Change Your Image
jrt_joe
Reviews
Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006)
What have you done?!
I was so excited about this film. I absolutely love the books, and although the trailer of the movie implied a few silly changes had been made, I still thought it would be true to the heart of the book.
What a travesty. From the moment it began I knew that being a fan of the book was not a good idea. Alex Pettyfer is not Alex Rider. Since when was Alex Rider actually particularly good at being a spy. In the film, he's already far better than any spies MI6 have to offer before he goes to training. HE'S MEANT TO BE RELUCTANT. The training camp is supposed to be a huge task for him, but apparently falling off a zip wire to music by the Gorillaz is a tough training programme.
The characters became gimmicky and ridiculous, they were like cartoon caricatures. Jack Starbright is not some kung-foo, puffer-fish loving idiot that she is in the film. Alicia Silverstone is wooden and irritating. Alex Pettyfer spends the entire duration of the film content with the fact he looks good, and doesn't feel the need to really look upset or happy or anything when these kind of emotions are required. He basically sat back, had a few facial shots of him looking moody filmed, and let his stunt double do the rest. Smithers - Stephen Fry what are you doing?? He was sarcastic and moody, he's meant to be practically the only jolly person Alex meets. And MISSI PYLE MAY JUST BE THE MOST IRRITATING ACTRESS EVER. WHAT WAS SHE DOING?!? If at any time the film started to redeem itself, she'd come on stage and run into something and say something in her ridiculous accent (By the way, that entire sequence with Jack and her made me want to walk out).
Everything was wrong. All the suspenseful moments from the book - Alex swimming under water in the mine, the jellyfish scene, the quad bike scene (which wasn't even in the film, and is one of the best scenes in the book), EVERYTHING, was just rushed and ruined, and linked together with bad one-liners such as, "what is this, Hogwarts?"
Utter, utter farce. If you are a fan of the book, do not waste your money. The Alex Rider films will certainly not be getting any more of my money.
READ THE BOOKS!
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
The Best Potter yet, though that isn't saying much.
The first three Potter films are some of the lamest excuses for a blockbuster ever. I always thought they picked all the wrong actors, the child characters became chartoonish and slapstick, and the screenplay is some of the hokiest, most clichéd stuff written (Especially the first film). However I feel that they are improving with age, and that GoF is the best yet.
I understand that there are so many 'purists' who hate the films because they leave out so much of the books' content. But the films need to stand alone, and shouldn't be compared to the books. I was initially upset after watching the film as I realised there was a lot left out, but would you really want to see this book made into two films? The first film would be this long introduction that is exciting in the novels, but would be boring and stretched out when translated into the film. The first film would be 2 hours of Harry Potter before he even starts the first task. Plus aside from that the actors would all look strangely years older than before when the 2nd of the GoF film was released, and they are growing up too fast as it is.
The action was kept fast-paced although I felt had I not read the book, I would have no idea what was happening (especially at the end with the 'Priori Incuntatum (excuse the spelling)', as all Dumbledore did was say the those words and then move on. However most of it was kept well organised, and I think they kept enough of the book's detail in to sustain the film.
At last, for all these years, the makers have promise a darker Harry film, and finally we have it. Scary, brooding and not for the very young, it captures the feel of the book, which I don't think the others did.
The older actors are all fantastic, especially Maggie Smith, who steals every one of the few scenes she has in the film, Brendon Gleeson, who is clearly loving being Mad-Eye-Moody, and finally Ralph Fiennes, who creates a chilling Voldemort that we have all been waiting for. The only adult I am slightly unsure of is Michael Gambon (Dumbledore). I know that he has tried to make Dumbledore his own, but at times he seems quite violent and shouty, a far cry from Richard Harris's portrayal. However, I do think he succeeds in making Dumbledore more human - in this film he really doesn't have the answers, through the previous books/films he was always there, all-knowing. But now he is unsure, and it effects him.
The child actors are improving with age, some faster than others. Emma Watson (who's Hermione in the first film was embarrassing), is the best out of the trio by far. She has a lot of emotional scenes, and she cries very well for her age! Rupert Grint is not bad, but is still left with the lines that make the 6 year olds in the audience laugh, but it is Daniel Radcliffe who is still unimpressive. With all due credit, he is SO much better in this film, and that could be down to direction, or just coming of age. His emotional scenes when he is crying at Cedric's body are actually moving instead of the laughable scene in PoA ("He was their friend etc etc") which was cringe-worthy. Hopefully he'll be better again in the next film.
The special effects are fantastic, and the dialogue is less cheesy but still pleases the younger audience.
Bring on Order of the Pheonix!
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
What A Let-Down.
The buzz surrounding this movie was massive. The huge amount of A-List cameos was ever-growing. It was all so promising! And yet...it sucked.
The child actors are the worst part of the movie ("You mean to say..that person in the woods...that was Voldemort" - Say this line in a monotonous way, exactly the same as you deliver every other line, there you have Daniel Radcliffe). Emma Watson is the only half decent child actor here, yet compared to other child stars (Dakota Fanning, anyone?)she is rubbish. You actually see the 'trio' mouthing each other's lines along with each other. Heheh, quite funny really! The dialogue is laughable and all the darkness yet sly humour from the book is sucked out and replaced by cheap toilet humour.
Admittedly, the films are getting better as each one goes by, but I just pray Goblet Of Fire is good.
Halloween (1978)
The Most Overrated Horror EVER?
Okay, granted I wasn't around when this film originally came out, but COME ON, even with the tiny budget it had, it could have been so much better. I think if I hadn't watched it knowing it is thought of as a 'classic' horror movie, I would have thought 'Below Average'. But when it is put up on a pedestal for all other horror movies to draw from, you wonder why.
Bad Lighting - For about 3 murders I actually had to rewind several times to make sure someone had died.
Poor Deaths - The scariest thing I saw was the bit where Michael Myers smashed the plant pot. One of the corpses blinked for chrissake.
In all completely overrated, I only saw it to see what all the fuss was about, but I still don't know.