Posted on 8/20/12 12:44 AM
Well, this film was suggested to me by Jhon E. It took me some time to find it and more time to get around to watching it. but, I finally have so here it goes. I rather liked this film. it was a different film. not a film that you see every day. I really liked the acting all around. The main girl did a fantastic job. The screenplay was also great. I didn't mind the subtitles either. I actually watch all of my movies with subtitles so they don't bother me. I also liked the tone and pacing of this film. The film was very...mellow. that might not be the right word but you get the idea. I also feel that the ending had some sort of symbolism but I cannot figure out what. Overall, I liked it. it was an excellent film.
TRIVIA TIME:Olga Kurylenko won the Certificate Of Excellence at the 2006 Brooklyn International Film Festival for her performance in this film.
Posted on 11/27/11 08:59 PM
This movie is absolutely awesome. I don't feel that it should have won Best Picture like the first one should have and the third one did (it should have gone to The Pianist instead of Chicago) but I still lived this movie. I particularly liked the battle for Helm's Deep. also the Warg fight (where legolas does that cool horse trick) is good too. I also love that this is the movie that introduces the character of Gollum/Smeagol fully. In the first one he was more of a shadowy figure that Gandalf talked about to Frodo for 2 minutes. in this one he is his own awesome character. the special effects, set and costumes are pretty much the same through the three movies and they are amazing.
Posted on 10/29/11 12:00 AM
This is actually one of the worst films I have ever seen in my entire life. The acting sucked, the plot sucked, the plot was predictable. the only reason that this film made any money at all was because Jacob spent the whole movie with his shirt off. It was an utterly ridiculous attempt at making a good movie. I wasn't even entertained because the movie was so bad. One of my big problems with the series is that movies (and books) like the Twilight series are just socially acceptable soft porn for girls. If you don't believe me then explain why Jacob takes of his shirt in a very sort of stripper way whenever he gets the chance. Also the film tried WAAAAAY too hard to make you laugh WAAAAAY too often. so basically what the film makers ended up with was just failed laughs and shirtless boys. Also the acting was horrible especially on the part of Kristen Stewart. When her very very happy face and her completely depressed face are the exact same thing you know that someone deserves a Razzie for their work. This film had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all. A complete waste of my time and money. If i had spent $500,000 on a 40 year old milk dud I would not have been as overcharged as I was for this. This film deserves to be in the Dollar theater. The future Installments are going to be even worse. that's the sad part.
now, I really was interested to see what they would do with the volturi. the Volturi in the book is basically 3 hannibal Lecters (not that any character in a romance novel will ever come close to the pure genius of Dr. Lecter) and the Voulturi in the n=movie was dumb. they weren't even creepy. Aro in the books acts like a little child who just happens to be an adult vampire with an adult body and voice and mannerisms. in this he is kind of dumb. he didn't really do much except annoy the heck out of me.
to the enlightened ones, this movie is just another example of how movies these days are made for quantity not quality. the film makers are more concerned with making a movie that will make them all rich enough to retire that they forgotten that movies are supposed to be good. What Filmmakers need to understand is that if you have quality, quantity will follow. (if Pixar didn't make good movies then would they be making millions with each movie that they produce? no. the only reason that pixar is so successful is because they have earned it. they make movies that continually blow audiences away. therefore, John ratzenbereger will have a job much longer than Kristen Stewart) this movie was made for profit. as will the next two. film makers have realized that teenage girls will spend millions of dollars to go see these movies so they've thrown something together to get those millions. Twilight will never be a critical success.
TRIVIA TIME: The scene where a near-death Bella is sinking into the depths was achieved by putting weights in the actress's pockets and letting her sink in a swimming pool. 'Kristen Stewart' was apprehensive about this, so director Chris Weitz demonstrated, to show that there was nothing to be afraid of. As soon as he hit the bottom, he panicked, pulled the weights out of his pockets, and resurfaced, saying "We can't do that to Kristen!" They filmed her from the side and moved the camera backwards to achieve the effect of sinking.
Posted on 10/28/11 03:03 PM
I went into this one already knowing the ending which if you have already seen this, that's something that it is best that you not know. However, it didn't take too much away from my enjoyment of the film.
Acting/characters: The star here is definitely Edward Woodward who plays the protagonist. His character goes from an interesting transformation to stiff and formal to a little more crazy than I think he has ever been. it is played beautifully. Also, this movie has an excellent performance by Christopher Lee who, like all of his roles, is chillingly suave. Seeing the two of them clash with each other is awesome. The rest of the people on the island (none of them have MAJOR roles but a lot of them are seen more than once) are really creepy. They are so utterly blissfully happy but in such a way that it is immensely creepy. You wonder the whole time "what the heck is going on with these people!? The answer is pretty chilling. But the acting is solid. 9.5/10
Plot: The plot starts out simple enough, a cop investigating a missing girl. Simple enough. And that is all that I am going to leave you with...maybe that's even too much to tell you. The plot unravels from there and gets more and more insane. Like the cop, you never truly know what is going on. You get half-truths here and there, you get the feeling that you should never trust anybody and so on. But it sucks you in and doesn't let go even after the film is over. I still re-play images of the ending in my mind. It sticks with you like few other horror endings have. It never ever gets boring. Once you start, you get sucked in and I like that a lot about this movie. 9.5/10
Screenplay: it's pretty good. Since there aren't really action scenes and a lot of the film is dialogue between characters, it HAS to have a good script. and I think that it definitely does. I particularly liked the scenes between Woodward and Lee. They revealed more about Lee's character than any other time where he is on screen interacting with the locals and it makes him all the more charmingly sinister. if you like dialogue-driven films, you certainly will not be disappointed at all here with this one. It does a great job in holding your interest throughout the entire film which is something that a lot of horror films don't have a knack for doing these days. 9/10
Likableness: The biggest critics for this film are the ones who have completely missed the point. If you watch it I would advise thinking about what this film is trying to say. That aside, I would definitely watch this film again and I suggest that anyone who has not seen it go out and do just that. October is almost over! do it soon! There is no better time! Well, aside from that, this film is backed up by great performances, awesome dialogue, and a stellar, complex plot that will hold your interest from the very beginning to the very end of the film. This film will not disappoint you. It didn't disappoint me. It is one of the better horror films that I have seen in a long time. 9.5/10
Final score: 37.5/40 93%
Tomatometer rating: 89%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 89%
TRIVIA TIME: 1. Christopher Lee agreed to appear in this film for free.
2. Although the film is set in Scottish territory and all the characters are meant to be of Scottish nationality, all five of of the leading cast are not Scottish: Christopher Lee and Edward Woodward are English, Diane Cilento is Australian, Ingrid Pitt is Polish and Britt Ekland is Swedish.
3. As filming occurred between October and November, there were no trees in blossom. The trees in the scenes with the pregnant women had to be brought in and were all handmade. Edward Woodward admitted one of the memories of filming that stuck out in his mind was watching the trees being brought in on the back of a truck as he had never seen anything like it.
Posted on 10/27/11 11:36 PM
Disney marathon part II
I think that this might have been the first movie that I ever saw. If not, it was certainly my original favorite film. Good place to start.
Acting/Characters: The whole cast is likable enough. Nothing to put it above and beyond other voice talent, but (and you all know this is coming) Robin Williams as the Genie...he was easily the highlight of the whole movie. I mean the movie would have been not nearly as good were it nor for him. I really enjoyed every second he was on screen and he always made the scene much more interesting. Frank Welker also did a nice job as Abu. But it was Robin Williams who was the most memorable. For good reason. I also enjoyed Gilbert Gottfried a lot and I think he was the perfect choice for Iago. 10/10
Plot: It's your typical Disney plot. It's adapted from something else but it has that Disney twist. Like with all Disney films, the visuals are outstanding and the music is inspired. It is an excellent plot that keeps you interested the entire way through. 10/10
Screenplay: It's funny on its own, but Robin Williams once again brings beyond what this film was capable of without him. I would love to know what lines of his were improv and which were scripted. The list of scripted lines would probably total about 15 at most. All of the characters had a lot of excellent lines. It was very well done. 10/10
Likableness: Aside from the obvious nostalgic value, it is an excellent piece of film-making by itself. I would definitely watch it again. and again. and again. It's just that good. I highly suggest this film to anyone who hasn't seen it...and if you're around my age and you haven't seen it, your parents didn't love you. 10/10
Final Score: 40/40 100% (N)
TRIVIA TIME: 1. The opening scene with the street merchant was completely unscripted. Robin Williams was brought into the sound stage and was asked to stand behind a table that had several objects on it and a bed sheet covering them all. The animators asked him to lift the sheet, and without looking take an object from the table and describe it in character. Much of the material in that recording session was not appropriate for a Disney film.
2. John Candy, Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy were all considered at one point to provide the voice of the Genie.
3. In early visual development, Aladdin resembled Michael J. Fox. As the film developed, Jeffrey Katzenberg didn't think Aladdin had enough appeal to women, so he asked that Aladdin be beefed up a bit to resemble Tom Cruise. Jasmine's appearance was influenced by Jennifer Connelly, as well as the sister of her animator, Mark Henn. ad feedback
Animator Eric Goldberg based the Genie on the drawings of caricaturist Al Hirschfeld.
4. The two men in the crowd that Aladdin pushes through are caricatures of a couple of the directors (John Musker and Ron Clements); the original plan was to use film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, but they couldn't get permission.
5. During the course of recording the voices, Robin Williams improvised so much they had almost 16 hours of material. Because Robin Williams ad-libbed so many of his lines, the script was turned down for a Best Adapted Screenplay Academy Award nomination.
6. While filming this movie, Robin Williams frequently received calls from Steven Spielberg who at the time was working on Schindler's List. He would put him on speaker phone so he could tell jokes to the cast and crew to cheer them up. Some of the material that he used was material that he was using for this film.
7. Jafar at first was more hot-tempered, while Iago was a cool, haughty British type. The filmakers felt that having Jafar losing his temper too much made him less menacing, so the personalities of the two characters were switched around.
8. During script and storyboard development, the writers were already considering Robin Williams for the role of the Genie but had not approached him for the project. In order to convince Williams to do the role, Eric Goldberg animated the Genie doing several minutes of Williams's stand-up routines, including parts from his album 'Reality... What A Concept', and screened it for him. Williams was so impressed that he signed almost immediately.
9. Scheduling conflicts with "Star Trek: The Next Generation" forced Patrick Stewart to turn down the role of Jafar. He has said in interviews that this is his biggest regret.
10. On what came to be known among the Aladdin animators as Black Friday, then Disney head Jeffrey Katzenberg told the team to scrap virtually everything they'd been working on for months and start all over again. He also refused to move the film's release date. Directors John Musker and Ron Clements were able to completely turn around the film's new plot and screenplay in just eight days.
Posted on 10/27/11 01:15 PM
Single White Female remake that won't admit it's a remake. Charming.
Since this is a remake (even if it won't admit that it is) I have no problem comparing it to the original film.
Acting/characters: Can anybody say cardboard cutouts? well if you can't I will say it for you; cardboard cutouts. No one in this film was any different than anybody else in a dozen other films like this one. The acting was similar. It was just run-if-the-mill acting in every bad sense of the word.
The one person that you would hope gives a good performance (no I'm not talking about Billy Zane whose role is so minor it's really just a cameo more than anything else) was that of the psychotic roommate. And yes, she was the highlight...but that's like saying that a team losing a game by 15 points instead of 20 is a shining moment in the season. It didn't do anything to make this film much better. The original character was complex in her neediness. There was far more to the character than simply "she is obsessed with her roommate." This character was nothing new. she was almost a normal horror villain. She just did what she did and that was it. no layers, no meaning, nothing like that. She was just psychotic for no good reason. Forget medical disorders and such, I need a better reason for that. Tossing in info that she has mental problems doesn't make the character any deeper or more layered. Instead she's just another character in another movie. .5/10
Plot: Watch Single White Female...there's the plot. Oh there are some differences of course. It isn't a shot-for-shot remake (thank goodness) but if you have seen the original, you know what is going to happen with the film before it happens...heck, if you haven't seen the original you still know what is going to happen. It is one of the more predictable films that I have seen in a little while and that is saying something. It can hold your interest for a bit here and there, but it never takes any risks at all. it never attempts to shock you. It never attempts anything at all except re-packaging the original film and selling it back as something new. I simply cannot respect a film at all that doesn't even have the guts to admit that it is a remake. I put this film in the same category I would put Transmorphers or Paranormal Entity. .5/10
Screenplay: Like I said, nothing new here. It never tried to go anywhere. They didn't try to write interesting dialogue at all which is a fatal flaw considering the fact that a lot of the movie hinges on the interactions of the two leads. If what they are saying to each other is not interesting than the movie loses all of its appeal because there is no reason to watch it because we don't care about the conflict that the two are having. We don't care when they are having fun moments together, we don't care when they argue, we don't care at the end. They could just be mouthing things to each other and we as the audience wouldn't know the difference because we are just not interested in what they are saying. 0/10
Likableness: At the very least they could have made it a little terrifying. One of the creepy things about the original was that Heady (the original roommie) could flip from loving and caring to deadly with a drop of the hat and it would seem totally natural and thus far more terrifying. The lead crazy here just didn't pull that off and if you can't then your movie is, for all intents and purposes, dead. It is a remake that won't admit that it is a remake and it doesn't have the guts to take any risks at all. It was mildly entertaining here and there but overall, I wouldn't watch it again. I would suggest skipping this one if you come across it. It is a failure of a film. .5/10
Final Score: 1.5/40 3% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 4%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 4%
No trivia time for this one either...what?
Posted on 10/27/11 01:14 PM
My 450th review!!!
Oh look, a Child's Play rip-off. How do I know? There were a few scenes in here that were very similar to ones in that movie.
Acting/characters: what is one thing that you all know that I cannot abide in a horror film? KIDS!!!! Especially kids whose job in the film it to be a whiny brat. Okay, the kid in this film wasn't always that, but her acting was just horrible. I mean even by some other horror-kid standards it just sucked. It was cringe-worthy really. But the saddest part is (and I'm sure you can guess) the adults in the film were not much better. I detected not one shred of character complexity from any of them. I wouldn't mind that too much if most of them were knife fodder but alas
This movie has an incredibly low body-count
*END OF SPOILER*
One line is all it takes to add a whole new layer of depth to a character. But they didn't even give one thought about making interesting characters. It totally shows. 0/10
Plot: It could have been a little more interesting than it was but it was something that we had seen a million times before already. And when it delved into new areas that aren't explored as much, well, by then I didn't care because i had already shut down and was paying the minimum amount of attention that I could. it tried for a twist but the 'twist' was something that any rational audience member could see coming from a mile away. It was one of those endings that tried to stir debate between the 11 total people who have watched this film. But yeah, didn't work dudes. Aside from the ending, the rest of the plot was just as predictably bad. There is nothing in this film that tries to set itself apart from other films just like it. It was horribly done. 0/10
Screenplay: screenplay? what screenplay? Oh you mean the horridly timed and performed pieces of 'dialogue' that the actors said? You mean that? yeah, 0/10. just 0/10
Likableness: Nope. none whatsoever. it tried to be something that it wasn't, that is, original. It was not original whatsoever. The characters were boring, the plot moved along at too slow of a pace, and it just was not interesting. At least Rumpelstiltskin had a very very very mildly entertaining villain to get the story going. This one didn't really. It wasn't anything. It was just a poorly made movie that I would in no good conscience recommend to anybody even if you do happen to like really bad horror films. I think it would bore a lot of die-hard horror fans. It doesn't even have unintentional laughs. 0/10
Final Score: 0/40 0% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 33%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 25%
No trivia time for this one. Well, maybe the fact that some of the shots kinda look like they are out of the original Halloween.
Posted on 10/25/11 11:09 PM
For those of you who have read my review of the original, you know how much I despised it. It just was not good at all. Any horror film that wastes Robert Englund cannot be good. well, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed this one more than the original...but that still doesn't mean that this one was good by any means.
Acting/characters: Third-age slasher film stereotypes. however there were definitely a few moments that were actually well done. They were few and far between but they were there for sure. It shows that even with a cheap slasher sequel that good acting can happen...it just doesn't. I would love to have seen that kind of acting throughout the film. But on the whole the characters were unbelievable, cardboard cut-outs. I have never met anyone like these characters and thus, I see no reason to care if they live or die at all. I can't imagine anyone else caring either. They could be robots for all we know...wait...I may have figured it out!!! 1.5/10
Plot: it is the same plot as the original film...or at least, it says that it is. A killer kills using urban legends as his M.O. I gotta do a bit of a spoiler here and say that that doesn't really happen in this film more than once. it has the feel of a generic slasher film and you kinda get bored after not too long. It doesn't even try to make its kills creative. I mean, it just does not try at all. That's the one thing that is often a saving grace of films like this and it doesn't even have that. Or an interesting killer. But i do have to give it credit because it did have some good laughs that were ACTUALLY INTENTIONAL. I'm not talking huge laughs here but it did have moments (brief moments mind you) where I thought "okay, that was funny." But it was overall an uninteresting, underdeveloped, and boring plot. 1.5/10
Screenplay: There is a dialogue scene between two characters in the film. They are driving around just talking to each other. Man, my ears almost fused themselves shut just so I wouldn't have to hear the 'fingernails on chalkboard' quality dialogue anymore. It had absolutely not quality to it in the least. I just sat there thinking "who wrote this and have they ever had a conversation with a normal human being before?" The rest of the dialogue was just as bad as the car scene. it was just horrible. But once again, a few intentional laughs gave this film a few good moments. 1/10
Likableness: Not much really. It didn't have creative kills, it didn't have a good killer, it didn't have a good motive, it was thrown together and had no value to it whatsoever. Its like they didn't even try. Plus, look at the poster, do you notice that that poster layout (main cast looking blankly forward while the killer is somewhere on the poster as well) is the same layout as a ton of other slashers from this era? And guess who did it first? SCREAM! Just like everything else in this age. This is a film that I would suggest to nobody. You've probably seen this film already. it has a dozen other films just like it. 1.5/10
Final score: 4/40 10% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 9%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 9%
TRIVIA TIME: 1. The snow storm seen in the film was completely unexpected.
2. A picture of Professor Solomon's parents is seen on his desk. The picture is actually of John Ottman's parents.
Posted on 10/25/11 02:01 PM
I never expected this to be as good as it turned out to be. Do I want them to make a 4th one now? NOPE! But for an end to the series (I don't see where else they could take it) you could do far worse. Far, far, worse.
Acting/characters: One of the best things about this series is how normal the people and the settings are. If you picked a random spot on a map of America you would probably be close to millions of people who are just like this. The fact that you relate to them makes you care a whole lot more about them than any normal horror films bother to do these days. I've met people like this, I'm related to people like this (not exactly obviously but you get my point). And if I had to guess, most of you out there are too. That's what makes this film so effective. These people aren't morons with bodies chiseled into perfection. These people are just...people. That also (I imagine) would make them much easier too perform as and I think it shows. Also, and this is rare, I didn't mind the kids at all in the film. They added to the film in that perfect way because now there is more at stake with the house being haunted by a demon. In most horror films, you figure nothing is going to happen to the kids because who would do that? Well, here you aren't too sure. and boy does that pay off in terms of scares. 9/10
Plot: It's pretty much the same plot as the first film but with kids and this one is a prequel: Guy in the house thinks supernatural stuff is happening so he sets up cameras. It's pretty much just that for 80 some-odd minutes while the titular paranormal activities get more and more threatening. I know that I thought that this one would be positively horrible because I couldn't see how it wouldn't be merely a re-hash of stuff that the first two did. Well, the filmmakers did their very best to distance the techniques of this one from the first two. Boy did they do a great job. I mean really, they did a great job. because of the basic plot, a ton of the suspense and quality of the film revolves around camera techniques. They did some genius stuff with the cameras. Like the film as a whole, the thing that made the camera work so genius was the fact that it was so simple. It didn't require major special effects or multimillion dollar cameras. it just required a few normal cameras. It was brilliant. 9.5/10
Screenplay: from what I understand with this film, as with the others, there is a basic script but there is always room for improv in the film. I think that this works to perfection because it makes the dialogue and delivery so much more natural which add so much to the whole "these are just normal people" aspects of the film. The dialogue was so fluid and it didn't feel like any of it was forced at all. if you didn't know better you wouldn't think that it was just actors on a screen you would think that it is what it seems to be, real people that are actually being haunted by a demon. That is hard to pull off these days and too few people actually manage to pull it off. 9/10
Likableness: This movie was genuinely scary. It takes a lot to actually scare me and this one totally did that. 95% of suspense is the waiting for something scary to pop out. You are left to your imagination as to what is going to happen and it scares you. But it is also important that the actual scare pays off. These scares definitely did that. when I went to see it with my mother (we love watching horror movies together) the audience was packed with teenagers around my age. You could tell that everyone in the audience was having a lot of fun because we would get the pants scared off of us but we would be laughing because we were all having such a good time being scared. if more horror movies could pull that off then the horror movie world would be a better place. Was the movie flawless? Nope. But my enjoyment of it was at the maximum. I give likableness 10/10
Final score: 37.5/40 93% (N)
Tomatometer rating: 71%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 71%
TRIVIA TIME: 1. Towards the beginning of the film, Julie takes a picture of young Kristi standing in the driveway shortly before a group picture is taken. The photo being taken appears in both Paranormal Activity and Paranormal Activity 2 as an indication that the demon has started haunting them.
Posted on 10/25/11 09:43 AM
Saw the poster and I was curious as to what kind of bad this film was. My verdict: the kind of bad that one should always avoid. I had more fun writing the content advisory of the film for IMDB than watching the actual film itself.
Acting/characters: Pretty horrible. The female lead was irritating, the baby was...a baby, and the male lead was more annoying than the baby. But Rumpelstiltskin himself was horrible. Absolutely horrible. There He had pun based lines that would make Sequel Freddy say "Dude...dude...really? That's the stupidest pun I've ever heard. we get it you're from the 1400s and you're in the 90s now." Normally with a film like this the antagonist is the best part because he is the one who gets to do all of the fun stuff and it is easier for the actor to have more fun with the character so by extension, we enjoy the film a little more as well. Whelp, not here. Definitely not here. Here you just wanted the movie to end. It was only 90 minutes long and you wanted it to end 15 minutes in. It was terrible. 0/10
Plot: I don't see how it could have possibly worked. It feels like the sort of plot that has been done a million times before...probably because it has. Basic premise-wise I mean. Wishmaster was pretty much about the same thing just no baby involved: Ancient demon-type...thing. wreaks havoc in ancient times, wise old sorcerer/witch traps him in some sort of stone, fast-forward to the present, female protagonist releases him, demon-thingy wreaks havoc in the present day. I'm sure someone other than those two have done pretty much the same film....like Leprechaun...anyways, it is highly predictable and you can generally tell how it is going to end...15 minutes in...which is when you want the movie to stop...coincidence? Nope. I don't even remember a whole lot of the movie because I just didn't care about it at all. Who could? 0/10
Screenplay: Horrible. Absolutely horrible. I mentioned before that Rumpelstiltskin says stuff that would make a Sequel Freddy embarrassed to say. I know that it was kinda played for laughs as well as 'scares' but it failed completely on that level too. Rumpelstiltskin must have made at least 2 dozen puns about the fact that he was from the 1400s and it got old...before the movie began. No one likes that kind of garbage at all. I'm just going to say it here for any budding horror directors out there: NO PUNS FROM YOUR VILLAIN EVER!!!! EVER!!! EVER!!!! Even played for laughs it NEVER works. In fact, no puns from the rest of the characters either. There are better ways to get the occasional laugh than puns. Pretty much anything will do. But pretty much everything Rumpelstiltskin said was a pun. even when he wasn't making puns the stuff he said was still stupid beyond belief. That actually goes for all of the characters too. 0/10
Likableness: The poster for the movie is infinitely creepier than the movie itself. Nothing in this movie had anything resembling quality EXCEPT...the makeup for Rumpelstiltskin wasn't horrible. It could have been better, but it wasn't too bad. There were some moments of briefly okay effects too...but yeah, the rest was so bad I don't really want to give the movie points for that...but I'll give it half a point anyways. all that aside, NEVER see this movie. Stick to staring at the poster and imagine a better movie in your head. I wish I had just stuck to doing that. .5/10
Final Score: .5/40 .012% (S)
Tomatometer rating: 0%
Tomatometer rating if my review was added: 0%
No trivia time for this one. Maybe I should take off that half point...