|
Post by nightnurse on Mar 27, 2005 23:12:26 GMT
I meant to do this last week The Incredibles....very good, maybe not the 5* most reviewers gave it, and not my fave offering from the folks at Pixar ,that would be Monsters Inc. LOL, but well worth a viewing, if only for the DVD extra of Jack Jack Attack..which was , for me , the highlight of the whole thing ;D Finding Neverland...a beautifully told story of J.M. Barrie and his friendship with a young widow and her children, which although innocent, cost him his marriage albeit to a frankly frigid wife . Johnny Depp is excellent, for me the second best actor at accents and perfect for the role of a boy who never grew up as he never looks any older ;DKate Winslet was very good too, and I even found myself not minding the children either...a lovely film ;D
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Jun 16, 2005 20:40:48 GMT
Okay...better late than never Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith This is the one that brings the story full circle...we get find out how Anakin Skywalker turns to the Dark Side and why...we get to see a beefed up Haydn Christianson, the ultra cool Samuel L Jackson, and a Ewan McGregor who is exactly as you would imagine a young Obi Wan as played by Alec Guiness to be ;D Lots of CGI as you would imagine, and some of the battle scenes, whilst not on such an epic scale are quite exciting ...well they woke me up after I'd nodded off during a scene with Anakin and Palpatine/Darth Sidius All in all pretty good . I gave it a 7 ;D
|
|
|
Post by PokerKitten on Jun 17, 2005 23:33:33 GMT
My take on Star Wars III - better than I and II. Is that saying a great deal? Not really, if I am brutally honest. I have the greatest respect and admiration for Lucas and his company and the giant strides they've made over the years in film teccieness etc; but I wonder if we really would have been better off just left with the original trilogy in this series... hmmm.
Haydn Christianson was badly miscast IMO and he did nothing to change my mind in this ep. Apart from almost at the end. I could beleive his rage bursting out; but his temptation, his struggle, his love? Where were they, exactly? He seems to be studying at the Keanu school of acting, too. I did think the transformation scene into fully fledged Vader was terrific though. Almost wished the film had ended with the helmet going on and his first gasping breaths. Would have been dynamite!
Have to disagree with NN about Ewan - I really like him. But I always thought he was another mis-cast in this role. He seems to me to spend most of the time trying to get a passable accent, and any subtlty or acting finesse goes *poof*
Doesn't help that the dialogue is always so dire... it was ever thus, SW IV, V and VI were no exceptions but Harrison and Carrie could carry off the cheese with some panache.
HOWEVER - lovely to see Chewie! Yoda's fights are always fun; and two ginormous shiny stars, particularly in this one but in II as well, are *drumroll* R2D2 - fanfuckingtastic! Heroic and witty and bleeding hell he's just a little tin can! And Palpatine/Sidius... now that's acting! Showed everyone else up! Big cheers to Ian! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Pluto7077 on Jul 31, 2005 17:13:48 GMT
Went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on Friday. Had already read some mixed reviews so was a bit aprehensive as I wanted it to be excellant, and for the most part I thought it was. It was typical Dahl mixing very good people with very nasty people and a whole load of weirdos. JD does quirky and tragic very well and I thought the flashbacks to his own childhood were interesting but kept waiting for more. The oompa loompas were bizaar and I wasn't keen on them at all. Very strange choreography and at one point they were doing synchronised swimming in the chocolate lake. Very bratty kids, 'cept for Charlie who was the usual cute, good kid. Most of the main characters had very strong facial features which worked well on close ups, gives a sinister feel. The audience ranged from quite young to pensioners with all sorts inbetween, and did seem very popular, even restrained clapping at the end. I'd give the film a 7 but think I'd like to re read the book to compare.
|
|
|
Post by Ditto on Aug 15, 2005 14:09:05 GMT
Still not seen the latest Star Wars...
|
|
|
Post by Pluto7077 on Sept 28, 2005 18:24:27 GMT
Went to see Pride and Prejudice last night and was extremely disapointed. I thought Keira Knightly was completely miscast and looked too modern. The story had been drastically cut so it lost the heart and essence of all the plots. Several characters were missing and others were clipped so all the little subleties were gone. Darcy was wooden and nowhere near haughty enough. Lady Catherine not nasty enough. Mr Collins not smarmy enough. Some stunning camera shots but ok, it is a film and you'd expect that. Everything seemed very muddled and manic. I know it had to compete with the adaptation but to me the whole film just seemed WRONG I give it 1 out of 10. The five people I went with enjoyed it but most have never read the book, which by the way is a real joy to read.
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Sept 28, 2005 18:53:25 GMT
Oh I love the book..and me and the girls were thinking of going to see P& P on our weekend away instead of going shopping ....so shopping it is then ;D
|
|
|
Post by Pluto7077 on Sept 28, 2005 18:59:23 GMT
Sorry if I've put you off it but the more I consider it the more irritated I become with it. Dreadful film
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Nov 18, 2005 22:22:33 GMT
HP Goblet of Fire is excellent ;D The change of director to a Brit ( Mike Newell) has given it a darker feel, and considering the content of this particular book , it really needed to be darker . The SFX are amazing , especially in the staging of the Tri-Wizard contest , very cool ;D. My only niggle would be that the Quidditch World Cup sequence wasn't expanded to take advantage of the spectacular stadium that they'd created . Lots of terrific acting , unfortunately not from the kids , apart from Rupert Grint as Ron ;D, but they have improved quite a bit from the earlier films I'd also suggest that if you go see it, wait until later in the run...even at 10am this morning there were a lot of annoying kids watching ...I know its supposed to be a kids film but to be honest it's frickin wasted on the little buggers ;D I wouldn't reccommend really young children being taken to the cinema to see it , its quite scary in parts , and even a row of 14/15 year olds behind us were scared !
|
|
|
Post by PokerKitten on Nov 18, 2005 23:34:52 GMT
The little buggers should have been in school, tsk
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Nov 18, 2005 23:57:39 GMT
J and I thought the same thing..but the film was being shown in 3 screens from 9,30 am , and when we came out at 1pm ,the complex was heaving with teens, and I don't think they'd been given the day off to watch HP
|
|
|
Post by SpikesToy on Feb 15, 2006 13:15:44 GMT
PK suggested I post this - it's direct from my LJ. I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place - it says 2004/2005 but what the hell, PK you can sweep it away to wherever it should be!
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Hmmm. I know I'm probably going to upset a few people by saying this (sorry Ditto) but I thought the movie was rather weak to say the least. Although it is a beautiful, yet very sad story, the film just didn't hit me in the emotional way that I thought it would. In all honesty, Heath Ledger couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag! I'm an Aussie gal but my god, I've seen better actors on our shockingly bad soaps! That being said, I thought Jake Gyllenhaal was bloody brilliant and far out shone Heath in every part of the movie.
I found the first time they "got it on" completely unbelievable. However, the scene when they meet up again for the first time after being on the mountain was very passionate and believable. It was that scene and that scene only that moved me.
I won't say how I got to see this movie but I'm bloody glad I didn't pay money to see it!
All in all I think the hype for this movie is completely over-rated. I will however read the book as I do believe that the story is compelling (as long as I can get Heath's dismal performance out of my head!)
|
|
|
Post by PokerKitten on Feb 15, 2006 13:26:53 GMT
Nah, that's just me being tardy in changing the thread title ;D
Oooh, controversial. Ditto, get in here! Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Ditto on Feb 15, 2006 16:25:42 GMT
We all have different tastes and you can't please all the peeps all the time. 'Toy. It's 'cos everyone else has seen it and bigged it up and then you're disappointed when you get to see it like me with the Sound of Music when I saw it twenty years too late. Pride and Prejudice was all right, saw it twice. Once with sisters and then again with Mum. I luv films so no probs seeing anything over and over. It was rubbish though compared with the Mr Firth version. Sisters thought it was dire. Still not seen Willy Wonka. Harry Potter was smashing. Saw that twice an'all.
|
|
|
Post by PokerKitten on Mar 10, 2006 23:09:56 GMT
I'd posted in here before copying it for my LJ - I must have deleted it in my distress! So here we go again. Toy was expecting a review of Brokeback Mountain from me in return for her wonderful surprise... this will have to suffice for now. Ditto, I know what you mean, but that didn't happen tome, not this time. Oh dear god. I think I was going for the record. I started to blub 32 minutes in, and then at regular 15 minute intervals. The last 25 minutes or so I was in so much pain I was just begging it to stop . Shit, I've just started again . No way in the world I could have watched this at the cinema; I'd have been forcibly removed for sobbing too loudly. The photography was exquisite, the direction, pacing and editing were inch perfect. The dilemmas and angst and love and pain were superbly done, and totally understandable in trussed-up period and context. I thought the actress playing Jack's mother should have been up for best supporting actress, for all of two minutes of screen time. The depth of emotion and understanding and pain she conveyed in that brief time and in so few words was heartbreaking. Toy, I understood all of Heath's mumbles. And if at times he looked like he was trying a bit too hard, I can forgive him that. Such depths of pent-up rage and fear in your character could sure do that to you. Jake, by comparison, has such easy charm and charisma - I haven't seen him in much but it's the same every time; I instantly engage with him/his characters. I would write more but I'm incapable right now. Maybe after another viewing. Toy, I had a miserable afternoon but I really can't thank you enough
|
|
|
Post by Pluto7077 on Mar 11, 2006 10:27:55 GMT
passes tissues to PK. I'm welling up just reading your review. Great review, thanks. You've written about everything I was thinking but couldn't find the words for.
|
|
|
Post by Pluto7077 on May 21, 2006 11:08:45 GMT
Went to see The Davinci Code on Friday, opening night so there was a packed house and an expectant buzz in the air. I went with a colleague who, like me really enjoyed the book so we both hoped it would be equally brilliant. It's always going to be challenging when a much talked about and analysed book is translated into a much hyped film but we thought Ron Howard did a pretty good job. I'd forgotten some of the storyline, including some very significant plots so I still experienced some OMG and spine tingling moments. Tom Hanks was ok, and lets face it, he will always be cosy and reliable with a hint of sex appeal. But Paul Bettany as the monk Silas was superb. He is def. one of our national treasures It was a shame shooting was not allowed in Westminster Abbey cos to me those scenes seemed false and lacking in atmosphere, also a bit rushed. On the other hand The Louvre scenes worked well and were full of atmosphere, as was the Temple Church. As filming was also allowed in the Roslin Chapel I also expected more to be made of the interior and the emotional impact on Sophie. I almost had a tissue moment cos it was quite poignant but again a bit rushed and storyline changed slightly, probably cos it looked good on camera. Quite a fast paced film and exciting too, with twists and turns. If you haven't read the book you would need to concentrate, likewise if you have read it. A lot of the history and explanation about the grail, Mary Magdalene, theriories etc was explained through stylish flashbacks which I thought worked well. If nothing else, The Davinci Code is a really good read and quite a good film imo. I would def. want it in my DVD collection and give it 7 out of 10.
|
|
|
Post by PokerKitten on May 21, 2006 13:50:43 GMT
Thanks for that Pluto; it's the most positive review I've read so far I did wonder if it might be a case of "Dan's too big for his boots now, let's trash the movie", but was alarmed when folks said the pacing was off and Langdon was made utterly dull by Hanks. I mean, the character is never going to set the world on fire, he's too cerebral for that, but he should be drawn strongly enough for us to care what's happening to him and for us to admire a bookish bloke thrown into such mayhem and coping with it. So my fingers are still crossed for Thursday
|
|
|
Post by PokerKitten on May 25, 2006 22:11:57 GMT
Yay, seen it and pretty much agree with Pluto. I thought it was pretty fast moving considering the amount of info that had to be delivered alongside the action. Therefore I understood the device of showing sometimes weird and grainy reconstructions of ancient history as they were talking through some of the ideas, although the did jar a bit. I think maybe they could have been handled better, but it's not like they went on and on so they didn't spoil anything for me. I was a bit perplexed towards the end and wondered why that change had been made. The meeting with Marie and Robert's talk with her, for instance, was one of the nicest parts of the book I thought. But then again, there was a lot of talk and that wouldn't have sat well so close to the finale scenes. I also thought they got away with the stunt-Westminster Abbey, and D didn't really know about it and happily accepted it. Some of the other settings were wonderful, as Pluto says. And I thought Tom played Robert pretty much as I imagined him in the book. Okay, so maybe a bit older, but he was no Indiana Jones afterall. And I quite liked the low-key but warm relationship between Robert and Sophie. The surprise for me was how well Paul Bettany handled Silas; and I still ended up feeling terrible sorry for him, no matter what he'd done. All in all, most enjoyable. If you saw it without reading the book, some of the theories might fly over your head because of lack of time to expand them, but I still think it could be watched as an entertaining enough thriller.
|
|
|
Post by Pluto7077 on May 26, 2006 16:57:51 GMT
So glad that you got to see the film PK. Also pleased that you enjoyed it
|
|