Danny H.'s Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

This user has no Want to See movie selections yet.

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

Minotaur (2006)
6 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

perfectly blending CG animation with a realistic robot, this re-telling of Theseus is not only fresh and new, but at times frightening. The Minotaur may not be half-beast/half-man as most would expect, but it has a certain presence about him that makes him a very frightening monster and whenever he's on screen you know this thing is a force to be reckoned with. Syfy has a habit of making terrible movies that usually fall under this genre, but Minotaur stands out with it's brilliant direction, and great cinematography. I recommend this film if you are a fan of Greek Mythology, or monster horror.

Automaton Transfusion
7 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

a bad zombie film with nearly every zombie cliche and teenage horror film shock scare involved. it tries so hard to be a hardcore film but needless to say, it fails. it's more like a bad music video for underground screamo bands, any who are stupid enough to let director Miller use their music. acting that is between subpar and under average with an out of nowhere plot twist so bad M.Night Shyamalan would blush and say "what a stupid twist". the film wouldn't be so bad if it didn't take itself seriously, but every step along the way it has to be over-the-top and "hardcore". yes because punching babies out of pregnant women is totally hardcore right? it's the worst part of the 90's mixed with zombie cliches and the best gore 30000 bucks can buy. which is probably why they couldn't get competent actors because they spent every dime on the gore. the zombies are by far the worst zombies in any film I've ever seen. they're either too strong, too smart, too stupid, too weak, too over-the-top. the main characters have between no personality and border on insane, oh sorry! did I say insane? I meant inane. you can tell Miller is an amateur director and an amateur writer and though I give him credit with a 30000 dollar budget the gore effects are nice. but over all the movie is a chore to watch as everything is so horribly directed, badly panned out and nonsensically arranged.

Gladiator (2000)
7 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

This film is a masterpiece. I don't think I need to go into too much detail. It had me cheering, it had me on the edge of my seat, it had me laughing, it had me in shock and awe, and at the end it even had me crying. This may be one of the most brilliant films I've ever seen. In the gesture of a Roman emporer...Thumbs up.

King Arthur
King Arthur (2004)
7 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

This movie sadly claims to be historically accurate. Even though there are several differences to Arthurian lore. Personally I think renaming a few characters, including the title character, and saying it's based on the characters in Arthurian lore. BAM! historical inaccuracies fixed and we have a cast of likable characters. But speaking of characters did anybody notice that Galahad was virtually useless in this movie? I don't recall him doing much at all. The guy portraying him wasn't a bad actor, by no means was he a bad actor, he did his job fairly well, but he had no purpose, in fact if you cut his entire character from the story, it would only cause minor confusion in a few scenes. I suppose having a character who has no purpose is better than being confused though. But had it been based upon characters in Arthurian lore we might not have had any useless characters. Gawain was also fairly pointless in this movie, but nowhere near as pointless as Galahad. But in retrospect at least everyone is likable in this movie I personally liked the portrayal of Tristan. A silent and deadly bad ass who could slay you with an arrow even if he barely sees you. If you ignore a lot of the historical inaccuracies this movie is actually kind of thrilling in many ways. It has great choreography, some talented acting, intelligent characters, and a decent script. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense to ignore historical inaccuracies when it claims to be the true story not to mention the fact if you put the name King Arthur on your movie you had better not heavily deviate from the source material because there are people like me who enjoy tales of Arthur Pendragon. But for a dark ages action movie, it's not too bad. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of issues. Which is why I gave it a 40%, it has issues but hey I didn't hate any characters and at least it didn't lose my attention.

Troy (2004)
7 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

I severely disagree with the synopsis on this movie. It had me loving the characters, hating the characters, loving then hating the characters, or hating then loving the characters. And Peter O'Toole gave a very VERY stunning and well delivered speech to Brad Pitt's character Achilles. It almost brought a tear to my eye. But I cannot ignore the historical inaccuracies what with me bitching about the King Arthur films inaccuracies and all. But the difference between King Arthur and Troy is this. Troy is more well put together, and it has a more coherent story. Other than the historical inaccuracies no other issues come to mind. It has everything a good movie needs, plot, characters, scenery, good script, great acting. So it's easily a 70.