Dear Every Other Reviewer of Twilight,
Please stop complaining about the plot of the movies. Everyone knows the story is silly already-- we read the books. For those viewers of the movie who did not (or did not wish to) acknowledge how silly/terrible the plot is, and what a disgustingly distorted and unhappy relationship dynamic it represents, your review means nothing. They will simply say "haters gon' hate" and throw your review in the trash.
Kindly focus on the cinematic aspects of the movie that failed. They were nearly as catastrophic as the plot elements that you spent your precious word count critiquing. However, as stated above, the flaws of the story were already there in the book. Leave criticizing those up to the book critics.
Please see my review below for an example of an honest consideration of the film's strengths and weaknesses.
Thanks,
Cait (The Complainer)
REVIEW:
This movie sucked and was majorly boring.
Hideously inept acting, extremely poor pacing, and ill timed and ill themed musical accompaniment soured the entire film experience overall. Little details like garish yellow contact lenses and unintentionally hilarious use of special effects kept everyone wondering why they paid to see to the movie in theaters. Lengthy "conversations" between snarling wolves and extremely corny love scenes provided handy moments for bathroom breaks. Taylor Lautner doing a laudable attempt at a crying breakdown, providing what was to be the only emotionally resonant moment of the film for me, served as a handy litmus test for just how bad the movie was overall.
I am still going to see the final installment. I have no justification as for why.
But please get a new editor or a new director or something. At least make me able to pretend I didn't waste my twelve bucks and 100 minutes.
Showing posts with label Adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adaptation. Show all posts
06 December 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
I want to preface this review by stating that the only reason I watched this movie was that it was the only thing in the house and I was desperate to avoid being productive for a time.
Why avoid the Pirates franchise, you ask? Well. I was already tired of the whole thing by the end of the second movie, and the third installment was so pointless to me that it actually made me angry. And yet! I set out to watch On Stranger Tides with some tiny, absurd grain of optimism. I believe I deserve a pat on the back for dredging up this speck of good will. Perhaps it sprung forth from the promise of mermaids and a hugely relieving lack of Kiera Knightley.
But let's not get too off topic. As you could probably predict, I was sadly disappointed yet again. Featuring a surprisingly uninteresting Penelope Cruz, an entirely indifferent Johnny Depp-- one small fraction of a bevy of other A-list actors who all appeared to be phoning it in-- the movie was another good example of how throwing money at a project will not and cannot make it entertaining.
It seemed the story was being made up by the director as the crew was dragged from overly elaborate set to unnecessarily exotic locale. Dialogue was entirely without merit. Performances were ho-hum, at best.
Cool special effects, unfortunate lack of any other aspect which deserves positive comment.
Blah. Don't waste your time.
Why avoid the Pirates franchise, you ask? Well. I was already tired of the whole thing by the end of the second movie, and the third installment was so pointless to me that it actually made me angry. And yet! I set out to watch On Stranger Tides with some tiny, absurd grain of optimism. I believe I deserve a pat on the back for dredging up this speck of good will. Perhaps it sprung forth from the promise of mermaids and a hugely relieving lack of Kiera Knightley.
But let's not get too off topic. As you could probably predict, I was sadly disappointed yet again. Featuring a surprisingly uninteresting Penelope Cruz, an entirely indifferent Johnny Depp-- one small fraction of a bevy of other A-list actors who all appeared to be phoning it in-- the movie was another good example of how throwing money at a project will not and cannot make it entertaining.
It seemed the story was being made up by the director as the crew was dragged from overly elaborate set to unnecessarily exotic locale. Dialogue was entirely without merit. Performances were ho-hum, at best.
Cool special effects, unfortunate lack of any other aspect which deserves positive comment.
Blah. Don't waste your time.
13 November 2011
Wit (2001)
A bitter, poignant, and meaningful TV adaptation of a stage play about a professor who has terminal cancer and decides to submit herself to experimental (albeit doomed) treatment for research purposes.
Emma Thompson in the lead role makes you wonder why other actors even bother getting out of bed in the morning.
100% worth your afternoon or evening. Bring tissues and maybe a hint of masochism.
Profoundly moving. Entirely worthwhile.
Emma Thompson in the lead role makes you wonder why other actors even bother getting out of bed in the morning.
100% worth your afternoon or evening. Bring tissues and maybe a hint of masochism.
Profoundly moving. Entirely worthwhile.
13 October 2011
Iris (Cirque du Soleil-- Kodak Center, Los Angeles)
Iris (pronounced the French way, "ee-rees") isn't a movie; it's a Cirque du Soleil show that's playing right now at the Kodak Theater (where they film the Academy Awards) in L.A., the theme of which is the history of cinema and movie making.
Needless to say, when I several months ago first saw the advertisements for this show, I was overwhelmed with enthusiasm and excitement. This buoyant feeling almost immediately (and predictably) devolved into anxiety that Cirque would somehow manage to screw it up and thereby incur my wrath for sullying the subject that has been my passion for quite some time now. Despite my apprehension, however, I ended up deciding to go to the show anyway, because I've been fortunate enough to have seen several Cirque shows over the last ten years and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.
Fast forward to September 11th, 2011 (yes, I'm a little behind on my blogging) and you'll find me nearly moved to tears within seconds of being seated before the show starts, because I can see from the get-go that the crazy French Canadian Guy Laliberte (CEO of Cirque du Soleil) has done yet another mind bogglingly competent job putting together a crazy-weird-circus-fantasy spectacle.
My favorite pre-show attraction was the female mime wandering the crowd with a metal contraption surrounding her body. She solicited several people to spin her curious cylinder-skirt, and when no one would do it fast enough to suit her needs she gave it a yank herself. To the delight of the crowd, her skirt (which resembled a film reel turned on its side) revealed itself to be a working zoetrope showing boxers fighting each other in a short, repeated loop. Rewind to February of 2005 and you'll find a fresher-faced me sitting in my history of early cinema class at UC Berkeley watching a very enthusiastic young professor (Professor Kaveh Askari, a graduate of the University of Chicago (?) if you were wondering) demonstrating much smaller versions of the same pre-cinematic device and others like it. This was probably the moment that I decided I loved film and wanted to learn everything about it, and so for the Cirque show to reference it meant a lot to me. (<-- huge understatement) The rest of the show was no different in terms of its emotional impact. Nearly every single aspect connected to some aspect of film as an art form, film history, or film production. Some of the references made were: - Norman McLaren's "Pas de deux"
- Georges Melies' "A Trip to the Moon"
- Edison's "Electrocution of an Elephant" (part of the Cinema of Attractions)
"The Kiss"
- Lotte Reiniger's "Adventures of Prince Achmed"
- Dziga Vertov's "The Man with the Movie Camera" or "The Cinematic Orchestra"
- The Al Jolson film "The Jazz Singer"
- And even what I took as a reference to a particular character from a Hayao Miyazaki film (Howl's Moving Castle)
All these references (and many, many more) were integrated with the usual Cirque spectacle of acrobatics, contortionists, a loose, somewhat dubious romantic narrative that ties the show together, wonderful live music, and some silly clowns which Cirque here opted to use to refer to modern day Hollywood industry stereotypes.
My favorite part was the McLaren reference, because it took a series of dancers and placed them in front of an enormous screen that showed their motion trails, just like in "Pas de deux". I also greatly relished the carnival/vaudeville aspect to this particular Cirque show (though I recognize it's a somewhat common theme throughout them and circus in general), because it connected back to the roots of film as a sort of freak show attraction. I also was just as much impressed by the integration of technology into the acts (I'm thinking in particular of one scene that's incredibly difficult to describe, so I'll leave it up to you to go experience it for yourself) as I was by the skill of the performers, some of whom are Olympic athletes.
I can't say whether many people in the audience understood these myriad references to cinema, but whether or not they did is not important to me. I loved the show because it reminded me of a time in my life not so long ago when I was ruled by a singular passion and drive inspired by the art form of film. Though this time isn't very far distant from me, it feels miles away. Because I am acutely aware of the literal (and metaphorical) distance I've traveled since those glorious days of oblivious (arguably naive) infatuation with my chosen subject of study, Iris moved me quite deeply insofar as it helped me reconnect with past moments in the sun, and I know this intensely personal experience would certainly not be what most people experience on seeing the show.
I highly recommend that you see Iris if you love film and you're in Los Angeles. You won't regret it.
Needless to say, when I several months ago first saw the advertisements for this show, I was overwhelmed with enthusiasm and excitement. This buoyant feeling almost immediately (and predictably) devolved into anxiety that Cirque would somehow manage to screw it up and thereby incur my wrath for sullying the subject that has been my passion for quite some time now. Despite my apprehension, however, I ended up deciding to go to the show anyway, because I've been fortunate enough to have seen several Cirque shows over the last ten years and I thoroughly enjoyed them all.
Fast forward to September 11th, 2011 (yes, I'm a little behind on my blogging) and you'll find me nearly moved to tears within seconds of being seated before the show starts, because I can see from the get-go that the crazy French Canadian Guy Laliberte (CEO of Cirque du Soleil) has done yet another mind bogglingly competent job putting together a crazy-weird-circus-fantasy spectacle.
My favorite pre-show attraction was the female mime wandering the crowd with a metal contraption surrounding her body. She solicited several people to spin her curious cylinder-skirt, and when no one would do it fast enough to suit her needs she gave it a yank herself. To the delight of the crowd, her skirt (which resembled a film reel turned on its side) revealed itself to be a working zoetrope showing boxers fighting each other in a short, repeated loop. Rewind to February of 2005 and you'll find a fresher-faced me sitting in my history of early cinema class at UC Berkeley watching a very enthusiastic young professor (Professor Kaveh Askari, a graduate of the University of Chicago (?) if you were wondering) demonstrating much smaller versions of the same pre-cinematic device and others like it. This was probably the moment that I decided I loved film and wanted to learn everything about it, and so for the Cirque show to reference it meant a lot to me. (<-- huge understatement) The rest of the show was no different in terms of its emotional impact. Nearly every single aspect connected to some aspect of film as an art form, film history, or film production. Some of the references made were: - Norman McLaren's "Pas de deux"
- Georges Melies' "A Trip to the Moon"
- Edison's "Electrocution of an Elephant" (part of the Cinema of Attractions)
"The Kiss"
- Lotte Reiniger's "Adventures of Prince Achmed"
- Dziga Vertov's "The Man with the Movie Camera" or "The Cinematic Orchestra"
- The Al Jolson film "The Jazz Singer"
- And even what I took as a reference to a particular character from a Hayao Miyazaki film (Howl's Moving Castle)
All these references (and many, many more) were integrated with the usual Cirque spectacle of acrobatics, contortionists, a loose, somewhat dubious romantic narrative that ties the show together, wonderful live music, and some silly clowns which Cirque here opted to use to refer to modern day Hollywood industry stereotypes.
My favorite part was the McLaren reference, because it took a series of dancers and placed them in front of an enormous screen that showed their motion trails, just like in "Pas de deux". I also greatly relished the carnival/vaudeville aspect to this particular Cirque show (though I recognize it's a somewhat common theme throughout them and circus in general), because it connected back to the roots of film as a sort of freak show attraction. I also was just as much impressed by the integration of technology into the acts (I'm thinking in particular of one scene that's incredibly difficult to describe, so I'll leave it up to you to go experience it for yourself) as I was by the skill of the performers, some of whom are Olympic athletes.
I can't say whether many people in the audience understood these myriad references to cinema, but whether or not they did is not important to me. I loved the show because it reminded me of a time in my life not so long ago when I was ruled by a singular passion and drive inspired by the art form of film. Though this time isn't very far distant from me, it feels miles away. Because I am acutely aware of the literal (and metaphorical) distance I've traveled since those glorious days of oblivious (arguably naive) infatuation with my chosen subject of study, Iris moved me quite deeply insofar as it helped me reconnect with past moments in the sun, and I know this intensely personal experience would certainly not be what most people experience on seeing the show.
I highly recommend that you see Iris if you love film and you're in Los Angeles. You won't regret it.
02 August 2011
The Illusionist (L'illusionniste) (2010)
The Illusionist is the animated interpretation of a script by the late great French filmmaker Jacques Tati. Directed by Sylvain Chomet (who was responsible for the much lauded The Triplets of Belleville (2003)), this film has a reputation for being compulsory viewing and is generally marketed as some type of Francophone animated masterpiece.
Admittedly, this aura of greatness is the justified result of being associated with both Tati and Chomet, whose honestly earned reputations managed to launch The Illusionist into that cringe-worthy category of film that "anyone interested in the cinema simply must see" and, implicitly, value and enjoy.
As you might expect, I could not wholeheartedly buy into the charm of this adaptation of Tati's work. Yes, the animation was charming. Yes, there were neat visual puns and clever tongue-in-cheek caricatures of various figures. Yes, there was a vicious rabbit and a wide eyed girl speaking Scottish Gaelic.
Yet there was a hole here, a gap. A lack. Charisma without depth, perhaps? The animation was nice, but not that creative. The story was gently frustrating, with safely low stakes for everyone involved. The extremely minimalistic dialogue was refreshing, but with so little a compelling story behind it, ultimately ill used.
Overall I sadly cannot recommend this film. If you're very interested in animation you'll probably watch it anyway, but consider yourself forewarned of disappointment.
Admittedly, this aura of greatness is the justified result of being associated with both Tati and Chomet, whose honestly earned reputations managed to launch The Illusionist into that cringe-worthy category of film that "anyone interested in the cinema simply must see" and, implicitly, value and enjoy.
As you might expect, I could not wholeheartedly buy into the charm of this adaptation of Tati's work. Yes, the animation was charming. Yes, there were neat visual puns and clever tongue-in-cheek caricatures of various figures. Yes, there was a vicious rabbit and a wide eyed girl speaking Scottish Gaelic.
Yet there was a hole here, a gap. A lack. Charisma without depth, perhaps? The animation was nice, but not that creative. The story was gently frustrating, with safely low stakes for everyone involved. The extremely minimalistic dialogue was refreshing, but with so little a compelling story behind it, ultimately ill used.
Overall I sadly cannot recommend this film. If you're very interested in animation you'll probably watch it anyway, but consider yourself forewarned of disappointment.
27 July 2011
True Grit (1969)
Just as valuable as the 2010 reboot but in different ways.
Props to Kim Darby (Yes, this Kim Darby), for bringing emotion to the table despite the silliness of her voice, acting style, and astoundingly Justin Bieber-like haircut.
When you watch this you'll be treated to another serendipitous and excellent minor role for Dennis Hopper. The more I see of his older work the more I want to watch of everything he's ever done.
I think my favorite part of watching this John Wayne classic was gaining a greater appreciation of the richness of the modern adaptation's roots. Each actor in the update really drew from and yet moved beyond the now charmingly outdated original.
It helped me understand even more why the recent adaptation of True Grit was nominated for best picture. Yay!
Props to Kim Darby (Yes, this Kim Darby), for bringing emotion to the table despite the silliness of her voice, acting style, and astoundingly Justin Bieber-like haircut.
When you watch this you'll be treated to another serendipitous and excellent minor role for Dennis Hopper. The more I see of his older work the more I want to watch of everything he's ever done.
I think my favorite part of watching this John Wayne classic was gaining a greater appreciation of the richness of the modern adaptation's roots. Each actor in the update really drew from and yet moved beyond the now charmingly outdated original.
It helped me understand even more why the recent adaptation of True Grit was nominated for best picture. Yay!
14 June 2011
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Hey. Everyone! Sorry I didn't post one single blog entry in the entire month of May. It was an intensely busy month, but it was not without movie watching, and neither was June. So consider the emptying of the now substantial backlog officially begun.
Up first, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World!
I waited a long time to watch this movie. When I first saw the previews for it way back when I thought it looked intriguing, but I was hesitant to allow my enthusiasm to grow because I had a tiny paranoid conspiracy that this movie was being marketed to appeal to a very specific subset of young adults to which I definitely (albeit somewhat reluctantly) belong. To make myself clear, I was afraid I was getting sucked in by cheap, glittery, hipster-y advertising tactics rather than by the potential of the movie.
To make matters worse, in the interim between seeing the trailers for Scott Pilgrim and finally watching it on DVD I picked up the comic in a local bookstore and was unimpressed by the illustrations. I'm an avid consumer of graphic novels, and I have to say that if I don't like the illustrations I'm seeing, I don't like the book. So strike two for Scott Pilgrim.
Anyway, the movie finally made its way up in my Netflix queue and I thought I'd give it a try if for no other reason than to have fodder for some actual complaints on this phantasmagoria.
I was pleasantly surprised. I liked the characters, I liked the effects, and I loved the pacing. The aesthetic was pretty cool, and the music was fun. There was some level of complexity there, and the relationships seemed decently real to me. I also really liked this character. Her blinding rage and her ability to bleep her own cuss words were thoroughly entertaining.
Overall, I'd suggest this movie to you if you're into comics/graphic novels, Canada, hipsters, music, hair dye, action/adventure type things, movies about 20-something creative types, Michael Cera, good acting, snappy writing, and good movies.
Up first, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World!
I waited a long time to watch this movie. When I first saw the previews for it way back when I thought it looked intriguing, but I was hesitant to allow my enthusiasm to grow because I had a tiny paranoid conspiracy that this movie was being marketed to appeal to a very specific subset of young adults to which I definitely (albeit somewhat reluctantly) belong. To make myself clear, I was afraid I was getting sucked in by cheap, glittery, hipster-y advertising tactics rather than by the potential of the movie.
To make matters worse, in the interim between seeing the trailers for Scott Pilgrim and finally watching it on DVD I picked up the comic in a local bookstore and was unimpressed by the illustrations. I'm an avid consumer of graphic novels, and I have to say that if I don't like the illustrations I'm seeing, I don't like the book. So strike two for Scott Pilgrim.
Anyway, the movie finally made its way up in my Netflix queue and I thought I'd give it a try if for no other reason than to have fodder for some actual complaints on this phantasmagoria.
I was pleasantly surprised. I liked the characters, I liked the effects, and I loved the pacing. The aesthetic was pretty cool, and the music was fun. There was some level of complexity there, and the relationships seemed decently real to me. I also really liked this character. Her blinding rage and her ability to bleep her own cuss words were thoroughly entertaining.
Overall, I'd suggest this movie to you if you're into comics/graphic novels, Canada, hipsters, music, hair dye, action/adventure type things, movies about 20-something creative types, Michael Cera, good acting, snappy writing, and good movies.
29 April 2011
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
I think this is my least favorite HP of the series. Moments like this can begin to show you why. I believe what bothers me about this particular HP installment is sadly obvious in the clip, despite the laughably poor quality of this video. If you don't pick it up, then I think you and I are on very very different pages in terms of movie taste.
But anyway, besides the over-the-top campyness used to portray the two visiting schools of magic, the main problem I have with the movie is that there is neither enough blatant silliness and nor enough disturbing darkness to really draw me into the film as much as the rest of series.
There are a few redeeming features, however, and experience of watching Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire is by no means a waste of time. My favorite aspects of HP4 are MadEye Moody, the portrayal of the nationalistic mania associated with the Quidditch World Cup, and the blunt sucker-punch of Cedric Diggory's death.
Plus, who can help but slyly grin at all of Ron Weasley's vaguely vulgar asides regarding the rear ends of the ladies of BeauxBatons? Certainly not me.
In fact, I find myself clinging to this film in a way, especially knowing what sort of emotional blows await me in the final chapters of the story.
While I look forward to seeing the development of my favorite characters (and the introduction of my alter-ego!) in the films to come, HP4 marks the turning point from which I may look back at the previous films with nostalgia for the innocence portrayed in them.
But anyway, besides the over-the-top campyness used to portray the two visiting schools of magic, the main problem I have with the movie is that there is neither enough blatant silliness and nor enough disturbing darkness to really draw me into the film as much as the rest of series.
There are a few redeeming features, however, and experience of watching Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire is by no means a waste of time. My favorite aspects of HP4 are MadEye Moody, the portrayal of the nationalistic mania associated with the Quidditch World Cup, and the blunt sucker-punch of Cedric Diggory's death.
Plus, who can help but slyly grin at all of Ron Weasley's vaguely vulgar asides regarding the rear ends of the ladies of BeauxBatons? Certainly not me.
In fact, I find myself clinging to this film in a way, especially knowing what sort of emotional blows await me in the final chapters of the story.
While I look forward to seeing the development of my favorite characters (and the introduction of my alter-ego!) in the films to come, HP4 marks the turning point from which I may look back at the previous films with nostalgia for the innocence portrayed in them.
20 March 2011
Red Riding Hood (2011)
A lot of close-ups on Amanda Seyfried's way too big eyes as she gazes unconvincingly longingly at some very not cute Edward/Jacob knock-offs.
Bewildering story, inane details (Large metal elephant that you can torture someone in by putting a fire under it??? How did anyone ever think this was a good idea?!), infantile delivery and editing choices. PS. There's a choreographed dance scene.
PPS. This movie sucked.
Worth a laugh, maybe, as a rental. Do not pay to see it in a theater. They couldn't even get the shots of the winter landscape scenery right. Ouch.
Bewildering story, inane details (Large metal elephant that you can torture someone in by putting a fire under it??? How did anyone ever think this was a good idea?!), infantile delivery and editing choices. PS. There's a choreographed dance scene.
PPS. This movie sucked.
Worth a laugh, maybe, as a rental. Do not pay to see it in a theater. They couldn't even get the shots of the winter landscape scenery right. Ouch.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
What I like most about HP3 is the large amount of silly, physically humorous moments scattered throughout. Scenes from the Whomping Willow's surprisingly brutal anti-bird maneuvers to the series of wonderfully thought through portrayals of the anti-boggart counter spell "Riddikulus!" keep me giggling like a sugar-high child throughout.
This intermittent laughter is a welcome effect, especially in light of the fact that this particular installment of HP really starts to delve into the dark and sometimes troubling complexities of grown-ups. In this movie we have a number of adult characters who have more than one side to their personalities, including the impulsive yet tender Sirius Black, the compassionate and monstrous Professor Remus Lupin, and the truly odious yet pathetic Peter Pettigrew.
I think HP3 definitely serves as an effective gateway into the more serious subject matter of the following films, with danger and despair growing ever closer to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yet here Rowling's magical world still provides marvelously relieving hints of hope, both in the form of magical devices (time turner, anyone?) and a strong sense of goodness in the people who count.
I hope you are as excited to keep watching as I am.
This intermittent laughter is a welcome effect, especially in light of the fact that this particular installment of HP really starts to delve into the dark and sometimes troubling complexities of grown-ups. In this movie we have a number of adult characters who have more than one side to their personalities, including the impulsive yet tender Sirius Black, the compassionate and monstrous Professor Remus Lupin, and the truly odious yet pathetic Peter Pettigrew.
I think HP3 definitely serves as an effective gateway into the more serious subject matter of the following films, with danger and despair growing ever closer to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Yet here Rowling's magical world still provides marvelously relieving hints of hope, both in the form of magical devices (time turner, anyone?) and a strong sense of goodness in the people who count.
I hope you are as excited to keep watching as I am.
13 February 2011
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
Intriguingly strange, at best. Horrifyingly depraved and depressing at worst.
Not fun by any means, despite the (now) cult-classic lines from Johnny Depp as Hunter S. Thompson.
Kind of felt dirty and nauseated by the end of it. Maybe that was the point?
Discomfort as the goal of the movie… hmm. I don’t know how I feel about this just yet. In fact, I couldn't even really pick many labels for the movie. Horror, I guess, was the only one that I felt could be accurately applied.
Overall—know what you’re getting yourself into before watching this one.
Not fun by any means, despite the (now) cult-classic lines from Johnny Depp as Hunter S. Thompson.
Kind of felt dirty and nauseated by the end of it. Maybe that was the point?
Discomfort as the goal of the movie… hmm. I don’t know how I feel about this just yet. In fact, I couldn't even really pick many labels for the movie. Horror, I guess, was the only one that I felt could be accurately applied.
Overall—know what you’re getting yourself into before watching this one.
29 January 2011
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
I like HP2 for two reasons: 1) “Diagon-ally!” And 2) Kenneth Branagh’s spot-on interpretation of Professor Gilderoy Lockhart.
It is not my favorite Harry Potter movie though, and also takes a back seat to the first installment for me, personally. Director Chris Columbus falters in maintaining the buoyant feeling of newness present in the first movie, but he also fails to commit to doing anything very different in other key areas. The biggest problem for me is that the stakes still are not very high for the three lead characters. Even Herminone’s petrifaction and Ginny’s involvement with and subsequent near death experience caused by Tom Riddle seem to get swept under the rug in terms their effect on Harry and Ron.
Nevertheless, overall I think HP2 is a movie worth watching. The magic is still there, if not in how the story is handled by the filmmakers, then certainly in the cinematic portrayal of Rowling’s magical world itself (including Dobby the house-elf (!!!), who is introduced in this film).
It is not my favorite Harry Potter movie though, and also takes a back seat to the first installment for me, personally. Director Chris Columbus falters in maintaining the buoyant feeling of newness present in the first movie, but he also fails to commit to doing anything very different in other key areas. The biggest problem for me is that the stakes still are not very high for the three lead characters. Even Herminone’s petrifaction and Ginny’s involvement with and subsequent near death experience caused by Tom Riddle seem to get swept under the rug in terms their effect on Harry and Ron.
Nevertheless, overall I think HP2 is a movie worth watching. The magic is still there, if not in how the story is handled by the filmmakers, then certainly in the cinematic portrayal of Rowling’s magical world itself (including Dobby the house-elf (!!!), who is introduced in this film).
The Green Hornet (2010)
Waste of time, money, and talent.
Incredibly boring action sequences, virtually no punch lines.
Unbelieveable, uninteresting, unsatisfying. Pretty much unwatchable.
Blughhghghghhhhh.
Incredibly boring action sequences, virtually no punch lines.
Unbelieveable, uninteresting, unsatisfying. Pretty much unwatchable.
Blughhghghghhhhh.
12 January 2011
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
For not having the most nuance of the series in terms of plot, humor, or acting, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone certainly wins out in other areas of arguably equal value.
Wonder-inspiring both in terms of visuals and content, and with optimism aplenty to be enjoyed by all, this first movie in the series easily manages to most appropriately bear the moniker “children’s media”. What’s more, even many years and many films later, I found that HP1 still possesses the delightful boon of being able to inspire an audience of adults to feel like children while they watch. At least I did.
Director Chris Columbus (whose projects include The Goonies (screenwriter - 1985) and Home Alone (director - 1990)) does a good job of conveying the tone of buoyant and naively headstrong first-timer enthusiasm present in the book. He also brings out some surprisingly good character portrayals from the very inexperienced trio of young actors who play the lead characters.
Overall, though this first film is not my favorite in the whole series, there is no denying that it has my heart.
Wonder-inspiring both in terms of visuals and content, and with optimism aplenty to be enjoyed by all, this first movie in the series easily manages to most appropriately bear the moniker “children’s media”. What’s more, even many years and many films later, I found that HP1 still possesses the delightful boon of being able to inspire an audience of adults to feel like children while they watch. At least I did.
Director Chris Columbus (whose projects include The Goonies (screenwriter - 1985) and Home Alone (director - 1990)) does a good job of conveying the tone of buoyant and naively headstrong first-timer enthusiasm present in the book. He also brings out some surprisingly good character portrayals from the very inexperienced trio of young actors who play the lead characters.
Overall, though this first film is not my favorite in the whole series, there is no denying that it has my heart.
06 January 2011
Harry Potter Series!
To My Approximately 15-20 Regular-ish Readers:
In acknowledgment, celebration, and preemptive nostalgia (if not outright mourning) of the upcoming end of the Harry Potter series of films, I will hereby commence reviewing each and every one, beginning with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001).
The final installment of the series will arrive in July of this year, and as we all know the last book of the septuple series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, has been split into two movies. This means that if I do two reviews this month (January), each month hereafter will conveniently contain one review of a Harry Potter film for your enjoyment and consideration, ending with the review of the final film in July.
I hope this is as exciting for you as it is for me. Perhaps it will provide you with a valid excuse to watch the whole thing all over again along with me. The prospect certainly brightens my January day.
Look for the review of the first film late this week or early next.
-Cait
In acknowledgment, celebration, and preemptive nostalgia (if not outright mourning) of the upcoming end of the Harry Potter series of films, I will hereby commence reviewing each and every one, beginning with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001).
The final installment of the series will arrive in July of this year, and as we all know the last book of the septuple series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, has been split into two movies. This means that if I do two reviews this month (January), each month hereafter will conveniently contain one review of a Harry Potter film for your enjoyment and consideration, ending with the review of the final film in July.
I hope this is as exciting for you as it is for me. Perhaps it will provide you with a valid excuse to watch the whole thing all over again along with me. The prospect certainly brightens my January day.
Look for the review of the first film late this week or early next.
-Cait
02 January 2011
True Grit (2010)
- Fantastic
- Beautiful to behold
- Quotable
- Makes me want to go out into the wilderness and overall be braver, stronger, and better at using the vocabulary I have
- All around excellent
- Beautiful to behold
- Quotable
- Makes me want to go out into the wilderness and overall be braver, stronger, and better at using the vocabulary I have
- All around excellent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
