Change Your Image
waari
Reviews
The Colour of Magic (2008)
Dismal representation of Discworld
I loved hogfather, I really loved the fact that it followed the book very closely.
Disappointed is the word I would use about colour of magic, everything lacks, everything is mucked about in such a way it makes no sense.
Firstly the movie doesn't flow, it stumbles from place to place, secondly the casting is flawed, while the actors are good in their own right they just don't fit the roles here and are unable to make their characters live. The overall visual aspect is much "too common looking" it's rather like looking at an medieval reenactment, it lacks the fantasy aspect so vibrant and alive in the books.
And why oh why so many deviations from the books ? especially when the changes make no sense ...
I love the discworld books and I loved the hogfather but if colour of magic is used a measure I hope they stop making adaptations of the books.
Kiss Symphony (2003)
Not really a live :-(
Let me start by saying that I am a kiss fan to the core and have been since the 70's, and writing this review is not a easy thing to me because of this ... but ...
As so many others I hate the extremely fast cuts and many errors in the video (changing guitars in the middle of the song etc).
Turns out the video is cut & paste from rehearsals and the actual concert, with this I could live with but I was wondering about the reason for this all ... so I dug up a bootleg from the concert and compared the DVD to it ...
This "live" is re-recorded afterwards in many places, get the bootleg and compare, you will be surprised how much it differs from the DVD.
There are some rumors floating around internet that some of the footage about fans is actually from previous USA tour, this I cant verify but would actually not be surprised if this in fact was the case.
It is extremely sad that a legendary band like Kiss have to resort in putting new members in original members makeup & persona and edit & re-record "lives" like this.
Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight (2008)
Horrible, just horrible
I lack the words to describe how bad this really is ... I mean the book has been butchered, the animation is bad, the voice acting is bad, the best part of this movie is that it ends.
There is nothing to redeem this production, it completely lacks in everything, it rather reminds me of 80's TV cartoons both in technical execution and plot, that is to say both are gone presumed dead.
Terrible adaptation that doesn't do any justice to the book or it's characters, if you like the books do yourself a favor and don't ruin your life watching this.
Avoid at all costs.
Hogfather (2006)
Ladies and gentlemen, the magic is back
I love books and I love movies, but only very rarely has a book been translated to the silver screen as well as Hogfather has.
To put it simply, it's magic.
For once the essence of a book, the soul of it, remains intact, the movie lives the book, lives the story, lives the characters.
To my utter amazement the whole look of the movie is very very similar to my personal idea what discworld and it's characters look like, I'd say that it's 95% of what I have imagined while reading discworld books. And I do have quite a good imagination :-)
The casting is superb, altho I personally would have put mr. Pratchett himself in the part of the archchancellor. But the crowning jewel of casting is Michelle Dockery as Susan Sto-Helit, she is stunning to say the least, she captures the essence of what makes Susan Susan and projects it with such intensity that I was, for once, left awestruck.
This movie achieved what I have not experienced in years, the feeling of being there, the one moment of pure magic that penetrates your soul and leaves you for just a second hanging between the reality and imagination.
Bravo !
Mysterious Island (2005)
How can bad can you really get ?
Judging from this movie, truly really very bad.
I never ceases to amaze me that people think they can better an classic book by an extremely good author.
Based on this movie the screenwriters probably spent under five minutes to read the actual book, after that they probably told the core story to their kids and asked what would be like really cool, so in come giant insects, pirates and whatever.
This movie has close to nothing to do with the original book and as a movie it's poorly acted, poorly scripted, poorly done effects and horribly directed.
What a waste of time.
The Pink Panther (2006)
Not a good movie, however you look at it
Well, it's hard to make this review without comparing to the Peter Sellers helmed originals, since the whole movie stands, or falls, on one character, inspector Clouseau.
Unfortunately this rendition of Clouseau is horrible, all what the original character was about is completely lost now.
The movie is self repeating and seriously lacks personality, I mean the movies uses, and reuses, the oldest comedy tricks in the book, seriously hand stuck in a vase !? that was useable as a gag maybe 20 years ago. Lack of inspiration shows maybe best on the fact that this movie uses fart and viagra jokes, fun if you are 12 ... and then there are the pointless plot "twists" like agent 006. Rather than moving forwards this movie leaps from place to place and makes watching it tedious.
While Peter Sellers truly made his character of Clouseau live in his special own world Steve Martin seems more like a bystander who looks at this special world of Clouseau from a distance never really getting what it is all about.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Good, no bad, no good, wait ... bad ... maybe ...
Right I am somewhat torn.
I mean parts of Rots are excellent, the saber duels and most of the combat scenes are best that I have seen.
Also the backbone of the story is good, it indeed fills the gap between the original trilogy and prequels and it gives reasons and motives to the original trilogy and it's characters.
But then the acting, and the dialogue ... I mean really, excluding Ewan Mcgregor, Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee the rest of the cast is horrible, they just don't get their characters to live. The crowning jewel in the cast of wooden two dimensional characters has to be Hayden Christensen, he just can't act, considering what depth the character of Anakin could have had it's just sad.
And since I am whining anyways ... the timing of the movie is somewhat forced, the movie just doesn't seem to flow as it should, instead it has a rushed feeling.
Better than EP 1 and EP 2 ? sure, a lot better in fact. Up to par with the original trilogy ? not even close ...
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
Well, the studio wanted gore, so ...
It's always sad when the studio has the biggest part in the making of a movie, this is prime example of what happens then. I'd rather don't put the blame on Harlin totally, like so many of you want to, but I would point my finger more at the studio. Like one critic elsewhere said, this is what happens when you do a whole movie as a re-shoot.
When this project was first given the green light John Frankenheimer was supposed to direct it, but sadly he passed away so in comes Paul Schrader. When the first rough cut was done the studio deemed it unfit to hit the theaters, simply because it was not boring and didn't include enough gore. So the studio kicks Schrader out and get's Harlin in to do "re-shoots" and somewhere along the way these re-shoots turn into re-shooting the whole movie ! with the studio wanting more and more gore and violence.
I can only say that this movie is rather good given the circumstances, when a director has a) a script he is not familiar with, b) a crew he is not familiar with, c) extremely short time to do this movie, d) the budget is not what is needed for a "fx" movie, e) ... so the extremely sucky cgi, and f) the studio breathing on his neck calling almost every shot. It could have been even worse than it is.
I am not a horror fan as such, but have seen quite anyway, this movie is comparable to Exorcist 2 & 3 easily, even better at times, so if you happen to like gore, I'm sure it's right up your alley.
Mindhunters (2004)
Does what it needs.
It never seizes to amaze me why certain people choose to overly criticize a movie that is clearly made for the sole purpose of entertaining you for a couple of hours.
Mindhunters delivers exactly what it promises, a nice thriller that works moviewize rather well, sure it is nothing new or incredible but does it have to be ? I found it a nice way to relax in comfy theater seats munching popcorn while at it, there was no perticular scene or place in the movie that made me wince, it worked from start to end well.
Forget the nay sayers and just go enjoy it.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
How NOT to make an movie.
This "movie" is a disaster, truly horrible an prime example on what is wrong with hollywood these days. There is nothing in this film (apart from the fact that it does end) worth mentioning. Honestly folks, how can good money be spent on a piece of utter no-plot-no-idea-no-nothing-but-we-have-aliens crap, how about learning to make some movies.
If someone actually enjoys this he must have had his brain removed.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Better than slated
I find it rather funny that most of the negative reviews here are written by adults, do try to remember that this indeed is a movie for the younger population, although it is quite viewable by adults too.
My kids (10, 8, 5) loved every second of this movie, for them it was a truly magical experience and that's what counts.
Definitely worth viewing !
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Well, plenty of action but as shallow as previous part
Fast, action packed, nice effects, blood, guts & gore, fights, fights and more fights, only where is the actual movie then ?
Unfortunately TTT (as did FOTR) takes the easy way of making an "epic" while the visuals are nice and eg. battle at helm's is simply beautifully done the story and characters are two dimensional and shallow.
Again I am saddened of the alterations from the book as they seem to serve only to add more action, I would rather call these movies an adventure that is based on LOTR ...
Mediocre action movie, nothing more, nothing less . . .
Resident Evil (2002)
1-800-thissucks!
I would have to say that this goes well in the same category like Plan nine from outer space, basicly a neat idea with horrible execution. This movie must be cool if you are like 13 years old and enjoy the games, for all others, dont bother. The plot has more loopholes than swiss cheese, acting is so-so, I counted at least five encounters in the movie where the microphone used in production is clearly visible ... shame shame ... Good idea, terrible movie, dont waste your money.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Better than TPM but still leaves something to be desired.
Well, at least it it heaps better than TPM but not perfect Star Wars...
I do think that one of the problems is that we who saw the original trilogy when we were kids, early-teens or teens tend to forget that we have grown some after that, so it is natural that this new trilogy wont have the same effect now, sad as it is.
Anyways I would say that the worst bit in AotC is Hayden Christensen, as he's acting is horrible at places and average at best, also while I understand that the jedi knights could talk like they do in the movies just because their training and ethos I hardly understand why the rest of the galaxy has to do so also, some of the lines are truly horrible (especially the love scenes between Anakin & Padme.)
On the bright side the movie has more of the spirit of the original ones, it's mood is rather more dark (yipee)and "flows" better than TPM. Ewan McGregor does a good job here (although he seems to try imitate Alec Guinness at places, otherwise fine but he doesn't pull it off) and Christopher Lee is another jewel in the cast of AotC.
While it might not be a earth shattering experience I do recommend that you would see it, it's fun, it's entertaining, and it's always fun to joke with your friends about some of the more stupid lines in the movie, in short good clean summer entertainment.
Shaft (2000)
Suitable for the braindead
While the original Shaft movies were groundbreaking and laying new guidelines to actionmovies to come this new version is something horrible.
The plot (using that word is a huge overstatement) is ridicilious, something a 10 year old would cook up and think it's cool, other than Samuel Jackson the acting is poor, the movie doesn't "flow" it more stumbles from one place to the other, and I have not seen this kinda of "bad guys cant shoot" ever I think, it's just too horrible ...
Easily one of the worst action movies in recent years, anyone who thinks this is a great movie must think with his testosternoe.
La leggenda del pianista sull'oceano (1998)
More an experience than a movie really
I happened to stumble upon this piece of cinematic genius quite by accident and was instantly drawed to it's world.
Categorizing this movie is really difficult, I mean it tells a story about a child that is abandoned on a ship who grows to be the best musician ever, although he nevers leaves the ship, but it's not a musical even if the music plays a huge part of it, I wouldn't call it a drama or comedy eighter even as it incorporates huge amounts of both. I rather like to think that it's an experience more than a movie, it's an insight to the soul of the makers of this movie, it's a beautiful dream even. The way this story is told is immensely beautiful, the music, the visuals and actor performances build and support each other in the most perfect way, it should be seen even only to enjoy it's perfect execution. One the best experiences I have had in cinema.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Three sides of the trilogy
After seeing this movie about 20 times and having read the books countless times and since my hobby is, and has been for 20 something years, watching movies I think I can make review ...
The movie as a action / adventure / fantasy movie
This is the category lotr fares best, all the basic elements of a decent movie are present, a horrible enemy that tries take over the world, a hero (and his friends, that include the comic relief), a object that destroys the enemy, lots of monsters, fight's & cliffhangers. As a "popcorn" movie it is quite good, although the movie is maybe a bit too long, for an action movie that is, the audience receives what it is looking and waiting for and visually the movie is quite nice indeed. Just as a action / adventure / fantasy movie I would give it a 7.5 / 10 maybe closer to 8 even, but it's not something that would blow my mind, all this has been seen in countless other movies, maybe in different form, in different surroundings, but still nothing ground breaking.
The movie as a movie
This is where it hit's thin ice. Character's are very shallow, their motives and their personalities are left in the dark (other that can be shown in fights) eg. Frodo run's into Merry & Pippin in some field, and so they decide to follow Frodo, albeit they have no idea where they are going and why, had the movie established that they were good friends before it had been a lot easier to understand. Story is driven forward with a really fast pace (after Frodo leaves Shire that is) and unfortunately it is done with the expence of the story, all emphasis is given to action, action and more action. The characters are as basic as movie characters go, you got the comic relief (Merry & Pippin) the unbeatable warrior (Aragorn) the turncoat (Boromir) and so forth, and since the movie "had" to be modernized you also need the "femme fatale" (Arwen) and still this would be tolerable IF the characters were something more than a aid that just runs the movie forward. One other major problem is that the movie is "pre chewed" nothing is left to the viewer, the director takes the easy way out and so underestimates the viewers badly, I think it's rather sad really. So what does the movie leave you with ? well basicly your typical action adventure that is set in fantasy land. It's a typical hollywood production that emphasis on glitter rather than substance. As a movie I would rate it about 6 / 10
The movie as a adaptation of Tolkien's work
Well, what can I say ? basicly it takes just the basic storyline and forget's everything else, it's so horribly different from the book that it makes me cringe in terror. Those who disagree with me should really read the book's ... Peter Jackson is surely entitled to his vision but he shouldn't say that the movie is faithfull, since it is not. Jackson took the easy way to make this movie, he forgot about the soul of the book and made a action movie instead. Timeline is totally wrong, parts are cut out (like Bombadil) parts are added (like Arwen) since it needs to be "modern" I have read several review's here that say that the books needed to be modernized, may I ask why ? dont see a reason personally. I am not going to start to list everything that is changed, as I would need several pages more room, I am sure that if you want you can find places in internet that list the changes. As a Tolkien adaptation my rate is 3 / 10
Bottomline is that while lotr is quite enjoyable and should be seen if this genre appeals to you it's not that special, when Jackson made the movie he tried to target as broad audience as possible and so had to seriously alter the books in order to make it more appealing. Visually quite stunning (the landscape) and with good actor's it's nice, althought nothing that would deserve it's present ranking...