Rating: 
Summary: WOW!
Review: I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS MOVIE TO COME OUT. I HAVE SEEN THE PREVIEW AND IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD. MATTHEW LILLARD REALLY DOES SHAGGY'S VOICE REALLY GOOD. I DO THINK THAT FREDDIE PRINZE JR. WAS BAD CASTING.BUT I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD MOVIE.
Rating: 
Summary: It Looks Like Total [garbage].
Review: I saw the trailer for this movie and found myself asking, "My God! Where did filmmaking go wrong?!" First off, I the original series was great. Better than good, but not amazing. i have seen every episode though, and I must say, this "movie" looks like a piece of [garbage]. First off, Sarah Michelle Gellar as Daphne. She's a bad actress in her own right, and Daphne NEVER, as far as I know, took kickboxing lessons, or was tough in the least! She's supposed to be the stereo-typical hair, makeup, and fasion oriented red-head chic. Second, Freddie Prinze Jr. as Fred. He's also a bad actor. He doesn't look like Fred. He doesn't sound like Fred. The only things the casting directors probably looked at were that he's popular, and he has the same name as the character. Third, Linda Cardellini. She's not a bad actor, but she appears to absolutely [stink] as Velma. She doesn't sound like Velma, and never says "Jinkies" once in the entire trailer! Instead, she says, in a deeper, "hipper," tone, "Let's get jiggy with it." Matthew Lilliard's preformance as Shaggy appears to be uncanny, and he has great chemistry with Scooby Doo considering he's talking to himself on the set. Is it possible that the plot of the movie is that "ancient tiki-people disguised as casting directors and screenwriters have possesed Fred, Velma, and Daphne with bad acting and completely inverted personalities (except Fred, who doesn't have one at all), and it's up to Shaggy and Scooby to find a better crew before it absolutley bombs!?" Of course, if tis is true, they don't make it, and the movie bombs anyhow. Remember, a horrible movie is never a waste of money. It's a mistake that can be used as a valuable experience you can look back on when deciding to go see other movies!
Rating: 
Summary: Okay at best, but it doesn't beat the original series
Review: "Scooby-Doo" is okay. It's not that great of a film and it's not that bad. As much as I despise him, I have to say that Matthew Lillard does an excellent job as Shaggy. He's the best character in this flick. Linda Cardellini is good as Velma, but she has a couple of lines(ex. "Let's get jinky with it") that are just atrocious. Freddie Prinze, Jr. wasn't necessarily miscast as Fred, but the character was portrayed in a way that doesn't really reflect the character from the original show. Sarah Michelle Gellar was annoying as Daphne. Nevermind the fact that she pulled out the old kung-fu ala "Buffy," she's just not convincing enough in this role. The CGI Scooby was just that, a CGI Scooby. He looks fake, but dogs can't talk either, so I'm okay with that. His character is actually pretty good.The best part of this film is the opening scene with the Luna ghost. It looked as if it were straight out of the old series. Everything heads south from there. The characters, excepting Shaggy and Scooby, are weightless. The nasties are just plain silly and the jokes resort to sophomoric humor. I'm sure every thirteen year-old boy in the crowd got a laugh from the farting contest between Shaggy and Scooby. A few cuss words were thrown around, and Daphne puts a whipping on a wrestler-type baddie. Overall, this film works well with kids between the ages of eleven and sixteen. Younger kids MIGHT get scared by the bad guys, and the language can get a little rough for the really young'uns. For us older folks who grew up with the series, it's nice to see Scooby and the gang in a live-action format. However, I feel that this movie tries too hard to make itself appeal to all age groups. I also think that the director should have decided on whether he was making a nostalgic flick, a spoof, or an updated version using potty humor. It's watchable and somewhat funny, but you might want to rent this one before laying any money down for it.
Rating:
Summary: THIS IS NOT SCOOBY DOO!!
Review: This is a great live version of the SCOOBY-DOO cartoon- with some twists. For example, the cartoon's Daphne is cowardly, but here she finds her strength and kicks some serious tail. The story revolves around a request from the owner of Spooky Island, an amusement center, for the detective team of Mystery, Inc., which had disbanded, to reunite and help him find the cause of some unfortunate events that have happened there. Of course, they succeed. This movie is great for anyone 10 or older.
Rating:
Summary: Great for Drunks, Retards, and Kids
Review: Boy, this movie was pure junk, imagine the brady bunch meets Hong Kong Fooey and this is what you get. The script was probably written by an exec who was only thinking about money and not realizing that in order to make entertainment work, it has to "entertain". The list goes on about how to make a better movie but it will never happen since people are gobbling up this poo by the truckloads. And I should mention that Scooby is one of the stupidest creations ever made from a computer, he makes Jar Jar from Star Wars look like a dirty sock hand puppet.
Rating:
Summary: Thats retarted
Review: Dont waste your time with this. not only is the acting poor. but they totally screw up scrappy doo's well known part in the cartoon. and its just lame. an unbelievable. they try too hard to be funny.
Rating:
Summary: It`s hard to overcome the original cartoons!
Review: I really felt dissapointed, because as many movies coming from old popular cartoons, the plot was so silly and predictable that you could go to the kitchen, put some popcorn in the microwave, brew a coffee, rest 10 minutes and losing nothing important.
In these days, these movies just become a tournament about special effects. Silly and dumb.
Rating:
Summary: Sarah Michelle Gellar Great again
Review: I bought the scooby-doo2 monsters unleashed 1st. This wasn't available from Walmart when I wanted it.
My interest in this is based on Sarah Michelle Gellar. I've enjoyed everything she's done so far. This was better than scooby-doo2, but then sequels seldom live up to the original.
It has a PG rating which invalidates those ratings talking about how it will scare small children. And restates the obvious that this is NOT a movie for children.
This wasn't written for small children. It's in the same category as the word 'Campy'. It has subtle innuendo, and is aimed at the teen market and older.
It was enjoyable for the high quality sets, and story line.
I rated this 5 out of 5, and scooby-doo2 4 out of 5.
Rating: 
Summary: Bleah
Review: Yeah, bleah. The best way I can put to words my feelings about this movie is to say "bleah."
It's sorta not ever funny or interesting. It's sorta not ever watchable or entertaining. It's just bleah.
I'm also not sure why the female costumes were so scant and revealing, it is supposed to be a kids' film.
Sticking with "bleah"
Rating:
Summary: If the opportunity to run the director over ever came up...
Review: ...I would take it. Supposedly, Raja Gosnell is a fan of Scooby Doo. Yeah, my ass he is. He's a fan of the Scooby Doo show the same way Ang Lee is a fan of The Incredible Hulk comic.
Actually, I may have to give him more credit than that, though I don't want to. He DOES seem to resemble a fan. However, his usage of Fred, Velma, and Daphne is deplorable. Fred is a stereotypical jock in this movie, Velma is a "trendy intellectual" (i.e. a dumbass), and Daphne is.....well, I don't know what the hell she is, but it isn't good.
Scooby Doo has always had strange metaphors for their characters. Shaggy is, supposedly, a pot-smoking hippie. Scooby is, supposedly, satan in disguise. Fred is, supposedly, a closeted homosexual. Daphne is, supposedly, a prostitute. Velma is, undoubtedly, a lesbian. Don't believe me? Try going to a theist website.
It was not until new studios picked up Scooby that the metaphors were dropped because they were too controversial. Of course, they couldn't drop the Shaggy and Scooby metaphors because they were, needless to say, the staple of the series. You take that away and Scooby fans would be pissed off.
Anyway, the fact that these metaphors were changed so much were, needless to say, bad. These changes indicate that Gosnell is either a fan of the newer Scooby Doo (which no real fan should like too much) or that he's a dumbass. I would like to think both, but I'm sure it's the latter.
Even the concept was changed! In the movie, Velma felled in love with some guy (forgot who he was), Daphne was molested by a ghost, and somewhere along the lines, they all switch bodies. Gee, aren't we creative?
So the story goes like this:
After a mystery, the gang got angry, and split up. Later, a tycoon who needed their help sent for all of them, and they got reunited on an island paradise, but it is soon discovered that teenagers were lured here to be hypnotize. The monsters soon start popping up.
Sound familiar, Scooby fans? Yup, it's a few stories from the Scooby series taken, and fused together. The story was not really executed well, but the inside jokes were pretty good. There were jokes directed at Daphne, Scooby and Shaggy, Scrappy, and a few others. Ony particularly obvious joke is the one that suggests teenagers are being hypnotize by a certain someting. Of course, we all know that this is not true, and that teenagers are just really dumbasses.
Other nice surprises include the appearance of Rowan Atkinson! Of course, some of you preferred watching shows such as "Roseanne" (I understand), so you may not know him. He is otherwise known as Mr. Bean, from the TV show. There are a number of you who thinks his show failed. Think again, genius. His show was one of the most popular around.
Anyway, moving on, the movie is somewhat good, but I wouldn't say it's worth paying above $5 for. Matthew Lillard is incredible as Shaggy, though he is a little too muscular, but the rest of the crew could use some working up.
|
