Reviews

18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Merlin (2008–2012)
6/10
A lot of fun
6 July 2010
This series really surprised me, but in a good way. At first I was a little skeptical to watching a series not only focusing on Merlin as a main character (mostly because out of all the Arthurian characters, I never found him to be very interesting), but a young Merlin at that. This series was inspired by the concept of Smallville, and that's another reason why I was skeptical. I never considered Smallville to be a good TV show, in fact I thought it was very mediocre and kinda amateurish, but nonetheless I gave this show a chance, and thank God I did too.

Let me start by saying that Colin Morgan is one of many talented young British actors and that he brings a realism and a sincerity to his rendition of Merlin that really makes us, the audience, sympathize with him. Merlin's relationship with Arthur (Bradley James) is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why the show works. Their banter is always entertaining and serves as good comic relief.

Another thing I have to commend is the great story lines, and the fact that the writers were bold enough to make some changes to the legend we all know so well. Angel Coulby and Katie McGrath are great female leads. They give the series a rather feminine touch. Anthony Head is great as Uther. He plays the character we all love to hate which is a nice departure from the role that made him famous, Giles in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Richard Wilson is great as Gaius, Merlin's mentor.

The series also has great guest stars and recurring characters like Eve Myles, who's probably most well known for her role as Gwen in Torchwood, then there's the lovely Michelle Ryan playing the first season villain Nimueh, Santiago Cabrera as Lancelot, and Emilia Fox as Morgause, to name a few.

This is definitely worth a watch. For those of you that are very strict about the Arthurian legends, this might not be for you. But for those of you that love the legends and wouldn't mind a little departure from the original stuff than trust me you'll enjoy this.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Despite it's flaws it's still a very good film
4 July 2010
I saw this recently because I saw the review Siskel and Ebert gave of the film on youtube and since those guys were always pretty much on the spot I decide to watch it, and I was pleasantly surprised.

The movie revolves around Peggy Sue Bodell, a beautiful woman on the verge of divorcing from her high school sweetheart Charlie Bodell played wonderfully by Nicolas Cage, who after fainting at her high school reunion finds herself back in time to the year 1960 when she was still a senior in school.

The movie works so well because Kathleen Turner is such a fantastic actress and she really channels the character of Peggy Sue. This is unlike any character she'd played before. Not sultry or sexy, but bubbly and quite funny. But the real standout here is Nicolas Cage. His unusual voice is only one of the more brilliant things about his performance. Charlie has a whiny kinda high pitched voice which tells us a lot about his character even before we get to know him. But it's not just his voice, it's the heart he gives to his character that makes us see why the beautiful and popular Peggy Sue falls for him.

The film also features great performances by Catherine Hicks and Joan Allen who play Peggy's loyal friends, Carol and Maddy. And it also introduces us to newcomers like Helen Hunt and Jim Carey, who are now household names. Also outstanding performances by Barbara Harris and Don Murray as Peggy Sue's parents.

The rest of the cast is also great including Sofia Coppola as Peggy Sue's little sister Nancy, it's not much, but it's way better than her trainwreck performance in the Godfather III.

Great direction by Francis Ford Coppola, who usually directs more serious stuff, but still makes an enjoyable comedy. If the film has any flaws it's perhaps in the script. Though there's great dialogue some of the stuff felt forced like when Peggy Sue visits her grandparents, and her relationship with Kevin J. O'Connor's character. It sometimes felt like they were trying to cram too many things together and the end felt a bit rushed and disjointed, but apart from that it's still a very good film and a very funny and effective comedy. It's definitely worth a watch.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Backbeat (1994)
3/10
The Story of Stu Sutcliffe, the lost Beatle...Who cares?!
2 July 2010
Honestly I expected much more of this film than what I got. As a dedicated Beatles fan I was appalled by what I was watching. First of all the script is clearly flawed, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies, among one of the things that enraged me was that they basically made Paul McCartney out to be the villain of the story when in fact that was the farthest thing from the truth. In fact John wasn't actually that upset when Stu told him he wanted to leave the band he was more upset with the fact that Stu was staying in Germany and not returning with them to Liverpool.

Another thing that didn't anger me, but annoyed the hell out of me was Stephen Dorff's awful Liverpudlian accent. It was just really annoying and it took me completely out of the story. No matter how much Dorff resembles Sutcliffe he is the worst choice to play this role. I don't believe that at the time he was an experienced actor that was prepared for a role as demanding as this one. The dialogue was pretty shoddy, apart from the stuff being uttered by Hart, Bakewell and O'Neill. Honestly every time Sheryl Lee and Stephen Dorff opened their mouths I wanted to puke. The love scenes were cheesy and dated. Also in real life Miss Kirchherr didn't even know a word of English and had to communicate with Stu and the rest of the lads with a dictionary. Wouldn't it had been easier for them to have hired an actual German actress who spoke English to play the role of Astrid rather than an American with a crappy German accent. Also the music being played is very punk rock, a genre and a style that didn't even exist back then. The producer of the film said "this was done to better convey the way the music came across to the audience, at the time", well as "wonderful" as an idea as that is, what it does is to confuse and annoy the audience especially real Beatle fans like myself that have seen footage of the real Beatles performing classics like Long Tall Sally which was by the way massacred in this film. Another thing, the whole movie sells it self as the story of Stu Sutcliffe, the Beatle that could have been. Honestly who cares? What people want to see going in to this film is John Lennon, or Paul McCartney or even George Harrison, or poor Ringo, who doesn't even have lines in this movie he's in it for less than a minute and he's lying on a bed sleeping for the entire two seconds he's on the screen. Could it have hurt the producers to give the poor guy a line or two if merely for the fans' sake, also Ringo was one of their closest friends in Hamburg and even played a few gigs with the Beatles themselves when Pete Best didn't show up to some gigs, which was actually quite often. So it wasn't like they were going to stretch the truth if they gave the actor playing Ringo a bigger role. But no instead they write more crappy love scenes between Dorff and Lee who barely have any chemistry. Poor Astrid Kirchherr, she is portrayed in this movie as a lovesick, slutty harpy who tore Stu and John apart. She was actually very close to all the Beatles even Paul, who had his differences with Stu.

It would have been more interesting (and better) if the film focused not only on Stu, but on all the Beatles and presented the growing problems with the band, like Pete Best's absence and his lack of interest, or the songwriting partnership between John and Paul and the fight for leadership, or George's frustration as the youngest member of the band, or their growing friendship with Ringo.

But not all is bad, there are some good things though not many. Ian Hart is absolutely fabulous as John Lennon, if there is one person who can completely embody the icon it's him. He delivers the lines so well that it feels like he's improvising some of the stuff, and who knows maybe he did. Gary Bakewell looks and acts like a young cocky Paul McCartney and does what he can with what is given to him. He's written like a villain, even though for most of the film we actually agree with him but that's also due to the fact that the writers in trying to make Sutcliffe interesting and sympathetic due the exact opposite, he's just an annoyance and as soon as he's on the screen you want him to go away. Scot Williams and Chris O'Neill also do a pretty good job with the little they're given. Lee's accent is atrocious as is Dorff's and that pretty much messes their whole performances. Jennifer Ehle is passable as Cynthia

No wonder the real Cynthia Lennon was upset when this film came out, she's portrayed as a pathetic melodramatic woman. It's not Ehle's fault though it's more the writers and director's fault. I don't even know what kind of pathetic research Ian Softley did when he wrote the script and made this movie, but obviously he should of done more.

The ending is sappy and melodramatic, but what do you expect from such a cheesy and historically inaccurate biopic.
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disgusting, disturbing and vulgar
21 August 2009
I'd heard a lot about this film before watching it and I most say I was vaguely disappointed. Because I was expecting worse. Don't get me wrong this film is disturbing on so many levels. It is also very disgusting. I gagged when I was watching the "dinner" scene. Also the final sequence is also tough to watch.

The only reason why I was disappointed it's because I'd heard so many people talk about how awful the film was and that it was the most disturbing film they'd ever seen, and I guess I just wasn't that disturbed. Maybe it's because in the time we now live there's so many sick people out there that this film didn't really affect me so much. I'd rather watch this film again than have to sit through the evening news.

Still if you're looking for a film which will disturb you and make you wanna vomit then look no further. Frankly I found the film more disgusting than disturbing. I recommend not eating before watching this film more so if you have a weak stomach.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best directorial debut ever
21 August 2009
It's kind of hard to imagine that Quentin Tarantino never went to film school after you watch his film debut, Reservoir Dogs. Why? Because it's probably one of the best films of all time. It's one of those films that is just perfect. The casting, the score, the editing...In general everything.

First let's start with the casting. Everyone embodies their characters so well that it's kind of hard to think of the actors without thinking about their roles. Harvey Keitel is great as always. He plays the honorable Mr. White. Then there's Steve Buscemi's Mr. Pink, who is always a professional and doesn't believe in tipping waitresses.

There's also Michael Madsen as the psychotic Mr. Blonde, and Tim Roth as the quiet and mysterious Mr. Orange. Chris Penn, Lawrence Tierney, Eddie Bunker and Q.T. himself, also give great performances as part of this ensemble cast.

The music is amazing and it fits the film perfectly. I mean who doesn't remember Little Green Bag from the infamous opening sequence.

Q.T. is one of those natural talents. Even without going to film school he delivers an amazing film. What I love about this movie is that it's so complex and yet it's so simple. It's a low budget film, but the audience barely notices that because Tarantino makes the film play out like a big blockbuster. He spends every penny well getting just the right footage. He makes the characters appear larger than life.

I think aspiring filmmakers out there who can't afford to go out to college to study film should take Quentin Tarantino as an example that you don't need to go to a fancy school to do what you love.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Good special effects, bad storyline
19 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Okay...How do I even begin to name all the things that went wrong with this film. Okay first I'll start by saying it's pretty bad, not Dragonball Evolution bad, it's actually tolerable, but it's still bad.

First they got they got the storyline completely wrong. The Baroness isn't romantically linked to Duke. She has always been faithful to Destro. Snake Eyes and Scarlett are suppose to be romantically linked, but that was thrown out of the window. Oh and then they killed Cover Girl! What else...The flashbacks were pretty much pointless, personally I found the Snake Eyes/Storm Shadow flashback to be tedious and infantile. I think they're rivalry could have been explained without having to waste so much time.

Sienna Miller was worse than usual. I have nothing against her personally, but she does nothing for me. I've seen better acting from a cardboard cutout. Channing Tatum is mediocre at best. The rest of the cast is okay. The best performances were pulled off by Christopher Eccleston who plays Destro, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander.

There were some scenes that were so cheesy I almost burst out laughing in the theater, but I contained myself.

Also I know the film has some sci-fi elements, but still there were some things that were too outrageous. One thing that bothered me is that the Baroness' husband is a Baron who is also a scientist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most people who are related to royalty and have a formal title don't work. I mean has anyone ever heard of a Baron scientist! I thought not. Maybe I'm just picky, but for some reason that really bothered me.

The Cobra Commander storyline is again wrong as well. He is not related to the Baroness. He wasn't acquainted with Duke, he was not a soldier, but a used car salesman.

They basically took the original storyline and crapped on it. But I don't expect much from Stephen Sommers. Nothing against the guy personally, but he has no real creative imput in any of his projects. I think his best film to date has been the first Mummy flick. And even the Mummy wasn't that good. He is just one of those directors who's specialty is to make summer popcorn movies with stereotypical and dated plot lines.

I guess the only thing positive I have to say is that the film delivers in the special effects area. That's about it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doubt (I) (2008)
9/10
You can never be too certain
7 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The film's title says it all, this is a film that fills us with doubt.

The film takes place in 1964 and follows Sister Aloysius, the strict principal of a Catholic School in the Bronx. When Sister James (Amy Adams) informs her that Father Flynn (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), the parish priest, called a student to the rectory alone she is convinced that Flynn has overstepped his boundaries. The student in question is Donald Miller, the only black student in the school.

She confronts Flynn, who defends himself and after the confrontation Sister James thinks that Flynn is innocent, but Aloysius doesn't think so. She still firmly believes that Flynn has an inappropriate relationship with Donald Miller.

Meanwhile Sister James after seeing Father Flynn embrace Donald warmly begins to have doubts about the priest's innocence.

Aloysius tries everything to prove that Flynn is guilty even calling Donald Miller's mother, Mrs. Miller to the school to speak to her. In the film's quintessential scene Mrs. Miller tells the nun that Donald's father hits him, and does not express disgust or outrage when Aloysius speaks her suspicious of Flynn's indiscretions, which leads the elder woman to believe that Miller is not a very good mother. She coerces Mrs. Miller, like she coerces Sister James, into believing her.

At the end of the film there is a confrontation between Aloysius and Flynn. Flynn looses the fight, but does not confess. At the end of the film Aloysius tearfully reveals to Sister James that she has doubts.

After watching this movie your mind is racing, and if you're like me you are left with a somewhat uneasy feeling after watching the dubious ending. John Patrick Shanley does a great job as he adapts his award winning stage play into feature film. If anyone else had adapted his play, it just wouldn't be the same. Shanley knows these characters in and out, they are his characters and that's one of the reasons why the film works.

Streep as always delivers a great performance. It's funny how someone like Streep can be in a fun musical like Mamma Mia!, and in a tension filled drama like Doubt in the same year. It just shows you that she is an actress filled with diversity. I believe she can play any character she wants to because she fully commits to her performance. Some say that her performance as Aloysius is a caricature and too over-the-top, but I believe that if you're going to play a character as cold, manipulative, and strict as Aloysius that you might as well do it right or not do it at all, and that's what Meryl Streep does, she fully commits to this role.

Amy Adams is wonderful as the innocent young Sister James. We the audience are a lot like James because like her, we are caught in the middle of Flynn and Aloysius' battle and we don't really know who to believe. Viola Davis is a revelation as Mrs. Miller, she's probably in two scenes in the whole movie and yet her performance is probably the best in the whole film, she definitely deserves her Oscar nomination. Phillip Seymour Hoffman delivers a great performance as Father Flynn. The tension between him and Streep is palpable and it makes the film all the more watchable.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of the best films of '08
27 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The story begins with Julia Ormond as Caroline sitting by her mother's deathbed in a New Orleans' hospital as Hurricane Katrina approaches. Her mother, Daisy, is played beautifully by the extremely talented Cate Blanchett. Daisy asks Caroline to read her a journal which use to belong to an ex-lover of hers, named Benjamin Button. But Benjamin was no ordinary man, he was born as he was approximately eighty years old, and instead of growing older he began to grow younger.

Benjamin is played by Brad Pitt in one of his most emotionally arresting roles. Benjamin is abandoned by his father after his mother dies in child birth. A black couple who work in a nursing home find Benjamin, and decide to keep him and raise him. Queenie (Taraji P. Henson) becomes attached to Benjamin as she is unable to have children of her own. Henson plays Queenie so well, that we feel the warmth and love that he characters emits through the screen. She falls in love with Benjamin, and we fall in love with her which makes her departure later in the film very emotional not just for Benjamin, but for the audience as well.

Benjamin meets a young girl named Daisy, and he quickly develops a strong friendship with the girl which lasts a decade. Later the two are separated when Benjamin goes off to work in a tugboat. They visit Russia where he meets a British woman played by Tilda Swinton and he falls in love with her. The British woman is married, but she has a short-lived affair with Benjamin before leaving abruptly without saying goodbye. Benjamin is visibly heartbroken. He soon forgets about his heartbreak after he gets caught up in World War II after the tugboat where he works is enlisted in the army, and they are attacked. The owner of the tugboat and Benjamin's employer, Captain Mike dies along with other sailors.

After this accident Benjamin decides to go back to New Orleans where he meets a dying Thomas Button who reveals his true identity. Benjamin makes amends with his father before he dies. Meanwhile Daisy is working as a successful ballet dancer in New York City and she has also fallen in love with a fellow dancer. While working in Paris Daisy has an accident which halts her career, Benjamin goes to comfort her but she spurns him coldly. But destiny brings Daisy and Benjamin together again after she goes to New Orleans and they fall in love. They stay together for some time before Daisy gives birth to a daughter, Caroline. Benjamin leaves after realizing that Daisy cannot take care of two children and that he will not be able to be a good father due to the fact that he will grow younger.

Later Benjamin and Daisy meet again. The latter has gotten married and started a life without Benjamin. The two have a one night stand, but they both realize that Daisy has gotten to old for Benjamin. Daisy later takes care of a infant Benjamin who is suffering from dementia. She stays with him in the nursing home until his death. In a very emotional scene Daisy says goodbye to Benjamin as he dies in her arms as a newborn baby.

The film has a lot of emotional scenes, like when Benjamin and his father make amends just before Thomas dies, Benjamin's death in Daisy's arms, the scenes with the younger Benjamin and Daisy, Queenie's funeral, and Daisy's death. For emotional people such as myself this is definitely a cry-fest. But it's so much more than just a tearjerker, it's one of those rare films that you can watch a thousand times and still find something new to marvel at. David Fincher shows why he is a great director, this film is so different from his usual work. He usually does suspense and he is good at it, but here he shows a much softer side to his work as he brings a dramatic romance to the screen. Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt are reunited for the second time, the first time being Babel, and no wonder why. They have great and undeniable chemistry. Pitt is also reunited with director Fincher, and his Burn After Reading co-star, Tilda Swinton.

Definitely a great film with a great message. It's one of the best films of 2008, and worth the watch. Trust me even though it's long, it will not bore you. Every minute is essential and entertaining.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Pure poetry
26 April 2009
This movie changed the way I looked at tearjerkers for ever. I honestly think that if this movie had never been made we would have never gotten other great tragedy/romance flicks like The English Patient, Titanic or Atonement.

Again David Lean is wonderful as he tells the story of two star crossed lovers caught in the middle of the Bolshevik revolution. The film has great acting by Julie Christie, Geraldine Chaplin and Alec Guinness, just to name a few. But the best performance is given by Omar Sharif who plays the title character. His performance as Zhivago is amazing. The emotions his character is going through play clearly in his eyes, there are not many actors who can do so much with so little. Originally Lean wanted Peter O'Toole to play Zhivago, but he declined because he was exhausted after doing Lawrence of Arabia. This caused a rift between Lean and O'Toole, but frankly I'm glad Peter declined because I just can't see anyone else, but Omar Sharif in that iconic role. This was David Lean's most commercially successful film, and a lot of that is owed to the raw chemistry that Sharif and Julie Christie share on screen. This movie is like poetry been captured in film. The cinematography is beautiful, the editing is great, and the film score works with the atmosphere.

There's few films which leave me breathless after watching it and this is one of them.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Masterpiece
26 April 2009
This film could be considered David Lean's magnum opus, in other words his masterpiece. The late David Lean was a talented British director who made his name with films like Oliver Twist (1948) and The Bridge on the River Kwai. However in 1962 he released Lawrence of Arabia to the masses. This film was the one that won him the Oscar for best director.

The film tells the story of real life British soldier, T.E. Lawrence. The movie is partially based on Lawrence's autobiographical account, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Lawrence is sent to Arabia by his superiors to help the Arab revolt against the turks.

The film has great cinematography by Freddie Young, and an epic music score by Maurice Jarre. This film swept the Oscars in 1962, and it deserved each and every one of them. This is one of the rare films that deserves the praise it gets. After you watch it you can see how it influenced other directors like Martin Scorsese, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.

The film features a breakout performance by Omar Sharif. And it made Peter O'Toole a star. After this Omar went on to do the extremely successful Doctor Zhivago, also directed by David Lean, and Peter went on to do other critically acclaimed films like Becket, Lion in the Winter, and Man of La Mancha, among others. Anyone who enjoys a good old fashioned epic with a lot of great performances then this is the film for you.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
REC (2007)
One of the best horror films of the decade
25 April 2009
REC is a adrenaline pumping Spanish horror flick directed by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza. The film revolves around a television reporter who along with her cameraman get involved in a cover up by the police who quarantine a whole apartment complex after a mysterious sickness breaks out in the building. The origins of the illness and where it came from remain a mystery until the very end of the film, and even after that some things are still left in the dark and I actually think that this is intentional. Throughout the film things develop and things start to look scarier and scarier than before. The film utilizes shaky camera-work like that used in Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project. The shaky camera-work does it's job and you feel like you are there with them. It's an adrenaline rush, I actually had to stop the film once to catch my breath. The film was so successful that it spawned an American remake and a soon to be released sequel. I watched the remake Quarantine and I still think the original is the best. I'm also very excited to see REC 2, hopefully it will live up the first one.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A great improvement by Columbus
25 April 2009
Like I said in my review of the Sorcerer's Stone, this film is a definite improvement by director Christopher Columbus from the first one. I think Chris was more comfortable and took more chances with this one. One thing that I couldn't help, but notice was how the cinematography changed. In the first film the color of the film is golden and bright, while in this one is a darker color and the brightness has been considerably diluted. Columbus said in a documentary about the making of this movie that the cinematography here was darker, because it suited the feel and environment of the story much better. In the first one everything is bright because we are getting to see Hogwarts for the first time, and it helps the audience fall in love with the school just like Harry. While in the second one we are already comfortable with the surroundings so things get darker because we see a darker side of Hogwarts that we didn't see in the first one. Again great acting by Radcliffe, Grint and Watson. And some great performances by newcomers Kenneth Branagh, Jason Isaacs, Christian Coulson and Bonnie Wright. This is a great movie for kids and families, and a great addition to the HP franchise.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Zodiac (2007)
8/10
It's no Seven, but it's still a great film
25 April 2009
Sure this movie is not Fincher's masterpiece Seven, but it's not to say that it does not stand as a great film. It's a great movie that has you in the edge of your seat even if you already know what's going to happen because it's common knowledge and who hasn't heard of the infamous Zodiac killer. He terrorized San Francisco and his case remains a mystery to this very day. I think everyone back in those days who lived in California had an idea of who the Zodiac might be. What makes this serial killer so interesting and what differences him from others is the fact that he willingly gave clues. He told people what he was going to do he just never told you when. He liked to play cat and mouse games with the cops, and he liked to taunt the media. He was egoistical and arrogant, he knew people were afraid of him and what he might do next and he enjoyed that.

The movie holds great performances by it's leads; Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and the great Robert Downey Jr. Fincher is great as always utilizing shadows, noises and the night as his ally in the story telling. The film's pace is a bit slow, but it's worth a watch. Fincher once again shows why he is a great story teller. He never falter in any of his films and he always delivers. He has already been nominated for an Oscar and one day he is going to holding one, that's a no brainier.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
One of my favorites
25 April 2009
Okay I'm gonna say this honestly, I absolutely love this movie. Take in mind that I've read the novels, I'm a big fan and I watched this movie for the first time when I was 10. This is a good adaptation of a great book, but I will say that the only thing that disappoints me now when I watch it is that I can't help, but imagine what it would have been like if JK's first choice of director had been picked (Terry Gilliam). Terry would have definitely been more creative and he probably would have brought something different to the table. I agree with British film critic Mark Kermode, Columbus does have a rather "bland and straight-forward" direction style. Now that may work in some movies, but not in a fantasy film like Harry Potter. I must say though in his defense that second movie was much better than the first one, and it seemed to be an improvement for Chris who was probably a lot more comfortable with his surroundings, and had a better relationship with the actors. Still both films are a bit bland in comparison to the rest of the franchise, most of all if we were to compare the first two, to the third one which was directed by the wonderful Alfonso Cuarón, who's style of direction is considerably different from Columbus'. Apart from the blandness the film is great fun for the whole family, and there's always a distinctive energy when you're watching a new HP flick in theaters with a bunch of enthusiastic fans. People are saying now that Twilight is going to replace HP, but I don't think so. The Twilight fan base is only a third of the HP fan base, and the film series is close to been the biggest franchise of all time, and I think they can actually accomplish that. There's great acting by everyone, most of all by the Golden Trio, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and the lovely Emma Watson. Also stand out performances by Maggie Smith as the strict but fair Professor McGonagall, and Alan Rickman as the "greasy git", also known as Professor Snape. Richard Harris excels as the Headmaster of Hogwarts Academy, Dumbledore. He plays Harry's mentor to a tee. And I have to say I sorely miss him even if Gambon is doing a great job as his replacement. I just wish Richard would have lived far enough to finish the film series, but I guess you can't get everything you wish for.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Atonement (2007)
9/10
Heartbreaking
24 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a chick, which means I love tearjerkers and this film is no exception. I wasn't actually going to see this movie, but my mom bought it along with Love Actually. They were both in an economy pack and it was really cheap and since mom liked both films' DVD covers she bought them. And so I watched Love Actually first which I didn't really care for. Then I watched Atonement a few days later, and this film just blew me away. I haven't read the novel so I can't compare them or judge one or the other, but I can say that this is one of those films that if you haven't read the novel you will still understand it because it is so well explained and told so brilliantly by Pride and Prejudice director Joe Wright. And from both films I can already tell he's going to be a high in demand director.

****WARNING MAJOR SPOILERS****

The story is about a thirteen year old overly creative girl named Briony Tallis, who is an aspiring writer. She comes from a wealthy English family. The year is 1935 and World War II is rapidly approaching. One hot summer day soon turns into a chaotic one when Briony witnesses an intimate moment of sexual tension between Cecilia, her older sister, and Robbie, the housekeeper's intelligent son who goes to the same University as Cecilia. Briony misinterprets this innocent moment and thinks that Robbie is somehow assaulting her sister.

After Briony reads a letter meant for her sister from Robbie, she makes up her mind that he is a sex crazed pervert who is obsessed with her Cecilia. Later that night she witnesses Robbie and Cecilia in the mists of passionate lovemaking in the library, she mistakes their act of love and believes that Robbie has raped Cecilia. Later when Lola, her fourteen year old cousin, is raped while searching for her twin brothers who have "run away", Briony is the only one who witnesses the act. She convinces not only Lola, but herself that Robbie is the rapist.

Lola immediately believes her as does the rest of her family all except Cecilia who maintains that Robbie is innocent and defends him during an interrogation with an inspector. But it is simply not enough to save poor Robbie from been prosecuted and sentenced to years in prison. When the war begins however five years later, Robbie is permitted to leave prison so he can enlist in the army.

The rest of the film consists of the troubles and pains that both Robbie and Cecilia have to go through after Briony's lie tears them apart. They fight to be together, but it seems like they are destined to be apart. Meanwhile Briony grows older and as she does she realizes the mistake she has made and is later revealed during the movie that petty jealousy was perhaps the reason why Briony made up the lie. Of course Briony doesn't realize until later that her lie has horrible consequences not only for Cecilia and Robbie, but for the rest of her family including her cousin Lola.

Vanessa Redgrave delivers a great performance, however short, as the elder Briony.

What I love about this film is that at the end you are left somewhat empty because we find out that she never truly realized the kind of damage that her lie caused, and she never truly achieves her atonement by not telling the complete truth and disguising it with something that makes her feel less guilty about what she has done.

This film has great performances by McAvoy, Knightley, and newcomer Saoirse Ronan. I am definitely looking forward to Saoirse's upcoming performance in The Lovely Bones. Another thing I love about this movie is the film score by Dario Marianelli.

If you like romance, tearjerkers and intricate story telling that this is must-watch for you.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Best Film I've seen in a really long time
24 April 2009
What can be said about the Dark Knight that hasn't been said before? This film is amazing...AMAZING with capital letters. Those who haven't seen it should rent it and watch it as soon as they can. I think that apart from the original Star Wars and The Godfather, this is possibly my favorite film of all time. It is not overrated like so many claim. It's one of those rare films that surpasses the hype. I'm going to make my review short cause honestly I don't think I can say much of what hasn't already been said by audiences and critics alike. Great directing by Christopher Nolan. I think he's a talented director and someone we should watch for because he is going to keep dazzling us with complicated, intricate and entertaining movies for years to come. I actually think he's going to be one of those director's that is mentioned with the same awe and appreciation as Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Coppola and Steven Spielberg. The film also has top notch performances by Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Eric Roberts among some others. But the best performance is delivered by the late Heath Ledger. His performance is the stuff dreams are made off, he is not only the best Joker, but he is also the best villain, in my opinion, of all time. He is downright awesome. Anyone who likes superhero movies should watch this film, it's like the Godfather of all superhero flicks.

If you haven't seen it yet watch it. It's long, but it's worth the time.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Top Gun (1986)
7/10
Incredibly cheesy, but still great 80's fun
24 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
They just don't make films like they did in the 80's. The hairdos, the attitudes, the cheesiness, the realism...

I love Top Gun despite the fact that the movie is outdated for todays fast paced CGI loving audiences, the plot is a little too simple for my liking, some of the acting is over the top and stereotypical *cough* Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis *cough*.

But I still love it because it represents it's decade so well. From the very beginning, the music, the yellow lit back round, the aircrafts being maneuvered around the hanger (I'm a chick so I'm not sure if that's what it's called, but whatever). It screams 80's, and that's why it's so good. It's one of those staple films of it's decade along with other classics like Risky Business(which also starts Tom Cruise), Beverly Hills Cop, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and other great flicks.

But the cheese ain't the only other fault in this movie. Though I'm a big fan of Top Gun the movie does have it's flaws. One, too cliché...From beginning to the end the film is filled with stereotypical clichés maybe that's what makes it so cheesy. Another flaw too much music...Again the film is just jam packed with classic 80's tracks which gets a bit annoying after awhile. The third flaw no chemistry between McGillis and Cruise. Every time I watched Kelly McGillis trying to woo Tom Criuse I cringed. I found these scenes to be boring and a waste of good time. Fourth flaw, the movie drags on in a few scenes. Apart from a few flaws the movie is a great popcorn flick and a lot fun. It should be regarded for what it is a true classic and one of Tom Cruise's best films to date.

Another I have to point out is the fact that the film is subconsciously homoerotic. I know you have all heard this before but it's the truth. Of course this little known fact was made known to the otherwise ignorant masses by none other than Quentin Tarantino in the 90's flick Sleep With Me, and after you watch his famous monologue in that movie you have to admit it does make a lot of sense. As watching the movie recently on TV, and I decided to rent for further inspection. The scenes with Val Kilmer and Tom Cruise are filled with sexual tension most of all the "dangerous" scene. Awkward...

Also what the hell was that volleyball scene about anyway. It seemed to make no sense what so ever. But at the end of the day, the cheesiness, the over-the-top acting, the homoerotic subtext, the stereotypical and almost forced in love story make it the great film that it is. Actually I think it's the flaws that make this film so much fun to watch and so enjoyable. Also the incredible fighter-jets sequences are amazing. The fact that this movie was done before CGI became the big thing in Hollywood makes it so real because you know those aircrafts are real. The danger those stunt men where in when flying those fighter-squadrons is real. You can't fake stuff like that.

The realism of the action sequences is I think a reason why the film remains so popular today. Another thing about this movie is that it introduced us to a lot of actors that weren't that well known back them like Michael Ironside (from earlier Scanners' fame), Anthony Edwards, who went on to do ER, Meg Ryan, Val Kilmer and of course how can we forget Tim Robbins' infamous cameo, he's literally on the screen for like five minutes or less on only two scenes in that entire movie.

Not only did it make these no name actors house hold names, but it also made it's two main stars leading 80's stars. Kelly McGillis most well known role before Top Gun was that of Rachel Lapp in Witness opposite Harrison Ford, but this was the movie that made her a leading lady. She would go on to start in other 80's flicks like Made in Heaven and The Accused. And then there's Tom Cruise who rose to the limelight with another 80's classic Risky Business, but this is the film that propelled him to real stardom and made him a huge box office attraction. After this he went off to start in other classics like The Color of Money, Rain Man, Days of Thunder, A Few Good Men, Interview with a Vampire, Mission Impossible, Jerry Maguire, and Magnolia just to name a few.

I must say that recently when I was watching this movie and Goose dies I actually began to tear up right when Maverick (Tom Cruise) is holding his body in the middle of the ocean and when he goes to Goose's house to pick some of his personal items from the navy and he shuts the door just before he sees Meg Ryan's character and starts to cry. I thought that apart from his typical badass performance throughout the whole film this scene in particular is some of Cruise's best acting to date. Say what you will about the guy, but he can act, and if you doubt his acting ability even after seeing that scene watch A Few Good Men, Magnolia, Interview with a Vampire and Collateral, I personally think those are his best performances.

Overrall this is a great movie for people who love 80's flicks. It's also a movie that makes you smile, laugh and possibly cry as well. If you haven't seen it then watch it. Trust me is better than some of the garbage we are forced to watch these days.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
10 Reasons Why you shouldn't watch this movie...
10 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not bad, it's awful. The acting is mediocre at best. The direction is bad, the special effects are not very good. You would think that a movie with a big budget would have at least have good special effects, but alas this is not the case. The thing that really bothers me is that this movie had some potential, but unfortunately the bad casting, the overall plot, the dialogue and the acting just weren't there. Here's ten reasons why you shouldn't watch this movie: 1. Bad casting - I don't know who thought it was a good idea casting Justin Chatwin as Goku or Emmy Rossum as Bulma. I think Emmy is a great actress but she is definitely not the right choice to play Bulma.

2. Dubious setting - Where does this story take place. It's like some urban/desert place. The setting is way off, and they never do tell you where the story is taking place.

3. Bad acting - I have nothing against Justin Chatwin, but it wasn't even like he was trying to act. The only one that I think did a tolerable job was James Masters, and even he wasn't performing to the best of his abilities.

4. BAD special effects - Okay the special effects in this flick where laughable and completely not believable. I dare anyone to keep a straight face when Goku transforms into Oozaru. There were people giggling behind me, giggling...Need I say more.

5. It's PG - Now there is nothing wrong with PG movies, but when the original material is violent, outrageous and bloody there's definitely something wrong. They took everything that was cool about Dragonball and erased it. They tried to make the movie so family friendly that it lost everything that made it Dragonball.

6. Bad adaptation - They got the casting wrong, the characters are all wrong, the actors don't act like their counterparts. The costumes are wrong. Where's Bulma's blue hair? Where's Yamcha's scar? Nowhere near this movie that's where.

7. The direction is all wrong - Did anyone really think that James Wong was ready to undertake a project this big? Now I'm not dissing James Wong as a director, I'm just saying that clearly he wasn't ready to direct and helm a big budget blockbuster.

8. God-awful script - A script determines whether a movie is gonna be gold or whether is gonna be trash. The dialogue is gag worthy, it's cheesy, stereotypical, and downright lame. Some of the films important plot elements aren't fully explained, and the storyline is all over the place.

9. Score - The score is actually tolerable, but it just doesn't fit the storyline, or the mood of the characters.

10. Too short - I found the film's length to be too short. Why because there's too much information being cramped in. It's only 84 minutes long, which is not good for a film with so much complex story plot points. The film's length might be why it falls short.

I can only conclude that this film is not worth spending ten dollars. If you're still curious go ahead watch it, but know that not only are you wasting money, but valuable time as well.
19 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed