Reviews

Firstly, I will say that it is still a great film, and I may be biased having read the book and seen the BBC version.

The movie takes a great deal of liberties with the story. That is expected, but the liberties were taken a bit too far in certain places. Lengthy scenes that never existed were added. There also seemed too be a bit too much male ego flying around that was not apparent in either the book or BBC film.

My biggest qualm with the film is the casting of Prince Caspian. The actor is nearly 27 at the time this movie hit the theaters! If I recall, Prince Caspian was supposed to be early teens. That is a huge divergence, and he has been recast for the next installment, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is supposed to have a jump of maybe 10+ yrs from this story. Needless to say, I am biased, having read the book and seen a previous adaptation.

The last criticism is that Edmund was not utilized as much as he should have been. Both the actor and character were even better in this film than the previous.

On to the good points. Fight scenes were done well, but were not quite as epic-feeling as the last battle in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. However, they were much faster paced than Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe's (adding to my own desire for this movie to have been 30 mins longer). Artistry and cinematography were top notch, just as it was in the first movie. The villain, Miraz, is no Tilda Swinton, but well cast nonetheless--better than the BBC's version in my opinion. The best casting choice was Eddie Izzard for Reepicheep. PERFECT choice -- I cannot think of anyone who could've done a better job at that role.

All in all, very good movie. It is DEFINITELY worth seeing in the theaters on the big screen. It is a beautiful movie, but it is simply not quite as good as it could have been (and not as good as the first movie).

Upon re-watching this film, I had to lower my rating of it. The acting lies somewhere between tolerable and OK. Guy Pierce did an infinitely better job acting in Memento.

As with any adaptation of a book, there will be things left out; however, the degree to which this movie butchered this fantastic novel is inconceivable. Firstly, the movie is lopsided with the early portions of the book receiving remarkably more screen time than the later parts. Some of the characters names might be the same, but most of the movie deviates far from where the actual story went. What is left is a story lacking the same insights, intrigue, characters, and character development. Without giving direct examples, there are moments when the conclusions simply don't add up if you really think about them.

This movie was designed to be an action/romance flick without any complexity. He might swing a sword, but he's not the Count of Monte Cristo. This is just some movie with the same name as the book and other more accurate renditions.

The French miniseries (6+ hr long) is a much better film (with slightly better acting), but even that takes liberties with the story. If I recall, the anime version seems the closest.

Firstly, the story isn't bad at all, although it'll hardly win any awards. It's pretty difficult for horror movies to continually be original, and this certainly has some moments in it. The villain seems to have some originality; it's not some Chucky imitation. The story lacks depth, and the characters aren't fleshed out at all. The real point of this movie is to be a horror film and nothing more. After the first few (poor) scenes, this movie does one of two things: keep you waiting to jump or trying to make you jump. From the rest of the audience's reactions, I'd say it did a pretty good job at that.

The acting was nothing to write home about, but for this genre, it's more good than bad.

Overall, I would say this a horror movie that deserves a trip to the theater. Compared to many of the sad horror attempts that come out, this isn't too terrible. And it doesn't rely on an abundance of gore like many others do.

I agree that this leaves gaps the original doesn't and in general, does a poor job with the characters. However, I really don't understand how anyone can give this a 1/10. There are worse movies out there, plenty of them.

While the basic story is the same as the original, there are significant differences. This remake tries to go for a darker feel, which is entertaining but doesn't work as well as it could. The acting, character development, and method by which the story is retold is sub-par.

The movie is entertaining and worthwhile to see if you aren't someone biased against remakes on principle. It's possible this is scarier than the original (although neither is truly scary), but the original is a superior movie as a whole.

I will admit upfront that I did enjoy this more than the original, which I did watch BEFORE seeing this. The story is fairly similar to the original yet still different enough for fans of the original to be entertained. The biggest difference I find between the two versions is how they try to scare you. The original takes a more dramatic, psychological approach. For some, this is far more enjoyable, and unfortunately, I believe a lot of critics only value this type of horror while overlooking other aspects of the genre. This new version still retains a bit of the psychological aspect but utilizes a lot more shock value than its predecessor. When it comes down to it, shock value is the sure bet. Many people get "immune" to the normal scare tactics, but for example, something loud and screechy jumping out at someone when it's least expected -- that can make even the most stalwart of horror fans jump. I feel this remake contains enough shock value in combination with an adequate amount of psychology, which was prevalent in the original, to warrant the score I gave it. However, like the title of my post indicates, some people will still want the subtleties, drama, and psychology of the original. Both versions of the story are equally good and the acting, in my opinion, is comparable. Pick your poison.

There is no doubt about it that Wells did groundbreaking stuff as far as how he filmed this movie, which adds support for many critics claiming this to be the best movie of all time. Both the story and acting are equally as enjoyable. So...why do so many people dislike Citizen Kane? Because there's no action and no killing. It's easy to see that many Americans want to see movies that are superficial with tons of action. These movies are certainly enjoyable to watch, but they're a dime a dozen. Many Americans also dislike black and white movies on the simple fact that they don't have color. ("Many" doesn't indicate a majority, just a statistically significant amount.) The last "drawback" that Citizen Kane possesses is that it is already highly acclaimed. People hear so much about this movie that what they expect is a completely unattainable level of greatness, and many people already know the significance of rosebud prior to seeing this movie for the first time. However, despite these "drawbacks" Citizen Kane still manages to hit the top ten on IMDb. As other reviewers advise, watch this movie for what it is. Don't expect action, killing, explosions, or CG effects. Expect filming ingenuity, great acting, and a great story.

I went into this movie expecting some originality, but alas, I was sorely mistaken. It has 2 twists in it, one which is very predictable. The plot is quite shallow, and the whole movie tries to rest on a few things: Angelina Jolie, Angelina Jolie losing her shirt, and the one, not extremely obvious, twist in the movie. Under no circumstances should this be your first choice of movies to go see at the theaters; only see it if you are a movie fanatic, like myself, and have already seen all the other movies available. Leave this halfway entertaining though not at all critically notable flick for rental.

5/10

This was such an awesome horror movie! Certainly, the acting was not oscar quality by any means, but it wasn't terrible and you have got to realize...THIS IS A HORROR MOVIE. I think the way they start and end the movie is a nice touch. The beginning of the original does give an eerie feel, but the ending gives no real conclusion. The plots of the two versions are similar as in they both have a leatherface, 5 kids, and the heroine is female. Other than that, not much is the same. I feel leatherface has more to him in the new one. He's not simply a person wearing skin on his face who kills people like in the original. Overall, the plot just has more substance to it in the remake, and the atmosphere is just scarier. This remake has a very nice way of building up the creepiness, the anticipation, the suspense, and the feeling that "you are alone and there is no one to call or turn to". Then you have killing. Also, this movie has just the right amount of blood; there is not too much at all.

It's very easy to identify what about it made it unique. Unlike a lot of horror films, especially many of the modern slashers, Children of the Corn managed to be a terrifying tale without much gore. Instead, what makes the film great in my opinion is how disturbing it is. It portrays cult fanaticism and the power of ideas.