed the only thing keeping me awake. I had to admit that this Godzilla monster rocked, but the movie didn't do him justice. I was hoping, praying that this movie would surpass the earnings of that sappy Titanic and become the biggest movie ever. So much for wishful thinking. Godzilla is a big boring mess and the only thing that will MATTER to you is when it's finally over. I suggest everyone watch it once, but anything more than that is suicide.

Let's see, where should I begin? Let me start with bashing Ripley's character. In a way, I can't blame the director of this film for wanting her character brought back, since she IS the Alien series to begin with. And Aliens 3 ruined it by haivng her chararacter die in the end, making another sequel with Ripley practically impossible. But leave it to sleezy hollywood to turn the impossible possibe, even when they should leave it be. Ripley comes back, cloned, only she's half Alien. So her blood is acid. Excuse me, how does a species that originates from another planet intersect, from a genetic point of view, with a human being? Answer: it can't, but this is sleezy hollywood.

Let's talk about the other characters. In short they are a bunch of buffoons. Space mercs or pirates (I don't really remember because this film never had my attention) that find themselves on a military ship with genetically altered Ripley and her children, which turn out to be her anvil-headed, slimey buddies: the aliens. Irony? No, just another typical cheezy hollywood horror movie follow up sequel. So these other characters, who serve no real point other than future victims, try to escape from this ship that starts to crawl with aliens.

All these characters, none of them, do we really give a hoot for. Ripley included. We don't like them, they are annoying half the time, or they have no depth. Winona Ryder is the stupidest of characters because she does little to contribute and just gets in the way most of the time. Her character does not intrigue me, it's boring, and her lines are lame. While Ripley has hardly any emotions, is super strong, and just makes a bunch of one liners. This isn't the Ripley we know and love, this is somebody or something else occupying Ripley's body and therefore we don't recognize Ripley in this clone. And Ripley, as stated earlier, is the series.

There is little to no suspense. Most of what one could consider suspense is so predictable, you know what's going to happen prior to it happening. Such as the alien coming up from the floor or having them escape at that is so easily detectable by anyone who has seen enough horror films or at least seen the other three in the series. This film does not scare me, the plot does not intrigue me, my attention span will span else where. This is a horrid film that attracts people to it just simply because it is part of the Alien series, which was made by the first two films.

Not to mention a pathetic ending with Ripley and one of her mutant offspring. By far the corniest part of this entire film was the end. The sign of a terrible movie is a pathetic twist in the end and the attempt to create sympathy towards a character we never felt anything from. We don't sympathize with Ripley like we did when she was stranded with a bunch of marines in a bunker in Aliens. Or when she's the only one coming to her senses as her entire crew gets wiped out in Alien. In Resurrection, we simply don't give a hoot about anybody in that film because no character development is attempted. So without good characters, a film such as this hoped to survive by either wowing us with special effects or corny twists, neither of which wowed me.

If you are or were hoping for another good Alien(s) movie, you'll go wrong if you think this one is it. This movie is the joke of the entire Alien Series. It has no suspense, no character development, and a pathetic plot that hoped to wow you with corny twists. Alien Resurrection fails to resurrect the series. They should've left it alone.

As with the second installment, this one has an action movie feel, with a tinge of humor. The plot starts out as believable as any of the films - the "Company" has taken a sample of the deceased Ripley's blood to genetically engineer a clone - Ripley + new alien queen. From the opening credits and a later sequence, it takes many, many tries - but eventually they accomplish their goal. However, as it turns out, the new "Ripley" is 99% human/1% alien, and the new alien queen is 99% alien/1% human. Once again, there is a great ensemble cast - including Winona Rider as a rogue android, playing upon Ripley's hate/love relationship with androids from the first two films. However, ultimately the film takes a turn that is all too frequent in sequels where there is a lack of creativity - too many bad guys (e.g., 'Batman Returns', 'Batman Forever', 'Batman & Robin' (a/k/a 'Batman On Ice'). Namely, the abrupt birth of the human-alien hybrid in the last quarter of the film comes across as quite contrived (both in terms of special effects and plot) and ultimately betrays the franchise. The producers could have used the genetic engineering topic to create a much more subtle, but effective ending involving Ripley's character and divided loyalties, but they missed the opportunity.

These alien creatures attack and begin killing members of the crew on a space ship, along with some guests in transit and Officer Ripley. Ripley takes charge, and leads everyone in the effort to simply kill these creatures. In the end Ripley and her gang of cowboys prevailed, and all the creatures were dead.

The writers overlooked an excellent chance to demonstrate how life SHOULD be. When Ripley and her compatriots were first attacked, they should have asked themselves, "Why do these creatures hate us?" And then they should have spent a significant amount of time examining their own behavior, to determine what faults or misdeeds of theirs had provoked the creatures to attack and kill them. Next, Ripley and her bunch should have sought to form a coalition of some sort, dealing with a space equivalent of the United Nations, to pass resolutions against the creatures' violent behavior -- not against the creatures themselves, mind you, but only condemning their behavior. Then, they should have sent inspectors to the creatures, to monitor compliance with the resolutions.

THAT is how this story should have played out -- with the creatures living according to their own cultural/religious rules, and everyone else having to accommodate the fact that the creatures simply are going to kill/terrorize people from time to time. That is the creatures' culture, and it was up to the others to understand, appreciate and accept that culture.

The sad fact is, Ripley and her people did not make enough of an effort to appease these creatures. They showed absolutely NO signs of tolerance, diversity, inclusion or compassion. Well, that's not wholly true. That character portrayed by Brad Dorff was extremely compassionate in his last scene toward the end of the movie, praising the creature as "beautiful, beautiful, beautiful" just before the thing bit off his head.

Well,the men in black are back,but not better than ever.This movie isn't that great.Its slightly entertaining though,and some parts are sort of funny.The storyline is not very great though which means the movie isnt that great.Its not a total disaster but its far from being good.If you don't see Men in Black II your not going to miss anything special but if you do see it then you might have a slighty decent time watching it.I would say you should rent it.Its not worth buying though.Oh yeah,and one more thing,Johnny Knoxville is in this movie.Just wanted to tell you that.

Well,the men in black are back,but not better than ever.This movie isn't that great.Its slightly entertaining though,and some parts are sort of funny.The storyline is not very great though which means the movie isnt that great.Its not a total disaster but its far from being good.If you don't see Men in Black II your not going to miss anything special but if you do see it then you might have a slighty decent time watching it.I would say you should rent it.Its not worth buying though.Oh yeah,and one more thing,Johnny Knoxville is in this movie.Just wanted to tell you that.

Well,the men in black are back,but not better than ever.This movie isn't that great.Its slightly entertaining though,and some parts are sort of funny.The storyline is not very great though which means the movie isnt that great.Its not a total disaster but its far from being good.If you don't see Men in Black II your not going to miss anything special but if you do see it then you might have a slighty decent time watching it.I would say you should rent it.Its not worth buying though.Oh yeah,and one more thing,Johnny Knoxville is in this movie.Just wanted to tell you that.

Protecting the environment is a good thing and if the dinosaurs in question had been discovered as survivors of the reptile age in some remote part of Antarctica then taking extreme action to protect them would be justifiable. However the dinosaurs in question are not really dinosaurs but artificially created creatures that are part frog anyhow. They are not real dinosaurs. They have not been raised in the real Jurassic environment (we'll ignore that T-Rexes are from the Cretacious period not the Jurassic for simplicities sake). There is little to be learned from studying them. So the comments of various characters that messing with the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures is wrecking some sort of ecological system is bogus. The pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures are interlopers into a real ecological system and it is the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures that are ruining the ecology of the islands.

In fact, eco-wackos are always going on about how evil humans are wrecking the environment by introducing foreign species that wipe out the native ones. So the Eco-terrorist phony journalist character from Greepeace should be helping the hunters capture the darned things!! In addition to this the eco-terrorist directly precipitates the death of the first guy in Goldblum's party by stupidly taking a wounded faux T-Rex baby to their camp. This in addition to his criminal act of releasing the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures which destroy the hunters' camp, eventually resulting in the slaughter of almost all of them. The eco-wacko journalist character should have been arrested, tried for the deaths he caused and permanently removed from society. Either life at hard labor or execution would be fine. He is protecting animals that are not even real dinosaurs! And he has no justification under the Endangered Species Act to do so. Especially on foreign soil.

The pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures were created by the Ingen corporation, were they not? So how on earth can Ingen be considered evil for simply making use of the things? Anyone who buys dead animals to eat at the supermarket is also to be reviled I guess. Ingen spent a lot of money developing these creatures, so whatever else their faults they deserve some credit, don't they? Not in Spielberg's mind.

The movie moves into utter silliness with the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog faux T-Rex's foray into SanDiego. We'll pass over just how the faux T-Rex managed to kill the entire ship's crew and then lock itself up in the hold. (Maybe it was the severed arm that cleverly waited until the T-Rex went back in the hold and then lowered the doors.) Faux T-Rex runs down the dock and destroys the big sign that proclaims the authority of the United States of America. This is supposed to symbolize that the US is powerless against pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures, I guess. However this is not true and any US Marine company has the fire power with its heavy weapons to easily slaughter any number of pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures.

Enough lecturing. Still, the movie is entertaining. The added unintentional laughs that result from Spielberg's eco-wackoism only add to the entertainment value.

Protecting the environment is a good thing and if the dinosaurs in question had been discovered as survivors of the reptile age in some remote part of Antarctica then taking extreme action to protect them would be justifiable. However the dinosaurs in question are not really dinosaurs but artificially created creatures that are part frog anyhow. They are not real dinosaurs. They have not been raised in the real Jurassic environment (we'll ignore that T-Rexes are from the Cretacious period not the Jurassic for simplicities sake). There is little to be learned from studying them. So the comments of various characters that messing with the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures is wrecking some sort of ecological system is bogus. The pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures are interlopers into a real ecological system and it is the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures that are ruining the ecology of the islands.

In fact, eco-wackos are always going on about how evil humans are wrecking the environment by introducing foreign species that wipe out the native ones. So the Eco-terrorist phony journalist character from Greepeace should be helping the hunters capture the darned things!! In addition to this the eco-terrorist directly precipitates the death of the first guy in Goldblum's party by stupidly taking a wounded faux T-Rex baby to their camp. This in addition to his criminal act of releasing the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures which destroy the hunters' camp, eventually resulting in the slaughter of almost all of them. The eco-wacko journalist character should have been arrested, tried for the deaths he caused and permanently removed from society. Either life at hard labor or execution would be fine. He is protecting animals that are not even real dinosaurs! And he has no justification under the Endangered Species Act to do so. Especially on foreign soil.

The pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures were created by the Ingen corporation, were they not? So how on earth can Ingen be considered evil for simply making use of the things? Anyone who buys dead animals to eat at the supermarket is also to be reviled I guess. Ingen spent a lot of money developing these creatures, so whatever else their faults they deserve some credit, don't they? Not in Spielberg's mind.

The movie moves into utter silliness with the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog faux T-Rex's foray into SanDiego. We'll pass over just how the faux T-Rex managed to kill the entire ship's crew and then lock itself up in the hold. (Maybe it was the severed arm that cleverly waited until the T-Rex went back in the hold and then lowered the doors.) Faux T-Rex runs down the dock and destroys the big sign that proclaims the authority of the United States of America. This is supposed to symbolize that the US is powerless against pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures, I guess. However this is not true and any US Marine company has the fire power with its heavy weapons to easily slaughter any number of pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures.

Enough lecturing. Still, the movie is entertaining. The added unintentional laughs that result from Spielberg's eco-wackoism only add to the entertainment value.

Protecting the environment is a good thing and if the dinosaurs in question had been discovered as survivors of the reptile age in some remote part of Antarctica then taking extreme action to protect them would be justifiable. However the dinosaurs in question are not really dinosaurs but artificially created creatures that are part frog anyhow. They are not real dinosaurs. They have not been raised in the real Jurassic environment (we'll ignore that T-Rexes are from the Cretacious period not the Jurassic for simplicities sake). There is little to be learned from studying them. So the comments of various characters that messing with the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures is wrecking some sort of ecological system is bogus. The pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures are interlopers into a real ecological system and it is the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures that are ruining the ecology of the islands.

In fact, eco-wackos are always going on about how evil humans are wrecking the environment by introducing foreign species that wipe out the native ones. So the Eco-terrorist phony journalist character from Greepeace should be helping the hunters capture the darned things!! In addition to this the eco-terrorist directly precipitates the death of the first guy in Goldblum's party by stupidly taking a wounded faux T-Rex baby to their camp. This in addition to his criminal act of releasing the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures which destroy the hunters' camp, eventually resulting in the slaughter of almost all of them. The eco-wacko journalist character should have been arrested, tried for the deaths he caused and permanently removed from society. Either life at hard labor or execution would be fine. He is protecting animals that are not even real dinosaurs! And he has no justification under the Endangered Species Act to do so. Especially on foreign soil.

The pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures were created by the Ingen corporation, were they not? So how on earth can Ingen be considered evil for simply making use of the things? Anyone who buys dead animals to eat at the supermarket is also to be reviled I guess. Ingen spent a lot of money developing these creatures, so whatever else their faults they deserve some credit, don't they? Not in Spielberg's mind.

The movie moves into utter silliness with the pseudo-dinosaur part-frog faux T-Rex's foray into SanDiego. We'll pass over just how the faux T-Rex managed to kill the entire ship's crew and then lock itself up in the hold. (Maybe it was the severed arm that cleverly waited until the T-Rex went back in the hold and then lowered the doors.) Faux T-Rex runs down the dock and destroys the big sign that proclaims the authority of the United States of America. This is supposed to symbolize that the US is powerless against pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures, I guess. However this is not true and any US Marine company has the fire power with its heavy weapons to easily slaughter any number of pseudo-dinosaur part-frog creatures.

Enough lecturing. Still, the movie is entertaining. The added unintentional laughs that result from Spielberg's eco-wackoism only add to the entertainment value.